Author Topic: Shuttle II Concepts (Read 65075 times)

stefan1138 · « **on:** 01/26/2007 03:28 pm »

I found some pictures of a heavily modified Space Shuttle system, but I did not find more info in the net. Does anyone have more info about this shuttle II.

Furthermore if you have more pictures of this or similiar shuttle II proposals, please post them.

Than you!

Stefan

vt_hokie · « **Reply #1 on:** 01/26/2007 04:51 pm »

I'd like to see a crew transport roughly equivalent to the escape vehicle shown on that concept! That's gotta be about the size of ESA's proposed Hermes, I imagine.

SpaceCat · « **Reply #2 on:** 01/27/2007 12:41 am »

Time-frame wise, I'd guess these were inspired by Challenger. The last image- Heavy Lift concept- seems a bit 'over the top' and I'm not sure what they're doing there with the SSME's relative to the orbiter?
Someone's bound to come along who knows some details.
Overall, I'd bet ATK did not like these designs one bit!

hyper_snyper · « **Reply #3 on:** 01/27/2007 01:01 am »

I wonder what engines those are on the LRBs?

HailColumbia · « **Reply #4 on:** 01/27/2007 02:51 am »

I wonder how shuttle II would have handled a columbia-style failure. Could the "escape pod" have worked during reentry? (obviously totally theoretical as we only have 2 drawings and some concept art)

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #5 on:** 01/27/2007 03:15 am »

Looks like someone took a page out of the Russian shuttle playbook. Liquid-fueled boosters and a more future-looking shuttle. That second drawing reminds me of a Soyuz booster. Very interesting. I'd like to see some more on this!

SpaceCat · « **Reply #6 on:** 01/27/2007 04:55 am »

Quote

hyper_snyper
I wonder what engines those are on the LRBs?

Wondered that too- kind of expect to see an RL-10 derivation there, but they're not quite drawn that way.

stefan1138 · « **Reply #7 on:** 02/02/2007 10:10 pm »

I just found the following picture in another forum. It said this would depict an advanced shuttle. Unfortunately found only this single picture with view from behind the vehicle. Maybe someone has other pictures where you can see the whole thing and maybe has more info on the system.

Stefan

publiusr · « **Reply #8 on:** 02/02/2007 10:38 pm »

Quote

nathan.moeller - 26/1/2007 10:15 PM

Looks like someone took a page out of the Russian shuttle playbook. Liquid-fueled boosters and a more future-looking shuttle. That second drawing reminds me of a Soyuz booster. Very interesting. I'd like to see some more on this!

Log onto http://www.lunadude.com

What you see is pretty much an Americanized Energiya/Buran system. Nifty concept. If only this had been our STS. It was also a "Block II shuttle" In Jenkins book on the Space shuttle--are some side view drawings showing an SSME-free orbiter.

One of the drawings above shows the orbiter with SSMEs on it and an F-111 style escape system. The side mount American Buran shows only orbital insertion Engines.

Wayne Ordway proposed a similar system
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=425846&id=1&qs=No%3D40%26Ntt%3DOrdway%26Ntk%3DAuthorList%26Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchall%26N%3D0%26Ns%3DHarvestDate%257c1

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=694271&id=4&qs=No%3D30%26Ntt%3DOrdway%26Ntk%3DAuthorList%26Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchall%26N%3D0%26Ns%3DHarvestDate%257c1

Ramjet power
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=56017&id=2&qs=No%3D40%26Ntt%3DOrdway%26Ntk%3DAuthorList%26Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchall%26N%3D0%26Ns%3DHarvestDate%257c1

stefan1138 · « **Reply #9 on:** 02/02/2007 10:52 pm »

Thank you for this info. Are the safety figures / chances of crew loss known for the configuration with the F-111 style escape system?

Stefan

stefan1138 · « **Reply #10 on:** 02/02/2007 10:56 pm »

Another question. Why was the tailfin / rudder removed from the orbiter? I guess landing would be harder (those winglets somehow don´t look convincing to me).

Stefan

Jim · « **Reply #11 on:** 02/02/2007 11:13 pm »

because the current orbiter's rudder is ineffective at high angle of attacks

nathan.moeller · « **Reply #12 on:** 02/03/2007 01:13 am »

Going by that picture and the size of the module in the payload bay, I'd say that shuttle would make a better station than the one they show.

