Author Topic: Shuttle II Concepts (Read 65067 times)

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.