Shuttle-C

[Jorge]

I have been looking all day for evidence; but it has been asserted that one of the reasons for the "lack" of debris from Shuttle Challenger was due in part to the explosion of the LOX tank and its proximity to the remaining piece of the orbiter during breakup? Essentially the tank became a giant blow torch burning/incinerating anything in close proximity to it Have you or anyone heard or read something similar and have a source you could point me toward?

I've never heard or read anything like that and all published reports directly contradict it. I believe you are wrong.

The orbiter broke up due to aerodynamic forces, not any "blowtorch" effect from the tank. The recovered debris did not exhibit much evidence of being burned. The reason so little debris was recovered from Challenger was that the recovery forces concentrated on the parts materially affecting the accident investigation such as the SRBs and the crew cabin. Most of the rest of the debris went unrecovered and some still washes ashore from time to time.

[Integrator]

IT HAS RETURNED....



(Thanks for the perfect image bobthemonkey.)

[gladiator1332]

IT HAS RETURNED....



(Thanks for the perfect image bobthemonkey.)

HAHA! That is perfect for Shuttle-C...the only SDLV that may have more lives than Ares I.

[Integrator]

Damn thing's worse that His Eminence Q.  Must be a multidimensional immortal entity.  And it always shows up at the worst possible moments...

[Lampyridae]

Damn thing's worse that His Eminence Q.  Must be a multidimensional immortal entity.  And it always shows up at the worst possible moments...

The mother-in-law of all LVs...

[MP99]

Very interesting. So really Shannon is admitting that in a way Ares V is the issue. Most of the slides on "Not-Shuttle-C" seemed to be focused more on cargo. Correct me if I am wrong, but there was not a single slide that showed Orion in the payload fairing.

My feelings on all of this is that Ares I is very much still alive. Ares V is toast.

I remember a slide with Orion and its LAS on the side-mounted thing. Looked wrong.

I believe that slide may have been labelled as "CEV option 2 - ISS crew & logistics".

This slide was also memorable because it combined crew & cargo on the same flight.

cheers, Martin

[mmeijeri]

John Shannon's presentation on Not-Shuttle-C was impressive. It appeared to be aimed at DIRECT in a very subtle way, without even mentioning it. It painted a picture of Not-Shuttle-C as more direct than DIRECT itself, and likely quicker and cheaper to develop. It did seem to support DIRECT's statements on the cost of SSME if produced in greater numbers. It also dealt with concerns raised by Jim in this thread about the complexity of the cargo element (the proposed element doesn't have ET disconnects, OMS, radiators etc) and agrees with arguments made earlier by Dennis Wingo about reuse of flight software and existing ground procedures. It did repeat the volume canard, stating that reduced volume would be a problem for the lander.

[gladiator1332]

Presentations have been posted on the Human Spaceflight Review Site.

For one thing, the Not Shuttle C concept is not going to win any beauty awards. That thing looks like R2D2 thrown on a Shuttle stack. Even stranger looking when you throw Orion on it too.

[Lampyridae]

Ugly indeed. Looks like some TPS around the SSMEs, are they baselining a boattail? Looks like it's close to 8.3m diameter, might be easier to recover...

(curses! of course, NASA fiendishly put the presentation in .pptx format, so us open-source folks can't get at it! or people with old MS Office)

Oh I see it's 7.2m. But they do stick a D-IV US inside.

[Longhorn John]

Monty Python seems apt. "On second thoughts we shall not go there, for it is a silly rocket."

[MATTBLAK]

Guys; its NOT silly!! Such statements are like picking on the fat kid in the playground. But he's a TALENTED 'fat kid'. It may be inferior in performance compared to an inline configuration, but if side-mount preserves SOME Heavy Lift capability and infrastructure, it deserves to be kept in reserve, for a last-ditch effort to KEEP that Heavy Lift.

Good luck if anyone thinks funding will be found to build a bigger launcher than Delta IV-Heavy if all the Shuttle capability goes away!!

NASA's hands may end up being tied if politicians decide Jupiter/Direct loses out, merely to save a 'mere' one or two billion dollars upfront. That's one of the reasons solids were chosen over liquid boosters thirty-some years ago for the Shuttle.

Money.

[marsavian]

Guys; its NOT silly!! Such statements are like picking on the fat kid in the playground. But he's a TALENTED 'fat kid'. It may be inferior in performance compared to an inline configuration, but if side-mount preserves SOME Heavy Lift capability and infrastructure, it deserves to be kept in reserve, for a last-ditch effort to KEEP that Heavy Lift.

Good luck if anyone thinks funding will be found to build a bigger launcher than Delta IV-Heavy if all the Shuttle capability goes away!!

