Is there any way to leverage the SSME and SRB technologies?

Is there any way to reuse the SSMEs and/or SRBs for
future design launchers? It seems like a shame to just
chuck them, especially the SSMEs now that they seem
fairly robust and reliable, and start over again.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

JazzMan wrote in
:

Is there any way to reuse the SSMEs and/or SRBs for
future design launchers? It seems like a shame to just
chuck them, especially the SSMEs now that they seem
fairly robust and reliable, and start over again.

You must be new here.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:

JazzMan wrote in
:

Is there any way to reuse the SSMEs and/or SRBs for
future design launchers? It seems like a shame to just
chuck them, especially the SSMEs now that they seem
fairly robust and reliable, and start over again.

You must be new here.

--Damon

I see a lot of people arguing both sides of the technology
questions, such that they are, but near as I can tell there
aren't any "real, concrete, get it done" plans for using
any of the actual shuttle technology for future designs. It
seems to my uneducated mind that it would be fairly simple
to reuse the SSME's and SRBs for heavy lift designs which is
what I think we still need. That's why I'm asking, are there
any "real" plans to reuse the SSMEs and SRBs?

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:07:53 -0500, JazzMan
wrote:

Is there any way to reuse the SSMEs and/or SRBs for
future design launchers? It seems like a shame to just
chuck them, especially the SSMEs now that they seem
fairly robust and reliable, and start over again.

Yes. The issue currently being argued is whether that's the best way
to get there. This way will likely have lower development costs but
higher operating costs.

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/default.htm

Other methods include using existing Atlas 5 and Delta IV launchers,
modified to various degrees, or paying new startup companies to get
the astronauts and hardware into orbit and leaving NASA to the
business of landing them on the moon.

Brian

JazzMan wrote in
:

Damon Hill wrote:

JazzMan wrote in
:

Is there any way to reuse the SSMEs and/or SRBs for
future design launchers? It seems like a shame to just
chuck them, especially the SSMEs now that they seem
fairly robust and reliable, and start over again.

You must be new here.

--Damon

I see a lot of people arguing both sides of the technology
questions, such that they are, but near as I can tell there
aren't any "real, concrete, get it done" plans for using
any of the actual shuttle technology for future designs. It
seems to my uneducated mind that it would be fairly simple
to reuse the SSME's and SRBs for heavy lift designs which is
what I think we still need. That's why I'm asking, are there
any "real" plans to reuse the SSMEs and SRBs?

Apparently NASA, and only NASA, does have such "proposed" plans.
Nobody else does, mostly because the parts are rather expensive
and/or overrated for any other realistic use. The SSME is way
too expensive to be used in an expendible rocket, the SRBs are
just too big for any commercial launch vehicle.

Even inside NASA's plans, I have some doubts about the SSME's
future because it's so expensive to be used once and thrown
away. Perhaps a lower-cost engine partially based on SSME
technology might someday emerge.

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_space_cobra.asp

Using leftover SSMEs from the Shuttle program could get NASA's
future manned flight programs going. For a while. After that?

--Damon

"JazzMan" wrote in message
...
Is there any way to reuse the SSMEs and/or SRBs for
future design launchers? It seems like a shame to just
chuck them, especially the SSMEs now that they seem
fairly robust and reliable, and start over again.

You must be hiding under a rock. That's exactly what ATK (the manufacturer
of the SRB) has been pushing for quite some time. Unfortunately, it looks
like NASA may choose this path.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"JazzMan" wrote in message
...
I see a lot of people arguing both sides of the technology
questions, such that they are, but near as I can tell there
aren't any "real, concrete, get it done" plans for using
any of the actual shuttle technology for future designs. It
seems to my uneducated mind that it would be fairly simple
to reuse the SSME's and SRBs for heavy lift designs which is
what I think we still need. That's why I'm asking, are there
any "real" plans to reuse the SSMEs and SRBs?

ATK's proposals are as real as they get. Certainly development work will be
involved, especially for the upper stage for "the stick", the 5 segment SRB,
the stretched ET, and the new inline ET/SSME derived stage, but pretty much
all of the tooling for the SRB and ET could be used to manufacture these new
designs. There would certainly need to be mods made to the MLP and the
fixed launch tower to accommodate "the stick" and later SRB/ET designs, but
the initial Shuttle-C like design wouldn't require as many mods.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
6...
Apparently NASA, and only NASA, does have such "proposed" plans.

Actually, much of the push for shuttle derived vehicles is coming out of
ATK, which is the contractor which builds the SRB's for the shuttle. In
other words, they want to keep their big, fat contract to build SRB's even
after the shuttle program ends.

Using leftover SSMEs from the Shuttle program could get NASA's
future manned flight programs going. For a while. After that?

After that you either come up with ways to recover and reuse them (a mock-up
of a recoverable SSME "boat tail" has been drop tested in water), or you
keep building new ones and throwing them away, which is an expensive
proposition.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the shuttle ET (or stages derived from it)
could easily be made recoverable. About the best I'd expect NASA to do
would be to recover the SSME's and the avionics in a recoverable "boat
tail".

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

JazzMan wrote:

I see a lot of people arguing both sides of the technology
questions, such that they are, but near as I can tell there
aren't any "real, concrete, get it done" plans for using
any of the actual shuttle technology for future designs. It
seems to my uneducated mind that it would be fairly simple
to reuse the SSME's and SRBs for heavy lift designs which is
what I think we still need. That's why I'm asking, are there
any "real" plans to reuse the SSMEs and SRBs?

Word is that NASA will have something to say about
this soon, perhaps in early July. That is when
the Griffin-appointed "Exploration Systems
Architecture Study" team, headed by Dr. Douglas
Stanley will complete its top-down CEV program
assessment. We will probably hear about launch
vehicles, mission architectures (lunar surface
versus earth orbit rendezvous, etc), and the
modified CEV requirements. Then, assuming Congress
doesn't choke on these plans, NASA will start
putting out RFPs and the winner-take-all mother
of all aerospace competitions will be underway.

- Ed Kyle

"Jeff Findley" wrote in
:


"Damon Hill" wrote in message
6...

Using leftover SSMEs from the Shuttle program could get NASA's
future manned flight programs going. For a while. After that?

After that you either come up with ways to recover and reuse them (a
mock-up of a recoverable SSME "boat tail" has been drop tested in
water), or you keep building new ones and throwing them away, which is
an expensive proposition.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the shuttle ET (or stages derived
from it) could easily be made recoverable. About the best I'd expect
NASA to do would be to recover the SSME's and the avionics in a
recoverable "boat tail".

If SDV is inflicted on us I hope a recoverable propulsion package for
the heavy launcher will be developed, but I really wonder if the effort
will ever be made. National space policy has had a long history of
being short-sighted and pulling back and out after a half-hearted
effort.

--Damon