What could the shuttle have been?

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:36:59 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote:

from a political point of view, consider if the shuttles had been rated
for 7 years max. This would have meant that the assembly facility would
have remained opened so it could build a new shuttle to be delivered
every 6 to 7 years.

Far more likely, Columbia would have been retired in 1988 and no
replacement built.

Thu would have allowed NASA to evolve the systems
and design and greatly improve the usability and perhaps re-usability of
the shuttle.

Probably not. The upgrades you speak of were in fact contemplated in
the late 1990s (as X-33 started to look like a collosal fiasco), but
their failure to be funded had nothing to do with Rockwell's
production line being gone. LFBB/RFS would have been built elsewhere.
Non-toxic OMS/RCS and electric APU would also have been built by
subcontractors and probably integrated at KSC during OMDP.

But this would have had to have been approved by govt right frm the
start with budgets for it.

NASA made a strategic mistake when it garanteed re-usability for ever
since it resulted in the shuttle maufacturing to be shut down and then
every imrpovement to the existing shuttles were at the mercy of politicians.

So would have been funding for more Shuttles. Having a production line
open doesn't guarantee you'll get funding for more, just look at F-22,
B-2, or Titan IV. Or never far from NASA's mind, Saturn V.

Exagerating the re-usability of the shuttle ended up making re-usab,e
vehicles look ikpossible and it will be a long time before NASA tries it
(unless commercial operators succeeed).

Boeing's X-37C and XCor's Lynx look like good steps in the right
direction.

From a processing point of view, I never quite understood the rotating
service structure. That work should have been done in the VAB before the
MLP was rolled to the pad. They already have the controlled environment,
platforms, hoists, tools etc there.

Because fueling the Shuttle OMS/RCS on the pad took a while, and
hooking up the Shuttle to the pad took even longer. This was all "dead
time" if they spent extra days in the OPF or VAB installing payloads.
So they decided to do all that work concurrently at the pad.

This is another case where Greg's suggestion of non-toxic OMS/RCS
could have big advantages for turnaround time.

Perhaps they might have needed to expand the VAB to allow for
stacking/processing of cargo of more shuttles.

Had the flight rate requirement ever reached such a level, I think it
would have been much easier to just have "designated mission
shuttles". One shuttle set up for IUS launches. One for Spacelab
launches. One for PAM-D comsat launches and with a spot forward for a
SPAS or SPARTAN. This would have enormously reduced payload
processing time, because you're just swapping out IUS+Payload on
return and adjusting the ballast a little. You'd also have dedicated
missions crews, maybe three for each time of mission (two flying, one
backup), rotating flights, to cut down the bottleneck at crew training
and simulator time.

The one advantage of the RSS on the pad is that if something bad is
detected during final countdown, they can get access to the shuttle faster.

Which turned out to be often.

But by leaving shuttle outdorrs for so long IN FLORIDA, it is affected
by weather and salty air (corrosion). Hurricanes can be bad for shuttles.

If memory serves, NASA only had to pull a Shuttle off the pad due to
hurricanes/tropical storms two or three times, twice in the 1990s and
once in 2006. The hurricane danger is greatly overstated.

I don't think we'll see a vehicle such as the shuttle in NASA's
facilities in our lifetime. But we might see Virgin Galactic succeed
with an orbital vehicle and space hotel. But it won't use NASA facilities.

Virgin is overrated, I think. There isn't an obvious path from
SpaceShipTwo to orbital flight in my opinion, so they'll have to start
over. Lynx looks like a more robust, versatile, growable system to me.
Bigelow seems to be headed for mothballs.

Brian

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:36:59 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote:

from a political point of view, consider if the shuttles had been rated
for 7 years max. This would have meant that the assembly facility would
have remained opened so it could build a new shuttle to be delivered
every 6 to 7 years.

Far more likely, Columbia would have been retired in 1988 and no
replacement built.

