Author Topic: Redesign the STS  (Read 11382 times)

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Redesign the STS
« on: 11/16/2005 02:48 pm »
You have the chance of redesigning the STS but you have got to keep to the same basic configuration - central core, boosters (unless you can avoid them) and a winged return vehicle - what changes would you make to improve operations and any guestimates on changes (if any) to operating costs?


Offline FransonUK

  • Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #1 on: 11/16/2005 03:15 pm »
None. Given your parameters.
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #2 on: 11/16/2005 03:56 pm »
Quote
PMN1 - 16/11/2005  9:48 AM

You have the chance of redesigning the STS but you have got to keep to the same basic configuration - central core, boosters (unless you can avoid them) and a winged return vehicle - what changes would you make to improve operations and any guestimates on changes (if any) to operating costs?


Crew Escape System. No idea on the cost.

Offline Dobbins

  • Propellerhead
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #3 on: 11/16/2005 04:17 pm »
Quote
Flightstar - 16/11/2005  11:56 AM

Quote
PMN1 - 16/11/2005  9:48 AM

You have the chance of redesigning the STS but you have got to keep to the same basic configuration - central core, boosters (unless you can avoid them) and a winged return vehicle - what changes would you make to improve operations and any guestimates on changes (if any) to operating costs?


Crew Escape System. No idea on the cost.

A crew escape pod that would separate the cabin from the shuttle is the only viable option. According to a study NASA did it would cost about 1 Billion dollars per Shuttle and would impose a severe mass penalty that would degrade the Shuttle's operational capabilities. Ejection seats have also been looked at, but during most of a liftoff and a reentry they would amount to committing suicide to avoid being killed.

John B. Dobbins

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #4 on: 11/16/2005 04:21 pm »
Yes, very correct. Ejection Seats used on STS-1 were only available for the first 105 seconds of the ascent.

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #5 on: 11/16/2005 04:53 pm »
Quote
FransonUK - 16/11/2005  10:15 AM

None. Given your parameters.

How about different boosters, different positioning of main engines (as in Energia/Buran), external cargo bay (i've seen some artists impressions of a shuttle type vehicle with an external paylod bay - any advantages in this?).


Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #6 on: 11/16/2005 06:05 pm »
Edit.....

......you cant have anything that wasn't around when the STS was designed.

Offline AndyMc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 405
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #7 on: 11/16/2005 06:51 pm »
1. Re-design the external fuel tank, to either protect the foam or remove it from the external  surface altogether.
2. Re-design the cabin to double as a crew escape pod. Use 5 segment (or 6 segment) SRBs to compensate for the increased weight.
3. If 2 above not possible then convert existing Orbiters to remote control operation and fly them unmanned. If a crew is necessary (for Hubble repair etc) launch the crew on a Soyuz.






Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #8 on: 11/16/2005 09:22 pm »
Put the hydrogen engines on the ET like Energiya, so I could leave the orbiter off once in awhile.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #9 on: 11/16/2005 10:17 pm »
Standard payload bay, enables quicker intergration of payload/standardized payloads resulting in shorter turn arounds.

Autonomus operation, for satillite launches a crew isn't needed.

If possible drop the once around polar orbit specifications, no need for such heavy wings although the rules of the game may not allow this.

Cross linking the front and rear RCS and OMS tanks, allowing the trim of the vehicle to be varied as needed.

If possible reduce the size of the vehicle/redesign vehicle to lower thermal control requirements making solar cells an option for power generation and therefore much longer on orbit stays.

Not to fix the design of the vehicle so early in manufacture, have a true orbital prototype to iron out the bugs, then and only then go on to produce a fleet.

Try to reduce the serviceing needs of the vehicle and the time needed to service them, therefore less vehicles needed for the same flight rate or a higher flight rate for the same number of vehicles.

Replace the hypergolic fules with easier to handle less toxic alternatives ie LOX/Methane.

That'll do for now :)





Offline Chris Bergin

RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #10 on: 11/16/2005 11:25 pm »
I keep hearing comments like the above where the Boosters are something one would like to see changed.

Given that, do you all hold the same opinion with the CLV/CEV/SDLV boosters? I know, different beast, but I'd be interested to know.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #11 on: 11/16/2005 11:36 pm »
Well the solid booster has yet to fail in a way that would effect the CLV and only once in a way that would effect the HLV and that has been fixed.

I think the SRB is very well suited to the new rolls. Only if the flight rate increases dramaticaly would some thing like a liquid flyback booster become viable.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #12 on: 11/16/2005 11:50 pm »
My main choices would be the crew escape pod/cabin, 5-segment SRBs (to offset the increased mass), fuel cell upgrades, and electric APU upgrades.

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #13 on: 11/17/2005 12:50 am »
The Energia/Buran design always made more sense. The shuttle itself becomes the only reusable component of the launch stack. Stick some turbojets on the shuttle for emergency go-around capability on landing, so at least half the launch-recovery regime is covered. The engines, core and boosters are then used for other (non-shuttle) missions. A whole family of new launchers becomes available as a byproduct. Sounds cost-effective. It never would have made it through Nixon, Ford and Carter White House, or Congress with Proxmire and Mondale. As Mr. T used to say, "I pity the fool."

