-
Earliest a Starship-equivalent could have been built?
by
DanClemmensen
on 30 May, 2022 18:27
-
Assuming the SpaceX Starship eventually works, when in the past could an equivalent rocket have been built if someone decided to pay for it?
For this question, assume "equivalent" means:
--big (50 t or more to LEO)
--inexpensive (stainless steel, lots of inexpensive engines)
--fully and rapidly reusable
--methalox
Could this have been done in 1980?
-
#1
by
libra
on 30 May, 2022 18:55
-
-
#2
by
freddo411
on 30 May, 2022 22:11
-
Assuming the SpaceX Starship eventually works, when in the past could an equivalent rocket have been built if someone decided to pay for it?
For this question, assume "equivalent" means:
--big (50 t or more to LEO)
--inexpensive (stainless steel, lots of inexpensive engines)
--fully and rapidly reusable
--methalox
Could this have been done in 1980?
The space shuttle was designed and built in the 1970s. I don't see any fundamental technology in starship that was not available then. Starship looks like a well engineered, two stage rocket. Keep in mind that there is a lot of innovation with Starship. The work to develop vertical landing and methane engines would have to be done.
-
#3
by
whitelancer64
on 30 May, 2022 22:29
-
Assuming the SpaceX Starship eventually works, when in the past could an equivalent rocket have been built if someone decided to pay for it?
For this question, assume "equivalent" means:
--big (50 t or more to LEO)
--inexpensive (stainless steel, lots of inexpensive engines)
--fully and rapidly reusable
--methalox
Could this have been done in 1980?
The General Dynamics
NEXUS reusable rocket was a concept design created in the 1960s by a group at General Dynamics led by Krafft Arnold Ehricke. It was intended as the next leap beyond the Saturn V, carrying up to eight times more payload. Several versions were designed, including 12,000 and 24,000 short ton vehicles with payloads of one thousand and two thousand short tons respectively. The larger version had a diameter of 202 feet (61.5 meters).
It was a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle that would be fully recoverable upon landing in the ocean. It would use parachutes to slow descent, with retrorockets (on top) for a final soft touchdown.
-
#4
by
whitelancer64
on 30 May, 2022 22:33
-
-
#5
by
libra
on 31 May, 2022 03:16
-
Yes, that very one. 1977 for the Space Based Solar Power craze and NASA studies.
https://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/ https://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld045.htm(vintage website, straight out the late 1990's. And still rocking nonetheless !)
The space shuttle was designed and built in the 1970s. I don't see any fundamental technology in starship that was not available then.
Fully agree. And that Boeing design borrowed a lot from the nascent Shuttle - in fact it was a return to the 1969-71 fully reusable studies, except with payload cranked up to eleven - nearly 1 million pounds. Because SBSP.
Hazegrayart has done a stupendous CGI video of it (as usual).
Further back in time, Von Braun's 1952 Collier's rocket kind of looks like a three stage Starship, when you think about it.
As if things had came back full circle after 70 years !
-
#6
by
spacenut
on 31 May, 2022 11:57
-
How much would this Boeing Space Freighter cost today? Would it ever be possible to get congress to fund this giant?
The first stage probably would not have to be winged, but operate similar to SpaceX's F9 and Superheavy boosters. This might allow for either more payload or a slightly smaller version of the Space Freighter.
The two things I am concerned about with the SpaceX Starship design is the tiles coming off during a launch or during a return from space as well as the belly flip landing.
-
#7
by
laszlo
on 31 May, 2022 12:52
-
It's a little funny in the video the way that the siren goes off 7 seconds before main engine ignition. What's the purpose? To wake up any unfortunate pad workers who slept through the evacuation boat so they won't die in their sleep?
On the topic at hand, if enough money were available and a lot was invested in ground-based systems to actually steer the rocket without requiring it to carry the needed sensors and computers, I think that a large reusable 2-stage orbital rocket could have been built in the 1960's. But, of course, there was no requirement for it.
