Would a new version be a good idea? In my opinion, it would be a terrible idea, but compared to Ares it would be brilliant, and a very thrifty and cost-effective concept. Unfortunately, we’re unlikely to get any actual good ideas, given the politics.
25 thoughts on “Evolving Shuttle”
Comments are closed.
If the new version were Dream Chaser on Atlas V, it wouldn’t be too bad.
DIRECT lifter + X-37B follow on ?
Why would a new shuttle be a bad idea? I obviously went into my idea in some detail on the comments on the selenianboondocks.com/2009/10/why-derived/ article your refering to, but why would a shuttle in general be bad? It certainly would be better and cheaper then Ares/Orion (like that’s difficult!), for a commercial it shouldn’t be more costly then fielding ELV versions to do similar things. Given the Orbiters were cheaper to develop then the Apollo or Orion VM/SM, it should be a viable commercial option.
I was assuming that it would be a government program, to meet the political need of jobs for Marshall and other places. If it’s commercial, it’s not a “Shuttle.” It’s a commercial space transport.
So your complaint was against a NASA shuttle redev, vrs commercial launch? It sounded like you were against New shutle vrs Orion non Ares?
My complaint is with NASA being in the launch business. But if they’re going to be in the launch business, an evolved Shuttle would make more sense than Ares. At least it wouldn’t be a giant step backwards.
Actually, I ewonder what it would cost Boeing to commercially field a new shuttle derived shuttle? They have talking about under$16B to develop a all new 60 passenger Tourist RLV, and DC-X was penciled in at $5B. I wonder what a commercial developed new craft based on the current orbiter design would cost? If the current orbiter cost $17B to dev in current year dollars, a civilian program would be under $5B, and basing it around extensivly reworking the current orbiter design should save some costs?
>Rand Simberg Says:
> October 26th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
>
> My complaint is with NASA being in the launch business. ==
Yeah, that only makes some (non political) sence if they were fostering and field testing advanced designs. NASA using space programs to justify expensive launcher dev programs, that could only serve NASA — even for washington its lame.
>== But if they’re going to be in the launch business, an
> evolved Shuttle would make more sense than Ares. At least
> it wouldn’t be a giant step backwards.
BIG agree.
I don’t think switching to a new shuttle would work starting from now. By the time it could be fielded, commercial would be eating it’s lunch….and breakfast and supper.
Only compared to the current fiasco would that suggestion have made sense IF done in 2004-2005. Enough time has been lost by now that time to market is going to kill any of the derived systems.
>=
> Only compared to the current fiasco would that suggestion have
> made sense IF done in 2004-2005. Enough time has been lost
> by now that time to market is going to kill any of the derived systems.
Given how horid Ares Orion is, and how little of it thats worth anything couldn’t be transfered to a orbiter upgrade. Hell a lot of theOrion system I worked on were cut down versions of old orbiter upgrade (long duration orbiter) designs.
Given the first Ares or Orion isn’t expected to launch for 7-8 years, thats longer then the total shuttle program, at a fraction of the Ares/Orion program costs.
I hate spaceplanes. Many of the issues with STS come from the fact it has a spaceplane: side mount was selected because top mount with wings was found to not work in Dyna-Soar, leading to insulating tank foam falling on the orbiter during liftoff (Columbia accident). Even today X-37 is planned to be launched in Atlas V using a shroud. Orbital spaceplanes also require the use of fragile carbon-carbon on leading edges that a capsule has no need for.
I prefer TSTO VTVL concepts with serial staging. Perhaps when people get used to seeing Marine JSF and V-22 Osprey regularly in action powered landings be more acceptable to the general mindset.
>I hate spaceplanes. Many of the issues with STS come from the fact it has a spaceplane==
??
Ha?
None of the TPS issues are spaceplane related – ok, its being placed downwind of a ET that routinely sheds chunks of ICE the size of a cooler, does cause a lot of TPS issues. But it would also cause issues with non TPS covered wings. Other then that being winged lowers reentry temps, which makes it easier on TPS.
Compared to the Griffenschaft Aries, almost anything seems preferable if one assumes the money is going to be spent by congressional distric rather than best supplier.
Compared to the Griffenschaft Ares – everything else IS preferable. It should go down in history as the most ludicrous maned launcher developed, and Ares-I/Orion only will cost 25% more then the STS development program, take 30-40% longer to develop, and its built to lower quality and safety standards.
I’m disgusted by it!!
Rand, I tend to think it makes for an interesting alternative history, particularly when compared to what we have at this point. However, it is merely a counter-factual, rather than a true alternative at this point.
Its a lot like considering how things might have been different if Skylab 5 had been launched
>== merely a counter-factual, rather than a true alternative at this point.==
At this point I’d rate it equal with Ares/Orion as a viable choice. Obama can handwave off return to the moon completely and get applause from the dems. Extending shuttle supports the ISS extension, and costs a fraction of the Orion option – even the Orion / EELV option. I can’t see congress warming up to a all Soyuz, or all Dragon/Falcon, NASA maned space program. Congressman in areas geting shuttle money – would like to keep getting it. A new or refitted orbiter would quel the questions about Shuttle safty. It could be implemented faster then Orion Ares, and would be far safer.
I see it as a highly viable option.
I suggest nuclear rockets. You have a fission core, and you use the air as working fluid. No need to carry fuel or oxidizer. If you want to have it work in orbit, you do need to carry working fluid along, but it can be anything — water, astronaut piss, trash, tourists who’ve overstayed their visas, whatever.