Just hang some solar arrays off the side and you're good to go. Kidding of course, but that thing is huge!

vt_hokie · « **Reply #13 on:** 02/03/2007 01:43 am »

Quote

stefan1138 - 2/2/2007 6:10 PM

I just found the following picture in another forum. It said this would depict an advanced shuttle. Unfortunately found only this single picture with view from behind the vehicle. Maybe someone has other pictures where you can see the whole thing and maybe has more info on the system.

Stefan

I have an old plastic model from the NASP days that's shaped just like that, except that it had twin vertical fins and the horizontal appendages were canted downward.

Martin FL · « **Reply #14 on:** 02/03/2007 02:56 pm »

The cockpit escape system is another old idea that some crazy Italian guy is going around claiming NASA stole his idea. Guatamano or something.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #15 on:** 02/03/2007 03:26 pm »

Looking at the full size picture, I think that is the model I have! Looks like someone painted it and made some mods.

imfan · « **Reply #16 on:** 02/03/2007 05:11 pm »

Quote

Martin FL - 3/2/2007 4:56 PM

The cockpit escape system is another old idea that some crazy Italian guy is going around claiming NASA stole his idea. Guatamano or something.

he ended up on Guantanamo? for claiming NASA has stolen his idea?
just joking

stefan1138 · « **Reply #17 on:** 02/03/2007 07:26 pm »

I think I found a link to this guy´s proposal:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/015safeShuttle.html

Stefan

Urwumpe · « **Reply #18 on:** 02/03/2007 07:49 pm »

I think the F-111 is prior art in that case.

And i think those who actually had to leave the F-111 with the escape capsule will agree that there are far better ways to travel - including ejection seats.

stefan1138 · « **Reply #19 on:** 02/03/2007 07:57 pm »

How many crews had to eject from the F-111 (am I right that only the USAF and the Australians did have the F-111)?

Stefan

publiusr · « **Reply #20 on:** 02/03/2007 08:27 pm »

Quote

stefan1138 - 2/2/2007 5:52 PM

Thank you for this info. Are the safety figures / chances of crew loss known for the configuration with the F-111 style escape system?

Stefan

The papers I cited above may have those. Remember--the Challenger crew survived in the cabin (which separated anyway) until impact with the water surface. It just didn't have a ballistic parachute that some wanted in the pre-VSE days.

As for this fantasy:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment.asp?attachmentid=17665

I don't see how that would work--unless--like Buran--it was just a payload of a much bigger rocket.
It vaguely reminds me of this: http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld047.htm except with an aerospike perhaps?

Maybe--it keeps kerosene in its wing and used nitrogen tet in expendable tanks? I don't see it having a chance of working.

I wonder what the LV stack of this bird would have looked like with no cryogenics...
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/RockwellC-1057BreadboxShuttlePage.htm

Yes those are SSMEs--but the design would look to lend itself to a linear aerospike. The current orbiter may be a brick, but as I've said before--it actually has a lot of curves on it that makes nightmares for the tile people. This concept looks to have a simpler time of it. With no LH2, the LV stack would be quite squat--perhaps not much taller than stumpy--if that.

If I had to use composite tankage--I would not be so stupid as to make VentureStar's mistake--internal multi-lobed tanks for severe cryogenics.

I would have a simple hypergolic drop tank. That wouldn't be strong enough for an SRB attachment--but some kind of frame might come into play. Jim may have other ideas---like not having a manned orbiter with 20 tons in it at all.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #21 on:** 02/03/2007 08:35 pm »

Quote

publiusr - 3/2/2007 4:27 PM

As for this fantasy:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment.asp?attachmentid=17665

I don't see how that would work--unless--like Buran--it was just a payload of a much bigger rocket.
It vaguely reminds me of this: http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld047.htm except with an aerospike perhaps?

Maybe--it keeps kerosene in its wing and used nitrogen tet in expendable tanks? I don't see it having a chance of working.

That's the one that somebody made from a model of an early NASP concept.

Quote

I wonder what the LV stack of this bird would have looked like with no cryogenics...
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/RockwellC-1057BreadboxShuttlePage....

That's one of the weirdest looking things I've ever seen!

publiusr · « **Reply #22 on:** 02/03/2007 08:43 pm »

Now I don't remember it looking like that at all. One--the Orient Express--looked like an elongated bullet---the wedge NASP is the one I'm most familiar with.

I like Ordway's American Buran the best. I know a lot of you don't like side mount--and I know the reasons why. As far as payload mounting options--it is simpler in some respects--just big kingpins like on a tractor trailer rig. All engines on the bottom.