In terms of expense, it's not the stainless steel and engine clusters that might make Starship cheaper than the competition. USAF was flying stainless steel ICBMs 14 years before Elon was a gleam in his father's eye and the Soviets were clustering rocket engines in the same timeframe. It's having a customer that will pay for thousands of identical satellites to be launched that will eventually lead to continuous assembly line operations instead of a series of unique flights. In other words, the requirement again.
So in terms of tech, it could have been done 60 years ago. In terms of need, it had to wait until now, when there is enough of a desire for a service that can only be provided via a large number of orbital launches. Enough of a desire that people are willing to pay what it takes for that sort of rocket to be developed.
-
#8
by
DanClemmensen
on 31 May, 2022 14:18
-
Thanks, all.
I especially like the use of human pilots to remove the need for modern avionics: the date does not depend critically on modern electronics.
Now that I think on it, this thread is too soon. We will not know if Starship is cheap and fully and rapidly reusable until it has flown a few times. My biggest concern is the TPS. If the TPS turns out to be the big gating factor, then those older designs may not have been feasible until the tiles are very robust and the turnaround (inspection, waterproofing, replacement) is cheap and fast. But this never happened during the 30-year life of the Space Shuttle, and we don't yet know if SpaceX has solved the problem even today. I love Starship and I'm hopeful that SpaceX will create a robust and inexpensive TPS eventually, but we don't know yet if the current one is it.
-
#9
by
Zed_Noir
on 31 May, 2022 14:30
-
It's a little funny in the video the way that the siren goes off 7 seconds before main engine ignition. What's the purpose? To wake up any unfortunate pad workers who slept through the evacuation boat so they won't die in their sleep?
<snip>
There would be a lot sirens going off at the T minus 7 seconds mark. Think it is to get people ready for the shock wave and noise generated by the engines. Reminder that even back in the 80s most people will not know the running launch countdown time for the launch.
-
#10
by
Robotbeat
on 31 May, 2022 14:47
-
Thanks, all.
I especially like the use of human pilots to remove the need for modern avionics: the date does not depend critically on modern electronics.
Now that I think on it, this thread is too soon. We will not know if Starship is cheap and fully and rapidly reusable until it has flown a few times. My biggest concern is the TPS. If the TPS turns out to be the big gating factor, then those older designs may not have been feasible until the tiles are very robust and the turnaround (inspection, waterproofing, replacement) is cheap and fast. But this never happened during the 30-year life of the Space Shuttle, and we don't yet know if SpaceX has solved the problem even today. I love Starship and I'm hopeful that SpaceX will create a robust and inexpensive TPS eventually, but we don't know yet if the current one is it.
Radio-controlled would have worked. We had good enough computers in the 1950s, and analog versions since the 30s?
-
#11
by
DanClemmensen
on 31 May, 2022 15:05
-
Thanks, all.
I especially like the use of human pilots to remove the need for modern avionics: the date does not depend critically on modern electronics.
Now that I think on it, this thread is too soon. We will not know if Starship is cheap and fully and rapidly reusable until it has flown a few times. My biggest concern is the TPS. If the TPS turns out to be the big gating factor, then those older designs may not have been feasible until the tiles are very robust and the turnaround (inspection, waterproofing, replacement) is cheap and fast. But this never happened during the 30-year life of the Space Shuttle, and we don't yet know if SpaceX has solved the problem even today. I love Starship and I'm hopeful that SpaceX will create a robust and inexpensive TPS eventually, but we don't know yet if the current one is it.
Radio-controlled would have worked. We had good enough computers in the 1950s, and analog versions since the 30s?
RC won't work well during re-entry, and that is one of the critical times. My point is that RC was not needed because those large vehicles could be piloted. This whole thing is purely hypothetical, so the issue is moot. Basically, A very rich obsessed individual could have done it. Howard Hughes was fifteen years too old, Delos D. Harriman was fictional, and Elon had not been born. Sigh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon
-
#12
by
greybeardengineer
on 31 May, 2022 15:57
-
Thanks, all.
I especially like the use of human pilots to remove the need for modern avionics: the date does not depend critically on modern electronics.