Possibly. I could see at least one or two move built. But that point you
really start to get speculative into what an OV-20x airframe would have been
like. I suggest had we gotten that far, it would have had similar
mold-lines but been fairly different structurally.


Thu would have allowed NASA to evolve the systems
and design and greatly improve the usability and perhaps re-usability of
the shuttle.

Probably not. The upgrades you speak of were in fact contemplated in
the late 1990s (as X-33 started to look like a collosal fiasco), but
their failure to be funded had nothing to do with Rockwell's
production line being gone. LFBB/RFS would have been built elsewhere.
Non-toxic OMS/RCS and electric APU would also have been built by
subcontractors and probably integrated at KSC during OMDP.


I think though he's suggesting more of a cause and effect. Had Congress
been primed for continual upgrades in the first place, we'd have been more
likely to see things like LFBB/RFS, electric APU (forgot that one, thanks),
etc.

But this would have had to have been approved by govt right frm the
start with budgets for it.

NASA made a strategic mistake when it garanteed re-usability for ever
since it resulted in the shuttle maufacturing to be shut down and then
every imrpovement to the existing shuttles were at the mercy of
politicians.

So would have been funding for more Shuttles. Having a production line
open doesn't guarantee you'll get funding for more, just look at F-22,
B-2, or Titan IV. Or never far from NASA's mind, Saturn V.

True, but not having a production line makes it MUCH harder.



Had the flight rate requirement ever reached such a level, I think it
would have been much easier to just have "designated mission
shuttles". One shuttle set up for IUS launches. One for Spacelab
launches. One for PAM-D comsat launches and with a spot forward for a
SPAS or SPARTAN. This would have enormously reduced payload
processing time, because you're just swapping out IUS+Payload on
return and adjusting the ballast a little. You'd also have dedicated
missions crews, maybe three for each time of mission (two flying, one
backup), rotating flights, to cut down the bottleneck at crew training
and simulator time.


Ayup. That was actually suggested right at the outset of the shuttle
program and there's some merit to it.

This was in fact done with the STS-83/94 MSL missions.



Virgin is overrated, I think. There isn't an obvious path from
SpaceShipTwo to orbital flight in my opinion, so they'll have to start
over. Lynx looks like a more robust, versatile, growable system to me.
Bigelow seems to be headed for mothballs.


Agreed with Virgin. I think Virgin is great in the same sense the early
barnstormers were great. They introduced the public to the concept of
airplanes and flying, but didn't actually provide useful transportation.

Lynx I'll have to look up.

Brian



--
* I promise I will format my posts properly in the future.
* Windows Live Mail just can't quote! Luckily, I have found this:
* http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:25:14 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote:

Virgin is overrated, I think. There isn't an obvious path from
SpaceShipTwo to orbital flight in my opinion, so they'll have to start
over. Lynx looks like a more robust, versatile, growable system to me.
Bigelow seems to be headed for mothballs.

It all depends on material science. If Bigelow finds a way to build a
light/reusable heatshield then his suborbital planes might gain orbital
capabilities.

Bigelow builds hotels, not suborbital planes. He just laid off half
his company because the requisite cheap manned spacecraft (Dragon,
CST-100, what-have-you) are too far down the road. I'm doubtful he'll
come back from this at all. His only chance to keep the concept alive
I think is to get a NASA ISS expansion contract, but there is
absolutely no budgetary hope for that.

More importantly for Virgin, the suborbital joy rides might be expanded
into suborbital planes to offer New York Sydney in 2 hours as commercial
flights.

Not with that design (mothership airdropping). No way, no how. If such
a market exists, someone will build a supersonic business jet and
conquer it at a fraction of the cost and complexity of 747-sized White
Knight 4/SpaceShipFour. With much more frequent flight opportunities,
operations from more or less any airport, and no slow climb to release
altitude, a supersonic business jet would slaughter SS4 in such a
role.

That's why I wrote previously that I think XCor's Lynx is more
promising. It is a take-off-under-its-own-power, gas-and-go design.
Much more easily scalable to bigger and better things than the SS1/SS2
concept.