One of the selling points of the last proposed iteration of VentureStar with the external payload--was that outsized, oddly shaped (and reasonably flat) payloads were possible. I have seen aerobrake disks for Shuttle-C as wide as the orbiter that were so unwieldy as to prevent top-mounting. Imagine a full scale hypersonic boilerplate in place of Buran--with a real airframe. The scramjet is on the far side--the top is mounted to Energiya.

No payload shroud---and a full scale hypersonic test.

stefan1138 · « **Reply #23 on:** 02/03/2007 09:38 pm »

Quote

publiusr - 3/2/2007 3:43 PM

One of the selling points of the last proposed iteration of VentureStar with the external payload--was that outsized, oddly shaped (and reasonably flat) payloads were possible.

You probably mean this:

vda · « **Reply #24 on:** 02/03/2007 10:56 pm »

Quote

publiusr - 2/2/2007 12:38 AM
What you see is pretty much an Americanized Energiya/Buran system. Nifty concept. If only this had been our STS. It was also a "Block II shuttle" In Jenkins book on the Space shuttle--are some side view drawings showing an SSME-free orbiter.

Only LRBs are still using LH instead of kero for no apparent reason, otherwise looks ok. *If* you go all-kero (not only LRB, but ET too), Columbia-type accident is not possible anymore.

IIUC Atlas V have *no* foam insulation at all, even on lower part of 1st stage (LOX tank). That may be an overkill, but anyway insulation will be much thinner than Shuttle's ET, and cover only half of tank.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #25 on:** 02/04/2007 12:18 am »

Quote

publiusr - 3/2/2007 4:43 PM

Now I don't remember it looking like that at all. One--the Orient Express--looked like an elongated bullet---the wedge NASP is the one I'm most familiar with.

I'll take a photo of the model I'm talking about when I get a chance - it wasn't the NASP we're all familiar with, but it was some concept from the 80's that I think may have been an early NASP concept.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #26 on:** 02/04/2007 01:05 am »

Quote

vda - 3/2/2007 5:56 PM

Only LRBs are still using LH instead of kero for no apparent reason, otherwise looks ok. *If* you go all-kero (not only LRB, but ET too), Columbia-type accident is not possible anymore.

You do not need foam on a LOX tank, but you trade it for ice forming on the tank instead. I would suspect an ice shower would be harder on the TPS than foam. Sorry not buying it. The only thing that can prevent columbia style accidents is a TPS that can take foam shedding.

Jim · « **Reply #27 on:** 02/04/2007 01:23 am »

On normal LV's the LO2 tank doesn't insulation, only on the shuttle. the LO2 tank is insulated to prevent ice. Ice is ok on other LV's. LH2 tanks are always insulated no matter what LV's. This prevents liquid air from forming

joema · « **Reply #28 on:** 02/04/2007 05:18 pm »

Quote

Urwumpe - 3/2/2007 2:49 PM

I think the F-111 is prior art in that case.

And i think those who actually had to leave the F-111 with the escape capsule will agree that there are far better ways to travel - including ejection seats.

Several aircraft have had cockpit or capsule escape systems: F-111, B-1A, XB-70, and B-58. There are a few problems:

(1) It's not the kind of thing you can retrofit to an existing design.

(2) In general the success rate is less than seats, possibly due to the complexity. A bunch of things have to happen in an exact sequence: pyrotechnic guillotines have to sever conduits and cables, very powerful rockets have to fire, various stabilization systems must deploy in sequence, landing bags have to deploy, etc. If the airframe is twisted or bent, or if shrapnel damages any of those systems, it can fail.

(3) Limited envelope (for a space vehicle). While you can design a capsule/cabin escape system to cover most/all of the an aircraft's flight envelope, a space vehicle is different. On ascent you could probably cover about the 1st 1/8th, maybe up to 120k ft. On reentry from about 120k / Mach 4 on down.

You can keep adding stuff like the cabin's own separate thermal protection, independent RCS, power, etc, in effect making it an independent little spacecraft. All that adds more weight, complexity, failure modes, pyrotechnics, etc.

If the Challenger disaster had happened on STS-1-4 (where seats were available), there's a chance the two pilots might have survived. It wouldn't have helped Columbia any. Likewise a cabin escape system wouldn't have helped Columbia. On Challenger, it would depend on various assumptions: whether the system was designed to function at Max Q, when exactly ejection happened (before the breakup or after), and how damaged the cabin escape systems were.

stefan1138 · « **Reply #29 on:** 02/04/2007 08:27 pm »

Quote

publiusr - 3/2/2007 3:43 PM

I like Ordway's American Buran the best. I know a lot of you don't like side mount-

Do you have a picture of this concept (unfortunately those papers you cite are not public domain)?