Now that I think on it, this thread is too soon. We will not know if Starship is cheap and fully and rapidly reusable until it has flown a few times. My biggest concern is the TPS. If the TPS turns out to be the big gating factor, then those older designs may not have been feasible until the tiles are very robust and the turnaround (inspection, waterproofing, replacement) is cheap and fast. But this never happened during the 30-year life of the Space Shuttle, and we don't yet know if SpaceX has solved the problem even today. I love Starship and I'm hopeful that SpaceX will create a robust and inexpensive TPS eventually, but we don't know yet if the current one is it.
Radio-controlled would have worked. We had good enough computers in the 1950s, and analog versions since the 30s?
RC won't work well during re-entry, and that is one of the critical times.
Re-entry blackout is just a few minutes and INS is perfectly capable of keeping things on track during that time.
Without GPS the final landing accuracy (e.g. to a large pad) would have to be assured with ground based infrastructure (navigation beacons, radar/IR data feedback etc).
The largest problems IMO would be power/mass of redundant avionics and higher costs/lead times of bespoke item manufacturing.
-
#13
by
Barley
on 31 May, 2022 16:20
-
I think people are underestimating the value of CAD and computer modelling.
There are things that could have been built in the '60s that could not have been designed in the '60s.
There're also things like trajectory calculations that required a standing army. This would limit flight rates if you can't use a smartphone to compute them in a few minutes.
-
#14
by
Proponent
on 31 May, 2022 17:20
-
I'm thinking that one of the key developments for Starship may have been somebody recognizing that lox/hydrogen is not necessarily the way to go.
-
#15
by
whitelancer64
on 31 May, 2022 17:24
-
Thanks, all.
I especially like the use of human pilots to remove the need for modern avionics: the date does not depend critically on modern electronics.
Now that I think on it, this thread is too soon. We will not know if Starship is cheap and fully and rapidly reusable until it has flown a few times. My biggest concern is the TPS. If the TPS turns out to be the big gating factor, then those older designs may not have been feasible until the tiles are very robust and the turnaround (inspection, waterproofing, replacement) is cheap and fast. But this never happened during the 30-year life of the Space Shuttle, and we don't yet know if SpaceX has solved the problem even today. I love Starship and I'm hopeful that SpaceX will create a robust and inexpensive TPS eventually, but we don't know yet if the current one is it.
Radio-controlled would have worked. We had good enough computers in the 1950s, and analog versions since the 30s?
RC won't work well during re-entry, and that is one of the critical times. My point is that RC was not needed because those large vehicles could be piloted. This whole thing is purely hypothetical, so the issue is moot. Basically, A very rich obsessed individual could have done it. Howard Hughes was fifteen years too old, Delos D. Harriman was fictional, and Elon had not been born. Sigh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon
Re-entry was designed to be done by computer controls on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. However, for both Mercury and Gemini, there were a few instances where control had to be taken manually.
But as far as I know, reentry was always controlled by the flight computer for Apollo, which had very tight parameters for reentry angle when returning from the Moon. The Shuttle was also on computer control during reentry.
-
#16
by
JayWee
on 31 May, 2022 18:16
-
And Buran was fully automated.
-
#17
by
DanClemmensen
on 31 May, 2022 19:11
-
And Buran was fully automated.
But Buran was mid-1980's, while some of the proposals mentioned here go back to 1970. If we are looking for the earliest time that we could have had cheap access to space, I think we can say that is was not limited by the avionics.
There may have been a limit imposed by lack of CAD, but maybe not: Saturn did not use a lot of CAD. I suppose this might rule out a spaceplane in 1970. Could a pilot plus a very crude guicande system allow for a vertical landing? Probably.
-
#18
by
Robotbeat
on 31 May, 2022 19:15
-
I'm thinking that one of the key developments for Starship may have been somebody recognizing that lox/hydrogen is not necessarily the way to go.
Starship is basically a two stage SSTO. Can’t get all the way to SSTO realistically and even if you did, the efficiency would be terrible.
-
#19
by
Barley
on 31 May, 2022 21:07
-
Could a pilot plus a very crude guicande system allow for a vertical landing? Probably.
It could if you add a dog -- to bite the pilot if he tries to touch the controls.