As to Chris' question re: SRB/CLV, the idea of using SRBs as a manned booster has become the linchpin of future manned ops. I've raised the question elsewhere regarding its viability. but have been assured by space "pros" that the booster will be stable in flight, the ride will be benign, and most importantly that the astronauts themselves support the concept.

"Everyone" seems to be for it, even though it's the least talked about part of the new architecture plan. It's considered a "given." Okay. With so many assurances, my concerns have doubled. It sounds a whole lot like the sales job Adminstrator Fletcher was making prior to the shuttle coming online.

So the test schedule for the CLV/SRB becomes the pacing item for everything to follow. The J2 second stage design and test follows that in importance. I worry over that more than whether Constellation and Magnum will ever fly.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #14 on: 11/17/2005 01:16 am »
Just a note about the Energia. The Zenith boosters were also planned to be reuseable. In the picures of Energia you can see big grey bulges on the Zeniths, these were to house the parachutes but the system was never fully developed.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #15 on: 11/17/2005 01:40 am »
Quote
nacnud - 16/11/2005  8:16 PM

Just a note about the Energia. The Zenith boosters were also planned to be reuseable. In the picures of Energia you can see big grey bulges on the Zeniths, these were to house the parachutes but the system was never fully developed.

The two large upper and lower housings (the 'bulges') would have covered the landing struts (they were designed to land horizontally), but development of the boosters never got to the point of actually having those (or the parachute recovery system) installed.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #16 on: 11/17/2005 04:14 am »
Changes

1) Place the SSME's at the base of the tank and place the Orbiter on top of the tank - inline  - bye-bye foam issue
2) Make the lower structure ( at least) of the Orbiter out of Titanium with a disposable heat shield and leading edges that could be bolted on for the next flight  -- bye-bye tile issue - reduce the corrosion issue
3) More modular design at macro level - plug in - plug out crew compartment - wings, airlock etc.
4) Always wondered, it the top surface of the wings could be lined with solar pannels.
5) Four SRB's
6) Go around landing capability
7) Launch escape system, like Apollo/CEV, a lot bigger, to pull away the above crew compartment module from the rest of the Vehicle
8) Plug in extended crew compartment module


enough...

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #17 on: 11/17/2005 05:18 pm »
Quote
nacnud - 16/11/2005  7:36 PM

Only if the flight rate increases dramaticaly would some thing like a liquid flyback booster become viable.

EPA are already harping on about the cancerous effects of the perchlorate used in Solid Rocket Fuel (see the article below for one example), so I don't think it will be very long before something alternative has to be designed.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/rocketscience/

If I had to guess, I'd give the current SRB's about ten more years before they'll have to be replaced because of that.

So anyone in the rocket producing business might be wise to start contemplating alternatives fairly soon.   At 2m lb thrust each with a 140 second burn time that's asking quite a lot, but some fairly large LH2/LOX boosters would produce no environmentally damaging effects.   If they could be made easily re-usable, so much the better.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #18 on: 11/17/2005 05:28 pm »
Quote
Avron - 17/11/2005  12:14 AM

Changes

1) Place the SSME's at the base of the tank and place the Orbiter on top of the tank - inline  - bye-bye foam issue
2) Make the lower structure ( at least) of the Orbiter out of Titanium with a disposable heat shield and leading edges that could be bolted on for the next flight  -- bye-bye tile issue - reduce the corrosion issue
3) More modular design at macro level - plug in - plug out crew compartment - wings, airlock etc.
4) Always wondered, it the top surface of the wings could be lined with solar pannels.
5) Four SRB's
6) Go around landing capability
7) Launch escape system, like Apollo/CEV, a lot bigger, to pull away the above crew compartment module from the rest of the Vehicle
8) Plug in extended crew compartment module


enough...

Of course, for far less money you could even go the route of making something far less complicated than a space plane, and because its simpler, it would also be an awful lot safer.    Maybe a simple capsule design, because those can re-enter the atmosphere safely even if they lose power.   You'd have to fly it on the simplest possible booster of course, which again should be safer because there's less to go wrong, and happily it would also cost far less money too. :)

Then a relatively innexpensive variant of the current system could be made which maximixes the potential lift capability of the STS stack fully to launch huge unmanned payloads on top of it, like a regular rocket.   It would be far cheaper than any other alternative, and removes all of the major safety problems with the side-mounted winged vehicle concept too.

Oh, looks like someone got that idea before me...   :(

Ho hum. :)

Ross.

PS - Avron, 4 SRB = lots of lift capacity :)   Heh heh heh.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline PMN1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Redesign the STS
« Reply #19 on: 11/17/2005 05:54 pm »
Quote
Avron - 16/11/2005  11:14 PM

Changes

1) Place the SSME's at the base of the tank and place the Orbiter on top of the tank - inline  - bye-bye foam issue


Whats the refurbishment costs for SSME's (not to mention SRB's) vs expending them each time?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1