Stefan

vda · « **Reply #30 on:** 02/04/2007 09:25 pm »

Quote

kevin-rf - 3/2/2007 3:05 AM
Quote
vda - 3/2/2007 5:56 PM
Only LRBs are still using LH instead of kero for no apparent reason, otherwise looks ok. *If* you go all-kero (not only LRB, but ET too), Columbia-type accident is not possible anymore.

You do not need foam on a LOX tank, but you trade it for ice forming on the tank instead. I would suspect an ice shower would be harder on the TPS than foam.

a) LOX tank can be placed in the aft part of ET, making it harder for ice to hit the Orbiter.

b) LH has this nasty liquid air problem, LOX doesn't. LH boils at 20K, LOX at 90K. LOX should be significantly easier to insulate (3x thinner foam layer?) so that ice doesn't form.

publiusr · « **Reply #31 on:** 02/07/2007 08:25 pm »

I have Ordways papers... somewhere.

Try this
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Ns=HarvestDate|0&N=4294885428&Ntk=all&Ntx=mode%20matchall&Ntt=Wayne+Ordway

He works over at JSC--or at least, he did. He didn't get much of a hearing during Goldin--and O'Keefe was an EELV only hack. So Ordway was ignored, as was Bill Eoff, and David Christiansen, and...

Sadly, due to youngsters being spoiled by Gundams and Super sylphs, and Yukikazes--people expect a Shuttle II to look like this:

http://lwg3d.org/v3/resources/item713-1.jpg

Not gonna happen. The Rockwell X-33 looked like a beached whale, as an orbiter that swalowed its own ET (as in the case of Buran T) http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/burant.htm

http://www.holt.org/x33/

There were some semi realistic shuttles, but the big space station the Gundamheads got from O'neil

http://clawmarktoys.com/product_info.php?cPath=55&products_id=396
Island two (10 meter per pixel) from http://www.merzo.net/

http://www.frassanito.com/ had some art awhile back showing an Americanized Energiya Polyus type stack--so there are still some advocates of the side mount route...

Not currently on their website that I can see.

Other nice space art links:
http://www.lwg3d.com/forums/search.php?searchid=269996
http://www.lwg3d.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19928&page=3&highlight=NASA
http://www.lwg3d.org/upload/wip/2004/11/04-583629.jpg
http://www.lwg3d.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31351
http://lwg3d.org/v3/mom.php?id=34

stefan1138 · « **Reply #32 on:** 02/08/2007 03:20 pm »

Wow, very fancy concept art. I like the Odyssey-Endeavour Supershuttle the most

- Has this been in a movie or videogame?

On a more serious note, why was the Rockwell X-33 version rejected? I always thought this was much more doable than the whole VentureStar approach.

Stefan

nacnud · « **Reply #33 on:** 02/08/2007 03:44 pm »

LM won the X-33 because it was prepared to put in more of it's own money than the other bidders.

stefan1138 · « **Reply #34 on:** 02/08/2007 04:19 pm »

If we put money aside for a moment, is it safe to asume that the Rockwell concept would have won because of the similarities with the shuttle?

Stefan

meiza · « **Reply #35 on:** 02/08/2007 05:13 pm »

I think the metallic TPS on X-33 was supposed to be less maintenance intensive than the shuttle tiles/RCC?

Generic Username · « **Reply #36 on:** 02/08/2007 08:21 pm »

Quote

stefan1138 - 8/2/2007 10:19 AM

If we put money aside for a moment, is it safe to asume that the Rockwell concept would have won because of the similarities with the shuttle?

Very questionable. If NASA was shooting for a truly operational RLV, then Rockwell's design seemed to be the way to go. It was simple and straightforward. But NASA was lookign for a *technology* *demonstrator,* not necessarily a new launcher. Well, they got what they wanted. They just never got around to actually demonstrating *launch.*

publiusr · « **Reply #37 on:** 02/10/2007 06:34 pm »

I will never forget Al Gore and Dan Goldin standing next to the model of that contraption.

All SKUNK
No WORKS.

