stork wrote:

I was all in favor of the CEV but I'm more inclined to push along on
the OSP approach. If, instead of the CEV, we were building a new class
of shuttle, what would some of the requirements be?

a) Capable of leaving LEO, comes to mind.


Why try to be all things to all people? Let an orbital transport be
that. Go on to the Moon in something else, (a'la 2001). The only way a
single vehicle could be justified is if it were already a VTVL, than
with orbital refueling, you may have something that could do quick and
dirty single ship flights.

Unless there's a useful atmosphere at the other end, or you have some
fantastic propulsion with enough energy to make it a non-issue, leave
your wings at LEO.


The shuttle we have now is huge and can theoretically stay in space
long enough to go to the moon and back.


And ISS can do so, long enough to get to Mars (well, with decent
propulsion)...which doesn't make it a Mars ship.


If we build a new one, have
it able to go farther into space? Couldn't we have a shuttle of
similar size but with more fuel in either the cargo bay


Then where does the cargo go?


or a previously
launched external tank to get this puppy to the moon? We could put the
lunar lander and lots of other stuff in the cargo bay. 10,000 lbs of
lunar ore ought to be enough for decent assays.


See my previous comments on dedicated space-only (rember the LEM?),
or Earth-launched VTVL.


b) Better thermal management

Obviously, the tiles have to go. But what to replace it with? A lunar
inbound shuttle would have to use a normal ablative heat shield because
it would be going that much faster, would it not?


And a one-piece ablative heat shield may be harder to replace for the
next flight, than tiles.


c) An onboard jet engine.

One pass at landing sucks.


That engine and fuel for same weighs something. You already want it
to be able to do to many things. Give up some of them for that powered
landing.


d) Horizontal landing, horizontal takeoff, horizontal processing. It
seems awefully complicated to pick up a 100 ton aircraft and put it on
its rear end, and then work on it at weird angle.


VTVL. And/or air-launched two-stage HTHL.


e) Easier turnaround stuff. It seems like every time they launch the
shuttle they practically have to take the whole thing apart and put it
together again.


Yes.


Finally

f) Instead of spending 3 billion dollars on a perfectly safe vehicle,
accept some losses at 1 billion a piece and pay the astronauts 20
million bucks a flight.

Do you want to build a reliable transportation infrastructure on that
logic?


--

You know what to remove, to reply....