Brian

On 10/11/2011 10:10 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:36:59 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote:

from a political point of view, consider if the shuttles had been rated
for 7 years max. This would have meant that the assembly facility would
have remained opened so it could build a new shuttle to be delivered
every 6 to 7 years.

Far more likely, Columbia would have been retired in 1988 and no
replacement built.

Thu would have allowed NASA to evolve the systems
and design and greatly improve the usability and perhaps re-usability of
the shuttle.

Probably not. The upgrades you speak of were in fact contemplated in
the late 1990s (as X-33 started to look like a collosal fiasco), but
their failure to be funded had nothing to do with Rockwell's
production line being gone. LFBB/RFS would have been built elsewhere.
Non-toxic OMS/RCS and electric APU would also have been built by
subcontractors and probably integrated at KSC during OMDP.

And some of those upgrades would have happened if the Columbia accident
had not occurred. Post-107 and the decision to retire the shuttle, NASA
decided the only shuttle upgrades would be those required for safety
(and primarily upgrades to meet the CAIB recommendations) and complete
assembly of ISS.

From a processing point of view, I never quite understood the rotating
service structure. That work should have been done in the VAB before the
MLP was rolled to the pad. They already have the controlled environment,
platforms, hoists, tools etc there.

The environment in the VAB was insufficiently controlled for shuttle
payloads. NASA would have needed a separate PCR in each VAB high-bay.
Far cheaper to just build one on the RSS.

Because fueling the Shuttle OMS/RCS on the pad took a while, and
hooking up the Shuttle to the pad took even longer. This was all "dead
time" if they spent extra days in the OPF or VAB installing payloads.
So they decided to do all that work concurrently at the pad.

This is another case where Greg's suggestion of non-toxic OMS/RCS
could have big advantages for turnaround time.

Perhaps they might have needed to expand the VAB to allow for
stacking/processing of cargo of more shuttles.

Had the flight rate requirement ever reached such a level, I think it
would have been much easier to just have "designated mission
shuttles". One shuttle set up for IUS launches. One for Spacelab
launches. One for PAM-D comsat launches and with a spot forward for a
SPAS or SPARTAN. This would have enormously reduced payload
processing time, because you're just swapping out IUS+Payload on
return and adjusting the ballast a little. You'd also have dedicated
missions crews, maybe three for each time of mission (two flying, one
backup), rotating flights, to cut down the bottleneck at crew training
and simulator time.

The one advantage of the RSS on the pad is that if something bad is
detected during final countdown, they can get access to the shuttle faster.

Which turned out to be often.

Indeed. Rolling back to the VAB for every little pad problem due to lack
of access would have made us wish we had an RSS.

Brian Thorn wrote:
Virgin is overrated, I think. There isn't an obvious path from
SpaceShipTwo to orbital flight in my opinion, so they'll have to start
over. Lynx looks like a more robust, versatile, growable system to me.
Bigelow seems to be headed for mothballs.

Brian

From what I've seen on the XCor website, they are a little shy on the TPS
details. Not clear if Lynx TPS can handle orbital speeds.

But for the Lynx perhaps a set of disposable drop-away rocket boosters on the
underside, coupled with the Lynx own rocket could get it into orbit under its
own power?

Assuming of course, Lynx rocket is restartable. That would not be necessary
for a strictly sub-orbital vehicle.

Dave

David Spain wrote:
Assuming of course, Lynx rocket is restartable. That would not be
necessary for a strictly sub-orbital vehicle.

Dave

I see it is:

http://www.xcor.com/products/engines...et_engine.html

Dave

In sci.space.shuttle message m-qdnbTwtP16hwjTnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.
com, Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:43:14, David Spain posted:

Brian Thorn wrote:
Virgin is overrated, I think. There isn't an obvious path from
SpaceShipTwo to orbital flight in my opinion, so they'll have to start
over. Lynx looks like a more robust, versatile, growable system to me.
Bigelow seems to be headed for mothballs.
Brian

From what I've seen on the XCor website, they are a little shy on the
TPS details. Not clear if Lynx TPS can handle orbital speeds.