This should really make people appreciate Griffin.

publiusr · « **Reply #38 on:** 03/30/2007 08:42 pm »

One concept for a spaceplane.

http://www.buran.ru/htm/41-3.htm

Gekko0481 · « **Reply #39 on:** 04/03/2007 02:31 pm »

My god, how many engine nozzels does one need?!!?! That would most certainly put out a hell of a lot of power, but would it land so easily given the realitvely small wingsize compared to its length? I'm merely basing my assumptions on shuttle and buran, given that the wings start fairly near the front on them.

meiza · « **Reply #40 on:** 04/03/2007 08:33 pm »

Quote

Gekko0481 - 3/4/2007 3:31 PM

My god, how many engine nozzels does one need?!!?! That would most certainly put out a hell of a lot of power, but would it land so easily given the realitvely small wingsize compared to its length? I'm merely basing my assumptions on shuttle and buran, given that the wings start fairly near the front on them.

It's mostly empty tank so perhaps landing speed would be tolerable.

Thorny · « **Reply #41 on:** 04/03/2007 11:23 pm »

Quote

Gekko0481 - 3/4/2007 9:31 AM

My god, how many engine nozzels does one need?!!?! That would most certainly put out a hell of a lot of power, but would it land so easily given the realitvely small wingsize compared to its length? I'm merely basing my assumptions on shuttle and buran, given that the wings start fairly near the front on them.

People complain about the U.S. Shuttle's design, with the two SRBs right next to the Orbiter. But look at THAT thing! Surrounded by fuel and engines! The "crew up top" crowd would have needed sedatives if that thing had ever been built.

Marsman · « **Reply #42 on:** 04/03/2007 11:58 pm »

That was a design for the Energia for a fly-back stage, not a shuttle design.

CFE · « **Reply #43 on:** 04/04/2007 04:44 am »

Quote

meiza - 3/4/2007 2:33 PM

Quote
Gekko0481 - 3/4/2007 3:31 PM

My god, how many engine nozzels does one need?!!?! That would most certainly put out a hell of a lot of power, but would it land so easily given the realitvely small wingsize compared to its length? I'm merely basing my assumptions on shuttle and buran, given that the wings start fairly near the front on them.

It's mostly empty tank so perhaps landing speed would be tolerable.

Nominally, these RLV's would be able to land with empty tanks. But what happens when a mission has to be aborted before the propellant is burned up? This is an inherent problem with RLV concepts. DC-X style vehicles have claimed that they would burn off the excess propellant during the hover prior to landing. For winged RLV's, abort modes like ATO, TAL, or even the dreaded RTLS are a necessity.

PurduesUSAFguy · « **Reply #44 on:** 04/04/2007 04:56 am »

Quote

publiusr - 30/3/2007 3:42 PM

One concept for a spaceplane.

http://www.buran.ru/htm/41-3.htm

The label Rube Goldber comes to mind, wow

I think one of the most regretable mistakes of the 1990s was not finishing the X-33, even if it never led to the Venturestar for a hundred million more we would have gotten valuable data on reusable hypersonic vehicles. Axing it was a mistake.

CFE · « **Reply #45 on:** 04/04/2007 05:33 am »

X-33 would have taught us some lessons, but the key here is traceability. The LockMart X-33 wasn't traceable to future RLV's. Instead, it represented a bridge too far--new engines, new fuel tanks, new aerodynamic shapes, new structures, new TPS, etc. NASA would have been wiser to develop these technologies one-by-one.

In hindsight, X-33 should always have been about RLV technology development, instead of prototyping a pie-in-the-sky SSTO. The Rockwell design represented far less risk than the others, and it might have made for a valuable x-program had it gone ahead.

imfan · « **Reply #46 on:** 04/04/2007 03:55 pm »

Quote

CFE - 4/4/2007 6:44 AM

Quote
meiza - 3/4/2007 2:33 PM

Quote
Gekko0481 - 3/4/2007 3:31 PM

My god, how many engine nozzels does one need?!!?! That would most certainly put out a hell of a lot of power, but would it land so easily given the realitvely small wingsize compared to its length? I'm merely basing my assumptions on shuttle and buran, given that the wings start fairly near the front on them.

It's mostly empty tank so perhaps landing speed would be tolerable.

Nominally, these RLV's would be able to land with empty tanks. But what happens when a mission has to be aborted before the propellant is burned up? This is an inherent problem with RLV concepts. DC-X style vehicles have claimed that they would burn off the excess propellant during the hover prior to landing. For winged RLV's, abort modes like ATO, TAL, or even the dreaded RTLS are a necessity.