-
#20
by
laszlo
on 31 May, 2022 21:32
-
But as far as I know, reentry was always controlled by the flight computer for Apollo, which had very tight parameters for reentry angle when returning from the Moon. The Shuttle was also on computer control during reentry.
The Apollo capsule, being a conical capsule, could have been controlled manually without a computer since that shape was stable in pitch and yaw down to Mach 2. All the pilot needed to do was to control it in roll to direct the lift vector. The EMS (Entry Monitoring System) allowed the pilot to monitor the re-entry and to hand fly the re-entry if the AGC failed. The EMS was a separate system that depended only on an accelerometer.
The Shuttle, on the other hand, would have crashed without at least one functioning computer. That's why they had 5 as opposed to Apollo's 1.
-
#21
by
whitelancer64
on 31 May, 2022 22:02
-
And Buran was fully automated.
But Buran was mid-1980's, while some of the proposals mentioned here go back to 1970. If we are looking for the earliest time that we could have had cheap access to space, I think we can say that is was not limited by the avionics.
There may have been a limit imposed by lack of CAD, but maybe not: Saturn did not use a lot of CAD. I suppose this might rule out a spaceplane in 1970. Could a pilot plus a very crude guicande system allow for a vertical landing? Probably.
Initially, the designers of the Mercury capsule toyed with the idea of not having manual controls at all, something the astronauts - all test pilots - thoroughly vetoed.
On the Russian side of things, the Vostok capsules had only very limited crew control capability. Yuri Gagarin's orbital flight was done entirely on automatic controls.
-
#22
by
GalacticIntruder
on 31 May, 2022 22:29
-
2022.
SpaceX Starship is the culmination of all knowledge in aerospace. It could not have been done before today. Just because some engineer drew something 50 years ago does not mean it would ever see physical reality regardless of resources available. Engineering Systems is about trade-offs and constraints. Even today what Musk wants and needs for his Rocket is not what anyone else wants or needs.
If Musk of 20 years ago had his present day knowledge and funding, he might still not get present day Starship sooner than today.
-
#23
by
libra
on 01 Jun, 2022 12:10
-
And Buran was fully automated.
But Buran was mid-1980's, while some of the proposals mentioned here go back to 1970. If we are looking for the earliest time that we could have had cheap access to space, I think we can say that is was not limited by the avionics.
There may have been a limit imposed by lack of CAD, but maybe not: Saturn did not use a lot of CAD. I suppose this might rule out a spaceplane in 1970. Could a pilot plus a very crude guicande system allow for a vertical landing? Probably.
Initially, the designers of the Mercury capsule toyed with the idea of not having manual controls at all, something the astronauts - all test pilots - thoroughly vetoed.
On the Russian side of things, the Vostok capsules had only very limited crew control capability. Yuri Gagarin's orbital flight was done entirely on automatic controls.
During Soyuz 5 reentry (started the wrong way because of a deffective bolt) the Soyuz reentry capsule pivoted the right way thanks to its basic shape and aerodynamic forces only. And a very scared Volynov was saved - against all odds.
-
#24
by
spacenut
on 01 Jun, 2022 12:47
-
Reentry could be done by slowing the spacecraft down and just dropping from orbit. No heat shield needed. Problem is it would currently take a lot of fuel to slow down. I've often wondered what the trade off would be to use a titanium layer underneath the tiles. It has a higher melting point than stainless steel, but is still light, around 3,000 degrees F vs around 2,000 degrees stainless steel. Reentry is about 3,000 degrees. So, can titanium be made in thin layers to go under the tiles? If so, it might be able to loose some tiles and still make it back to earth. However, the price of titanium may be too expensive to make a reusable spacecraft.
-
#25
by
Zed_Noir
on 01 Jun, 2022 15:08
-
Reentry could be done by slowing the spacecraft down and just dropping from orbit. No heat shield needed. Problem is it would currently take a lot of fuel to slow down. I've often wondered what the trade off would be to use a titanium layer underneath the tiles. It has a higher melting point than stainless steel, but is still light, around 3,000 degrees F vs around 2,000 degrees stainless steel. Reentry is about 3,000 degrees. So, can titanium be made in thin layers to go under the tiles? If so, it might be able to loose some tiles and still make it back to earth. However, the price of titanium may be too expensive to make a reusable spacecraft.