And if you’re willing to pull the control rods out far enough, a fission reaction will give you pretty much arbitrary amounts of energy per gram. Efficient! Could make for some tricky precision control issues, but that’s what computers are for. Just make sure the programmers are the first to ride.
If I recall correctly, Rockwell offered to replace Challenger with two new shuttles for the price of one … IF NASA would let them alter the design to include late-’80s electronics and computers, redesign some of the components and subsystems for serviceability, and supply the documentation in electronic format only. NASA said no deal, they wanted all of the shuttles to be alike.
Also, I recall reading that Boeing floated a trial balloon *post-Columbia* about building new Shuttles with composites and ejectable crew compartment. Basically, a clean-sheet Shuttle, but one that would be flown in the same ET/SRBs arrangement and have the same exterior dimensions.
Kelly – it is a counter-factual – Jon Hare made that very clear. And its not viable for this very simple reason – none of the options in the Augustine report included something like this. The resulting plan must be derived from the various options that the Augustine committee reported. Yes, there is shuttle extention, but thats HARDLY the same thing as shuttle evolution.
As far as the Dems cheering about postponing returning to the moon – there isn’t exactly a clamor for it coming from the Republicans either. The only people who care about whether we go to the moon or not are those with space districts.
As far as shuttle extension costing less than Orion/EELV – thats not what Augustine said.
As far as Congress needing to warm to all Soyuz or all Dragon/Falcon – you are making the same mistakes that have been made in the past – its not all Dragon/Falcon – its whether its commercailly based, or whether its government contractor based
> Mike G in Corvallis Says:
> October 26th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
>
> If I recall correctly, Rockwell offered to replace Challenger with two
> new shuttles for the price of one … IF NASA would let them alter
> the design to include late-’80s electronics and computers, redesign
> some of the components and subsystems for serviceability, == NASA
> said no deal, they wanted all of the shuttles to be alike.
.
Didn’t hear that one, but given L/M and McD offered SSTO or 1+STO versions of Venturestar or DC-X, free ofcharge, developed in house, with assured 90+% cost reductions if NASA would agree to buy launches from them — adn NASA turned them down flat adn paid L/M a extra billion to just do the non functional X-33 in the 90’s. Not a big surprize.
.
New gen shuttles, cutcosts – hence jobs on the roll – alot.
.
> Alex Says:
> October 26th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
>
> Also, I recall reading that Boeing floated a trial balloon
> *post-Columbia* about building new Shuttles with composites
> and ejectable crew compartment. Basically, a clean-sheet Shuttle,==
.
I remember talking with a guy at NASA HQ in the mid 90’s who said they looked at a all composit shutle would be about 30% lighter. Using even newer coposite TPS, you might take another 20% off.
.
> Ferris Valyn Says:
> October 27th, 2009 at 2:59 am
>
> Kelly – == its not viable for this very simple reason – none of
> the options in the Augustine report included something like
> this. The resulting plan must be derived from the various options
> that the Augustine committee reported. ==
.
No, Washington can ignore them completely. As they did the last Augustine panel report, and which they already stated they were thinking of doing. The panel has no political power, they couldn’t even recommend anything – only create their list of options they could think of.
.
> As far as shuttle extension costing less than Orion/EELV – thats
> not what Augustine said.
.
Orion development cost projections are $20B, Assuming EELV integration and “man rating” is free, it still cost 20% more then the total development cost of the Orbiters, or half the total STS development in implementation costs.
It is true, Augustine has no intrinsic political power.
That said, can you point to someone who HAS political power, who is proposing something like this?
Congress critters are making noise about just flying the Shuttles longer, and funding bills explicitly prevented NASA from taking any actions that would preempt continuing shuttle operations. NASA ignored them and did it anyway – but given Congress and Senate explicitly voted to keep the shuttle option open, and are complaining about the massive NASA layoffs, shows those in power are considering extending shuttle.
.
As to if they are considering upgrading it – its been pointed out that parts of the orbiter are now unserviceable since the companies that made parts are out of business – so reworking it is to some seance necessary, and politically you’d need to make some show of dealing with safety issues. So if you decide to keep them going to 2015 or 2020 or something, you’ll need to refit and upgrade them. How far you upgrade… as cheap as it would be, they could go really crazy with that in the current NASA budgets. They could phrase it as “integrating in technology developed for Orion”?
I suggest nuclear rockets. You have a fission core, and you use the air as working fluid.
How can that work? Are you going to transfer heat from the nuclear core to air moving at hypersonic speed? Good luck with that. If not, you are going to slow the air to subsonic speed and melt the core from the heat of compression.
The only way I can see this working is a hybrid rocket/scramjet, where the reactor is used to superheat a propellant, which is then injected into the airstream for combustion. But you might as well just make a nuclear rocket and forget the airbreathing.
>>I suggest nuclear rockets. You have a fission core, and you
>>use the air as working fluid.
.
> How can that work? Are you going to transfer heat from the
> nuclear core to air moving at hypersonic speed? Good luck with that…
.
They built a working nuclear ramjet in the ’50’s for project pluto. So its tecniclally doable – but the nuclear fallout in iyts wake was hellish. I’m not sure if that couldbe fixed now, but yes its probably not worth the trouble to fix. Make a killer engine for Mars exploration though.
.
😉