If you are writing regarding that Energia flyback design, you have to keep in mind that it is only unmanned RLV, so if it blows up.. it only blows up. and if there is manned payload(never seen it being proposed for flyback energia-probably because difficulties of capsule-nose-cone with heatshield integration), it would be probably classical capsule with LAS or similar abort system.

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #47 on:** 08/02/2013 03:34 pm »

This Shuttle II is quite a bit different to the Space Shuttle. I thought I remembered reading of an upgraded plan for the shuttle that would allow upgrades to the existing airframe, like new TPS, replacing APUs, etc. Upgrades to make it safer and more reliable. Basically, OV-201 and on that would continue flying with new orbiters replacing older ones that were retired. Obviously, money was never there for this. But beyond the money, has anyone ever heard details of these plans?

I did find this model of an Evolved Shuttle that looks a lot like this Shuttle II plan from page 1.

Go4TLI · « **Reply #48 on:** 08/02/2013 03:45 pm »

Quote from: Ronpur50 on 08/02/2013 03:34 pm

I thought I remembered reading of an upgraded plan for the shuttle that would allow upgrades to the existing airframe, like new TPS, replacing APUs, etc.

There were all kinds of plans, some of them even had funding for development. Some of the major mods I worked that had said funding for a time.

Non-tox OMS/RCS
EAPU (Electric APU)
Long-Life Alkeline Fuel Cell
FICS/OPTS (Forward Interconnect System/Orbital Propellant Transfer System)

Others that were concepts, or some had funds, and upgrades that would be considered major:

Electric acutators
Liquid Fly-back boosters
Advanced cockpit (follow-on to MEDS) - was funded
Metalic TPS
and a many others I just can't recall right now.

That said, there were modifications made to the orbiters litterally up to the final flight. Depending on the mod and the flow, some of these were just tweaks and others larger.

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #49 on:** 08/03/2013 02:00 am »

I suppose, what I am trying to discover, being a model builder, is what the orbiters would look like with a metallic TPS, since that seams to be the major upgrade that would be visible to the outside. All black, all white, the same?

The appearance of liquid boosters replacing the SRBs is a bit easier to google.

I found this flow chart showing some possible variations and upgrades, but it is hard to make out.

Bob Shaw · « **Reply #50 on:** 08/03/2013 10:36 am »

Quote from: stefan1138 on 02/02/2007 10:10 pm

I just found the following picture in another forum. It said this would depict an advanced shuttle. Unfortunately found only this single picture with view from behind the vehicle. Maybe someone has other pictures where you can see the whole thing and maybe has more info on the system.

Stefan

It's one of Keith McNeill's stunning models - see his website real space models at:

http://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/3a.html

john smith 19 · « **Reply #51 on:** 08/04/2013 01:47 pm »

Quote from: nacnud on 02/08/2007 03:44 pm

LM won the X-33 because it was prepared to put in more of it's own money than the other bidders.

Well strictly speaking it claimed it would put more of its own money in. Which is easy to do if you have no real interest in making SSTO viable but you do have an interest in ensuring that better motivated players don't get it.

They also promised that their X33 had more staggeringly amazing stuff on it than their competitors.

It did. All of which had to work, which it did not.

as NASA discovered $1.1Bn later.

john smith 19 · « **Reply #52 on:** 08/04/2013 01:53 pm »

Quote from: publiusr on 02/10/2007 06:34 pm

I will never forget Al Gore and Dan Goldin standing next to the model of that contraption.

All SKUNK
No WORKS.

This should really make people appreciate Griffin.

Nice. An elegant summation of the situation. LockMart did indeed play the procurement process like a violin.

And NASA fell for it.

Jim · « **Reply #53 on:** 08/04/2013 02:57 pm »

Quote from: john smith 19 on 08/04/2013 01:53 pm

Quote from: publiusr on 02/10/2007 06:34 pm
I will never forget Al Gore and Dan Goldin standing next to the model of that contraption.

All SKUNK
No WORKS.

This should really make people appreciate Griffin.
Nice. An elegant summation of the situation. LockMart did indeed play the procurement process like a violin.

And NASA fell for it.