You do realize that titanium was mostly from the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. Recall the special means the CIA and the USAF did to procured enough titanium for the A-12 and the SR-71 aircraft programs. Never mind the high machining cost of working with titanium at that time. So thin titanium strips seems not very practical for that era.
-
#26
by
DanClemmensen
on 01 Jun, 2022 15:14
-
Reentry could be done by slowing the spacecraft down and just dropping from orbit. No heat shield needed. Problem is it would currently take a lot of fuel to slow down. I've often wondered what the trade off would be to use a titanium layer underneath the tiles. It has a higher melting point than stainless steel, but is still light, around 3,000 degrees F vs around 2,000 degrees stainless steel. Reentry is about 3,000 degrees. So, can titanium be made in thin layers to go under the tiles? If so, it might be able to loose some tiles and still make it back to earth. However, the price of titanium may be too expensive to make a reusable spacecraft.
Titanium is a reasonably good heat conductor, so the back side of a thin layer will very quickly reach the temperature of the front side: a 2,500 degree unmelted Titanium layer will melt the underlying stainless steel.
-
#27
by
whitelancer64
on 01 Jun, 2022 16:27
-
2022.
SpaceX Starship is the culmination of all knowledge in aerospace. It could not have been done before today. Just because some engineer drew something 50 years ago does not mean it would ever see physical reality regardless of resources available. Engineering Systems is about trade-offs and constraints. Even today what Musk wants and needs for his Rocket is not what anyone else wants or needs.
If Musk of 20 years ago had his present day knowledge and funding, he might still not get present day Starship sooner than today.
The whole point of counterfactual thought experiments is to imagine where the paths not taken might have led.
We obviously know that the reality is it didn't happen until now.
It's rather like asking what might have happened if the ancient Greeks or Romans had developed the scientific method, or what the world might look like today if Nazis had won WWII.
-
#28
by
libra
on 01 Jun, 2022 17:03
-
Reentry could be done by slowing the spacecraft down and just dropping from orbit. No heat shield needed. Problem is it would currently take a lot of fuel to slow down. I've often wondered what the trade off would be to use a titanium layer underneath the tiles. It has a higher melting point than stainless steel, but is still light, around 3,000 degrees F vs around 2,000 degrees stainless steel. Reentry is about 3,000 degrees. So, can titanium be made in thin layers to go under the tiles? If so, it might be able to loose some tiles and still make it back to earth. However, the price of titanium may be too expensive to make a reusable spacecraft.
You do realize that titanium was mostly from the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. Recall the special means the CIA and the USAF did to procured enough titanium for the A-12 and the SR-71 aircraft programs. Never mind the high machining cost of working with titanium at that time. So thin titanium strips seems not very practical for that era.
Boeing already some issues finding enough titanium for their supersonic transport (2707-300) after the SR-71 / A-12 production run.
Now throw a space shuttle with a titanium structure on top of that...
-
#29
by
Hog
on 01 Jun, 2022 22:51
-
Remember the hand thrown, gliding models that were used to test STS Orbiter Vehicle designs?
I remember a discussion about flyback boosters for shuttle and the cadre of pilots required for them would have been problematic.
I remember STS figures of 62 flights/year, 50 years on, we'll see how predictions for SH/SS turn out.
-
#30
by
spacenut
on 01 Jun, 2022 22:59
-
Titanium is also found in Brazil and Canada. Don't know how much. The Lockheed Adventure Star was supposed to use titanium wire mesh for outer skin, woven like cloth.
-
#31
by
Proponent
on 02 Jun, 2022 10:45
-
I remember STS figures of 62 flights/year, 50 years on, we'll see how predictions for SH/SS turn out.
Indeed, there is a risk that SS/SH will not pan out. But I think the risk is much less than for the Shuttle, because it is less of a technological leap, it can fly without a crew, and the scale of production permits continual improvement.
-
#32
by
SweetWater
on 02 Jun, 2022 12:56
-
I remember STS figures of 62 flights/year, 50 years on, we'll see how predictions for SH/SS turn out.