I agree, it can get us too the Moon again if needed and that's all that counts. If you are going to do Shuttle-C I wonder if you could add a LAS to the Shuttle and so keep that on as a crewed LEO RLV or keep it as an unmanned upmass/downmass RLV if you don't do the LAS. Same parts and infrastructure do open up interesting possibilities.

[Lampyridae]

Shuttle-C would definitely be better than a kick in the pants. Seems it could be ready by 2013/14. Not too shabby. I think it definitely highlights all the good points of Direct.

[Pheogh]

I have been looking all day for evidence; but it has been asserted that one of the reasons for the "lack" of debris from Shuttle Challenger was due in part to the explosion of the LOX tank and its proximity to the remaining piece of the orbiter during breakup? Essentially the tank became a giant blow torch burning/incinerating anything in close proximity to it Have you or anyone heard or read something similar and have a source you could point me toward?

I've never heard or read anything like that and all published reports directly contradict it. I believe you are wrong.

read more carefully, it was not my assertion, just a point of clarification.

[mmeijeri]

Good luck if anyone thinks funding will be found to build a bigger launcher than Delta IV-Heavy if all the Shuttle capability goes away!!

Why? Wouldn't Atlas Phase 1 be cheaper? Or are you saying politicians are only willing to pay for pork, not for heavy lift per se?

[MATTBLAK]

Mmeijeri, I think you mean Atlas V Phase 2 'Single Stick': 30 metic tons to Low Earth Orbit. The 'Three Stick' Atlas V Phase 2 for 'Heavy' -- would lift 70 metric tons -- about the same as basic side-mount Shuttle-derived. Either Phase 2 machine would be superb, but with the RD-180 engine issue STILL unresolved, don't hold your breath for it. I sorely wish it were otherwise.

A Delta IV-H with RS-68B or even RS-68R (Regenerative) engines, combined with Aluminium/Lithium tankage, propellant densification and cross-feed, and a strong, uprated upper stage with multiple RL-10B2, or RL-60 engines would be a formidable launcher: about 60 metric tons to LEO. Give it the Ares 1 J-2X powered upper stage and you'd squeeze even more tonnage into it.

And in terms of Politicians and Pork: it could go either way.

[mmeijeri]

Mmeijeri, I think you mean Atlas V Phase 2 'Single Stick': 30 metic tons to Low Earth Orbit. The 'Three Stick' Atlas V Phase 2 for 'Heavy' -- would lift 70 metric tons -- about the same as basic side-mount Shuttle-derived. Either Phase 2 machine would be superb, but with the RD-180 engine issue STILL unresolved, don't hold your breath for it. I sorely wish it were otherwise.

All you need to get Orion through TLI is a Delta-IV 5m upper stage, a way to get it to orbit, plus rendez-vous capability. Atlas Phase 1 plus some modification to the Delta upper stage gives you that. But since Atlas and Delta are now under one roof, it would make more sense to develop a common upper stage, and that appears to be what was suggested by ULA in their presentation before the Augustine commission. This means the upper stage could be launched on either Atlas or Delta.

A Delta IV-H with RS-68B or even RS-68R (Regenerative) engines, combined with Aluminium/Lithium tankage, propellant densification and cross-feed, and a strong, uprated upper stage with multiple RL-10B2, or RL-60 engines would be a formidable launcher: about 60 metric tons to LEO. Give it the Ares 1 J-2X powered upper stage and you'd squeeze even more tonnage into it.

Yes, and that could could be combined with the new common upper stage. And wouldn't RL-60 also be useful for the Delta-IV Medium?

And Shuttle-C/Not-Shuttle-C/Jupiter could also benefit from such a new upper stage. Add 5-seg boosters and SDLV still has a performance edge.

[mmeijeri]

The last slide of Shannon's presentation contains what I believe is the only reference to DIRECT, and I don't recall him actually saying anything about it. In cauda venenum, it paints DIRECT as only slightly more direct than Ares. I think this table is very unfair on DIRECT. It shows both DIRECT and Ares as needing a new upper stage engine, which in the case of DIRECT means man-rating RL-10 and in the case of Ares means developing a brand new J-2X. Conversely, a new MLP for Ares and a modified MLP for DIRECT are shown as comparable changes.

[C5C6]

I havent checked the numbers and probably will be SO WRONG I will make argentinian people look like dumbasses......but I just thought of a Shuttle-C carrying the EDS and Orion...and a second one carrying Altair...

[fotoguzzi]

I havent checked the numbers and probably will be SO WRONG I will make argentinian people look like dumbasses......but I just thought of a Shuttle-C carrying the EDS and Orion...and a second one carrying Altair...

Lately Argentinians have been making US state governors look like dumbasses.

Try here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17546.msg429395#msg429395

The (not)Shuttle-C thread was set up presumably because John Shannon's team had started the project from nothing.  I'm not aware of an obvious distinction between Shuttle-C and the (not) version introduced to the Augustine Committee on 17 June 2009.