No, far from it.
a. NASA influenced/dictated most of the requirements and technologies that prevent X-33 from being a successful test vehicle, hence LM was right in getting a contract that limited its financial exposure. But LM did still put in a lot of its money. MSFC management of the project was just as much to blame.
b. And Griffin did worse to the agency

edkyle99 · « **Reply #54 on:** 08/04/2013 07:36 pm »

Here is a description of the "Shuttle II" with which I was familiar.
http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld051.htm

- Ed Kyle

Lars_J · « **Reply #55 on:** 08/05/2013 07:27 am »

Interesting... Personally I've always liked the Trimese or Bimese fully reusable shuttle concepts. It seems like such an elegant solution, but I realize that the booster and shuttle would need to be different enough that one shape might compromise both.

john smith 19 · « **Reply #56 on:** 08/05/2013 07:44 am »

Quote from: Jim on 08/04/2013 02:57 pm

No, far from it.
a. NASA influenced/dictated most of the requirements and technologies that prevent X-33 from being a successful test vehicle, hence LM was right in getting a contract that limited its financial exposure. But LM did still put in a lot of its money. MSFC management of the project was just as much to blame.

I would not call them blameless but I recall the concepts for STS. NASA asked for a 2 stage system and all the concepts from the various industry teams were 2 stage.

But in X33 all the concepts were different. Onlyy LockMart went with the never before tried crewed lifting body approach.

Given the core task of demonstrating SSTO was viewed as damm tough any extraneous requirements were just a rod to beat your own back. AFAIK all successful X programmes have known this and avoid "cleverness" except where it relates to the core task like the plague.

And LockMart did not promise the least (to limit their financial exposure) they promised NASA the most which weighed in their favor, if VentureStar got to flight status.

Of course if your main goal is just to siphon off funds from companies that might harm your LV business by actually creating a true SSTO RLV you can promise what you like, because you'll never have to deliver on it.

Quote

b. And Griffin did worse to the agency

Archibald · « **Reply #57 on:** 08/05/2013 09:48 am »

Quote from: Lars_J on 08/05/2013 07:27 am

Interesting... Personally I've always liked the Trimese or Bimese fully reusable shuttle concepts. It seems like such an elegant solution, but I realize that the booster and shuttle would need to be different enough that one shape might compromise both.

I think you might appreciate this - somewhat the next step beyond bimese or triamese...
http://selenianboondocks.com/2008/01/an-insane-but-interesting-idea-fleet-launched-orbital-craft/

STS-200 · « **Reply #58 on:** 08/05/2013 02:26 pm »

Having the option to operate without a crew always seemed a fairly obvious development for the Shuttle - particularly in the satellite launcher days.

Was the "Automated Orbiter" (seen in the above diagram) ever properly studied?

john smith 19 · « **Reply #59 on:** 08/11/2013 10:45 am »

Quote from: STS-200 on 08/05/2013 02:26 pm

Having the option to operate without a crew always seemed a fairly obvious development for the Shuttle - particularly in the satellite launcher days.

Was the "Automated Orbiter" (seen in the above diagram) ever properly studied?

Not much I would guess.

Not having a crew is not a benefit when you're the Human Spaceflight Centre.

Ostensibly it was about the limited flexibility of flight computers. Only the crew can disable a computer and take it out of the voting, because the question was what happens if there is a bug in the logic controlling which GPC are in the voting and a working computer was shut out leaving the rest as faulty but all agreeing?

The other point was the GPC's were not trusted to control landing gear deployment. Landing gear drops air speed quite a lot and is left to the last moment. Nor can it be retracted without GSE if you get wrong, so you crash.

In reality under normal conditions the whole takeoff was under GPC control and the crew watched for an abort situation. Like wise autoland software was in the system from the early flights (about flight 5 IIRC) but the pilots complained it felt funny and would be too difficult to take over from if the software failed in mid landing (given Shuttle was FBW if the GPCs failed you're dead anyway).

Payload deployment is more problematic but in principal would have been doable.

Quote from: Lars_J on 08/05/2013 07:27 am

Interesting... Personally I've always liked the Trimese or Bimese fully reusable shuttle concepts. It seems like such an elegant solution, but I realize that the booster and shuttle would need to be different enough that one shape might compromise both.

Bi & Trimese concepts were investigated at the British Aircraft Corp in the 1960s under project MUSTARD.

The key benefit of them is to deliver TSTO ELV payload fractions while requiring the development of a single stage.

Such a stage would always be a compromise, if only because some of them would not be carrying payload in their payload bays (although they could carry additional propellant tanks) and the single engine design would have to be usable at sea level. At the same time the "booster" member(s) would over spec'd TPS for their role.