Indeed, there is a risk that SS/SH will not pan out. But I think the risk is much less than for the Shuttle, because it is less of a technological leap, it can fly without a crew, and the scale of production permits continual improvement.
The lack of support (money) from Congress for some sort of a Shuttle 2.0 was probably the the worst aspect of the STS program as a whole. Shuttle was an incredible machine, but it was really the first attempt at a reusable orbital space plane (X-15 was suborbital) anywhere, and it is no surprise that there were some lessons learned along the way. Unfortunately, NASA didn't have support to implement those lessons, and in terms of the vehicle overall, Atlantis flying STS 135 in 2011 wasn't substantially different from the glide tests Enterprise did in 1977.
SpaceX has show a remarkable ability to implement changes and not get stuck in the sunk cost fallacy. Assuming SS/SH is flying 10 years from now, the SS component (at least) will probably be a substantially different vehicle than what eventually flies the first orbital mission.
-
#33
by
JayWee
on 02 Jun, 2022 14:57
-
The lack of support (money) from Congress for some sort of a Shuttle 2.0 was probably the the worst aspect of the STS program as a whole. Shuttle was an incredible machine, but it was really the first attempt at a reusable orbital space plane (X-15 was suborbital) anywhere, and it is no surprise that there were some lessons learned along the way. Unfortunately, NASA didn't have support to implement those lessons, and in terms of the vehicle overall, Atlantis flying STS 135 in 2011 wasn't substantially different from the glide tests Enterprise did in 1977.
Yeah, I absolutely agree that the lack of iteration was a problem. However, NASA *DID* get money for shuttle follow-on. Sadly, it got obsessed with hydrogen SSTOs.
Honestly, I don't know, if one thinks about it even for a moment and does some basic trades, Starship-like TSTO seems to be an obvious and only way. The Boeing TSTO was on the right path, but was abandoned.
Is it obvious only in hindsight? I can't believe all the designers who got blindsided by the hydrogen ISP obsession were somehow "stupid".
-
#34
by
Hog
on 02 Jun, 2022 17:22
-
I remember STS figures of 62 flights/year, 50 years on, we'll see how predictions for SH/SS turn out.
Indeed, there is a risk that SS/SH will not pan out. But I think the risk is much less than for the Shuttle, because it is less of a technological leap, it can fly without a crew, and the scale of production permits continual improvement.
The lack of support (money) from Congress for some sort of a Shuttle 2.0 was probably the the worst aspect of the STS program as a whole. Shuttle was an incredible machine, but it was really the first attempt at a reusable orbital space plane (X-15 was suborbital) anywhere, and it is no surprise that there were some lessons learned along the way. Unfortunately, NASA didn't have support to implement those lessons, and in terms of the vehicle overall, Atlantis flying STS 135 in 2011 wasn't substantially different from the glide tests Enterprise did in 1977.
SpaceX has show a remarkable ability to implement changes and not get stuck in the sunk cost fallacy. Assuming SS/SH is flying 10 years from now, the SS component (at least) will probably be a substantially different vehicle than what eventually flies the first orbital mission.
The STS Orbiter Vehicles were different as they each rolled off the assembly line, let alone the differences the OV had after 10 years of flying and that's without including the first Return To Flight efforts following STS-51L Challenger. The orbiters "looked" the same, were these changes "substantial"?
So far as the SS future, yes, I'd assume that a SS design with 10 years of flight history will be different, just as the STS orbiters were. The snag word is "substantial". After the 4 orbital STS test missions and the single operational mission, STS-5, STS got their new Phase-1 engines to replace the First Manned Orbital Flight(FMOF) RS-25 engines. Even just concentrating on STS Main Engines, there were 7 "blocks/phases" of RS-25 that flew operationally from 1977 to 2011.
Were the changes made to RS-25 over its operational life "substantial"?
-
#35
by
Jim
on 02 Jun, 2022 17:31
-
Re-entry was designed to be done by computer controls on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. However, for both Mercury and Gemini, there were a few instances where control had to be taken manually.
But as far as I know, reentry was always controlled by the flight computer for Apollo, which had very tight parameters for reentry angle when returning from the Moon. The Shuttle was also on computer control during reentry.