With a maximum speed of about Mach 2 and an overall flight duration of
about half an hour (Wikipedia), it will scarcely need a TPS. Of course,
one does not need TPS for orbital speeds; only for re-entry and perhaps
some of ascent.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05.
Website http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

On Oct 13, 4:54*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.shuttle message m-qdnbTwtP16hwjTnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.
com, Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:43:14, David Spain posted:

Brian Thorn wrote:
Virgin is overrated, I think. There isn't an obvious path from
SpaceShipTwo to orbital flight in my opinion, so they'll have to start
over. Lynx looks like a more robust, versatile, growable system to me.
Bigelow seems to be headed for mothballs.
*Brian

From what I've seen on the XCor website, they are a little shy on the
TPS details. Not clear if Lynx TPS can handle orbital speeds.

With a maximum speed of about Mach 2 and an overall flight duration of
about half an hour (Wikipedia), it will scarcely need a TPS. *Of course,
one does not need TPS for orbital speeds; only for re-entry and perhaps
some of ascent.

--
*(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. * * * Turnpike v6.05.
*Website *http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
*PAS EXE etc. : http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see in 00index.htm
*Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

if nasa had planned on replacing one shuttle each X years with a new
model

imagine the improvements that could of been made over time......

On Oct 13, 4:54 pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.shuttle message m-qdnbTwtP16hwjTnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.
com, Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:43:14, David Spain posted:

Brian Thorn wrote:
Virgin is overrated, I think. There isn't an obvious path from
SpaceShipTwo to orbital flight in my opinion, so they'll have to start
over. Lynx looks like a more robust, versatile, growable system to me.
Bigelow seems to be headed for mothballs.
Brian

From what I've seen on the XCor website, they are a little shy on the
TPS details. Not clear if Lynx TPS can handle orbital speeds.

With a maximum speed of about Mach 2 and an overall flight duration of
about half an hour (Wikipedia), it will scarcely need a TPS. Of course,
one does not need TPS for orbital speeds; only for re-entry and perhaps
some of ascent.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK.
Turnpike v6.05.
Website http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links,
acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see in
00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm
etc.

if nasa had planned on replacing one shuttle each X years with a new
model

imagine the improvements that could of been made over time......

And the additional costs and overhead of a mixed fleet. Note that NASA
basically had this option after Challenger, and opted not to go with a
vastly newer model for that reason.





--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:47:02 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote:

Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

And the additional costs and overhead of a mixed fleet. Note that NASA
basically had this option after Challenger, and opted not to go with a
vastly newer model for that reason.


NASA has lived with somewhat different shuttles. Some with "outdoor"
airlock, some with it still within the crew cabin. Some with glass
cockpit, and some with the old one. Etc etc.

I doubt the internal vs. external airlock made much difference, since
it was still the same airlock. The glass cockpit upgrade was done
because they couldn't get spare parts any more for the '70s era design
cockpit, so NASA was running out of options and was forced to run a
mixed-fleet for a while. The issue isn't that it was impossible to
operate a mixed fleet, it was that it was expensive to do so. And NASA
didn't have the budget for it when it was trying to fly out the
Shuttle manifest and design/build a Space Station.

If you prevent evolution unless all orbiters can be upgraded at the same
time to keep commonality, then nothing will ever be improved.

They evolved and improved plenty, particularly the SSME. But NASA
didn't have an unlimited budget, and it couldn't afford the OV-201
class all at once, so it had to implement changes piecemeal. Changes
that an OV-201 class would have brought were probably titanium
structure, non-toxic OMS, electric APU, forward/aft OMS/RCS propellant
transfer, etc. Some of those were being discussed for the OV-101-class
right up until the loss of Columbia.

Note also that the piecemeal approach greatly reduces risk, as NASA
wasn't flying all those changes/upgrades for the first time on one
flight.

Brian