However such a design, a true bi or trimese with every vehicle identical with the others and launched as a cluster might have met the STS cost requirements, if the permanent section was sized to hold say a pilot and commander and everything else (galley, sleeping, shower, even seating etc) was part of a payload module, which could be swapped with a "propellant module" when they were acting as a booster. Obviously that would be in as part of the "payload bay"

Of course with proper planning it might be found that the "crew module" could be deployed and actually left in space, and other modules might be added to it. Allowing a space station by the back door.

Note the key finding of the study was that once you start to "tweak" the design to make some just a bit better as boosters or orbiters, you get configuration divergence and in fact you're developing 2 separate vehicles at (surprise surprise) 2x (or more) the cost.

Personally I think they're quite a good novel to be written about such an "alternative history" STS but IRL it seems it's a lesson Spacex have taken to heart. I've got quite a soft spot for James Follett for example.

RanulfC · « **Reply #60 on:** 08/12/2013 09:46 pm »

Quote from: john smith 19 on 08/05/2013 07:44 am

Quote from: Jim on 08/04/2013 02:57 pm
No, far from it.
a. NASA influenced/dictated most of the requirements and technologies that prevent X-33 from being a successful test vehicle, hence LM was right in getting a contract that limited its financial exposure. But LM did still put in a lot of its money. MSFC management of the project was just as much to blame.
I would not call them blameless but I recall the concepts for STS. NASA asked for a 2 stage system and all the concepts from the various industry teams were 2 stage.

You're forgetting SERV! It was an SSTO design that had NOTHING to do with what NASA "said" it wanted and everything to do with what it "wrote" it wanted

And it was rejected BECAUSE it wasn't exactly like the other designs being submitted

Randy

john smith 19 · « **Reply #61 on:** 08/13/2013 07:50 pm »

Quote from: RanulfC on 08/12/2013 09:46 pm

You're forgetting SERV! It was an SSTO design that had NOTHING to do with what NASA "said" it wanted and everything to do with what it "wrote" it wanted

And it was rejected BECAUSE it wasn't exactly like the other designs being submitted

Reading commentaries around SERV the impression was it was unsolicited. I had not realized that it was designed to the detailed RFP.

Interesting the X33 solicitations were so different.

Proponent · « **Reply #62 on:** 08/14/2013 04:41 pm »

SERV (note there's no `E' at the end) had a little winged craft on it in some configurations, which looked really odd and seemed a bit pointless, since the vehicle itself was re-usable intact. I've seen it suggested that the whole reason for the winged bit was to make it conform to the RFP.

john smith 19 · « **Reply #63 on:** 08/14/2013 06:55 pm »

Quote from: Proponent on 08/14/2013 04:41 pm

SERV (note there's no `E' at the end) had a little winged craft on it in some configurations, which looked really odd and seemed a bit pointless, since the vehicle itself was re-usable intact. I've seen it suggested that the whole reason for the winged bit was to make it conform to the RFP.

Noted and changed.

SERV worked in 2 modes. Cargo and crew carriage. The cargo module met (and IRCC exceeded) the cargo spec. The winged crew module was needed either because of some black zones in the launch trajectory or because SERV as a semi ballistic vehicle did not have the cross range for the spec. Given that cross range was never used that would (in hindsight) to be an excellent trade of to get a SSTO

Jim · « **Reply #64 on:** 08/14/2013 07:24 pm »

Quote from: john smith 19 on 08/14/2013 06:55 pm

Given that cross range was never used that would (in hindsight) to be an excellent trade of to get a SSTO

No, you can't say that. If you play that game, then manned launches from VAFB were still a requirement and AOA still a necessity.

leovinus · « **Reply #65 on:** 11/28/2025 05:38 pm »

Quote

A study by VAB from 1985-1988
Objectives:

To define requirements, options, and concepts for a second generation space shuttle to provide a basis for advanced systems and technology planning.
To provide a key element in the post-2000 space transportation system to meet national needs in the most cost-effective manner

and more
https://web.archive.org/web/19980216082838/http://vab02.larc.nasa.gov/Activities/ShuttleII/STSII.html

Blackstar · « **Reply #66 on:** 11/28/2025 07:44 pm »

When I worked on the CAIB, my group developed a policy history of all the proposals to replace shuttle up until that time. It was in the form of a Powerpoint presentation. It was pretty good, and it effectively made the case that NASA had never really thought out a shuttle replacement and stuck to that. And whenever a replacement program was canceled, they just extended the shuttle lifetime without doing a careful evaluation whether that was a good idea. I doubt I have that presentation anymore, but it probably ended up in the CAIB archival material.