No computer (or control) on Mercury. Gemini worked without its computer, it just was ballistic. Apollo could just do uncontrolled ballistic also.
-
#36
by
Proponent
on 02 Jun, 2022 17:41
-
The lack of support (money) from Congress for some sort of a Shuttle 2.0 was probably the the worst aspect of the STS program as a whole. Shuttle was an incredible machine, but it was really the first attempt at a reusable orbital space plane (X-15 was suborbital) anywhere, and it is no surprise that there were some lessons learned along the way. Unfortunately, NASA didn't have support to implement those lessons, and in terms of the vehicle overall, Atlantis flying STS 135 in 2011 wasn't substantially different from the glide tests Enterprise did in 1977.
A Shuttle 2.0 likely would have been a better vehicle. But like Shuttle 1.0, it would have suffered from being supposedly designed for economy by an outfit that has never displayed had a knack for cost control. And I'll bet it still would have had technological overreach, maybe not as bad as Shuttle 1.0's, but still to much for a supposedly operational vehicle.
-
#37
by
MGoDuPage
on 03 Jun, 2022 02:58
-
I remember STS figures of 62 flights/year, 50 years on, we'll see how predictions for SH/SS turn out.
Indeed, there is a risk that SS/SH will not pan out. But I think the risk is much less than for the Shuttle, because it is less of a technological leap, it can fly without a crew, and the scale of production permits continual improvement.
Not only does it permit continual improvement…
….it also permits turn-around/refurbishment lags to be more easily mitigated simply by having a larger fleet participating in the rotation. Imagine if there had been a fleet of one or two dozen STS vehicles instead of 4 or 5?
As for the larger question….
1) I’m a huge fan of SpaceX & of SS/SH, but I agree with others that we’re being premature here. I know there’s no such thing, but I don’t want to jinx the thing.
2) Even so, if SS/SH can even meet HALF it’s design goals—either on orbit refueling or a notably faster/cheaper reuse rate than STS—along with its massive payload lift capacity & fairing volume, it’s a huge game changer.
3) In addition to CAD, I think computing power & predictive modeling are major game changers that weren’t available 20+ years ago. Not only do those things make vertical controlled landing far more doable. They also allow for pre-launch & in-flight automated decisions based on feedback sensors that I think might be required to pull off the coordination of such a massive 39 engine stack that includes gimbaling engines, managing ullage, selectively shutting on/off certain engines based on performance feedback & in order to economize fuel loads, etc.
4) If it turns out the heat shield/tiling system remains a reusability constraint generally, then if/when SS/SH is reasonably successful, it’ll likely be due to major innovations in optics & robotic application systems that will allow much of the heat tile evaluation & replacement to become automated.
5) Kind of esoteric like the answer about “SS/SH arrives when it was needed”….. If you consider economic demand/profit motive as a necessary component to drive innovation, then you pretty much have to say nothing like this was feasible until the advent of mega satellite constellations.
-
#38
by
Proponent
on 04 Jun, 2022 12:54
-
1) I’m a huge fan of SpaceX & of SS/SH, but I agree with others that we’re being premature here. I know there’s no such thing, but I don’t want to jinx the thing.
I don't believe in jinxes either, but, they say they happen if you don't believe in them.
2) Even so, if SS/SH can even meet HALF it’s design goals—either on orbit refueling or a notably faster/cheaper reuse rate than STS—along with its massive payload lift capacity & fairing volume, it’s a huge game changer.
Funny you should put it that way: I've often said that had the
Shuttle met half its design goals, it would have been a game changer.
-
#39
by
Proponent
on 04 Jun, 2022 12:56
-
A Shuttle 2.0 likely would have been a better vehicle. But like Shuttle 1.0, it would have suffered from being supposedly designed for economy by an outfit that has never displayed had a knack for cost control. And I'll bet it still would have had technological overreach, maybe not as bad as Shuttle 1.0's, but still to much for a supposedly operational vehicle.
If I may rephrase my post, what was really missing in the Shuttle program was not so much a Shuttle 2.0, but a Shuttle 0.1, a Shuttle 0.2, a Shuttle 0.3, ....