Shuttle C with recoverable engines?

Has anyone considered a version of the shuttle C but where
the SMEs, pumps, and avionics, etc. are placed behind a
"small" heat shield and recovered from orbit?

The SRBs would be recovered as usual. The drop tank would be
expended, as usual. A payload canister would
replace the orbiter and be delivered to orbit. (Perhaps
to be handled by Parom.) The SMEs, pumps, and other
valuables would be packaged much like the Ares design
for Mars Direct but be recovered and reused.

Recovery systems would be smaller and less massive since less is to be
brought back. The cargo to orbit would
be larger since it all stays there.

On Dec 28, 10:47 am, wrote:
Has anyone considered a version of the shuttle C but where
the SMEs, pumps, and avionics, etc. are placed behind a
"small" heat shield and recovered from orbit?

The SRBs would be recovered as usual. The drop tank would be
expended, as usual. A payload canister would
replace the orbiter and be delivered to orbit. (Perhaps
to be handled by Parom.) The SMEs, pumps, and other
valuables would be packaged much like the Ares design
for Mars Direct but be recovered and reused.

Recovery systems would be smaller and less massive since less is to be
brought back. The cargo to orbit would
be larger since it all stays there.

That idea is as old as the shuttle

wrote in message
...
Has anyone considered a version of the shuttle C but where
the SMEs, pumps, and avionics, etc. are placed behind a
"small" heat shield and recovered from orbit?

The SRBs would be recovered as usual. The drop tank would be
expended, as usual. A payload canister would
replace the orbiter and be delivered to orbit. (Perhaps
to be handled by Parom.) The SMEs, pumps, and other
valuables would be packaged much like the Ares design
for Mars Direct but be recovered and reused.



Yes. Take a look at Dennis Jenkin's book "Space Shuttle" for a more
in-depth discussion.

But it's definitely been considered.

Too late now though. NASA seems hellbent on repeating the mistakes it
learned from the current shuttle and building a new boondoggle.


Recovery systems would be smaller and less massive since less is to be
brought back. The cargo to orbit would
be larger since it all stays there.



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Recovery systems would be smaller and less massive since less is to be
brought back. �The cargo to orbit would
be larger since it all stays there.

--
Greg Moore


yeah if the just removed most of the life support equiptement from the
existing shuttle it could lift more and quit being a death
risk......... for crew.

shuttle C should be built for large cargo hauling. elminate the
hydradizine and upgrade everythiung else can produce a nice versatile
cargo vehicle for heavy lifting and returning big stuff from orbit

On Dec 28, 4:15 pm, bob haller safety advocate
wrote:
Recovery systems would be smaller and less massive since less is to be
brought back. �The cargo to orbit would
be larger since it all stays there.

--
Greg Moore

yeah if the just removed most of the life support equiptement from the
existing shuttle it could lift more and quit being a death
risk......... for crew.


Let it go. It is no different than other vehicles

yeah if the just removed most of the life support equiptement from the
existing shuttle it could lift more and quit being a death
risk......... for crew.

Let it go. �It is no different than other vehicles

maybe not, converting to shuttle C fills a bunch of needs.

it continues the pork to existing contractors indefinetely

it has the unique ability to return large loads from orbit

it could continue servicing and upgrading ISS

it allows the existing workers to stay together untill and if a new
maned vehicle is available

it can haul very large loads

On Dec 28, 7:08 pm, bob haller safety advocate
wrote:


it has the unique ability to return large loads from orbit


No it doesn't. Shuttle-C has no wings. And there isn't any need to
return payloads.

There is no money to "upgrade" the ISS.

Inline is better than sidemount

I think what is really going to be needed is a way to take fairly large
'stuff' back to earth safely, myself.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


wrote in message
...
Has anyone considered a version of the shuttle C but where
the SMEs, pumps, and avionics, etc. are placed behind a
"small" heat shield and recovered from orbit?

The SRBs would be recovered as usual. The drop tank would be
expended, as usual. A payload canister would
replace the orbiter and be delivered to orbit. (Perhaps
to be handled by Parom.) The SMEs, pumps, and other
valuables would be packaged much like the Ares design
for Mars Direct but be recovered and reused.

Recovery systems would be smaller and less massive since less is to be
brought back. The cargo to orbit would
be larger since it all stays there.

On Dec 29, 4:11�am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
I think what is really going to be needed is a way to take fairly large
'stuff' back to earth safely, myself.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
�graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ _________________________�______________________ _____________

wrote in message

...



Has anyone considered a version of the shuttle C but where
the SMEs, pumps, and avionics, etc. are placed behind a
"small" heat shield and recovered from orbit?

The SRBs would be recovered as usual. �The drop tank would be
expended, as usual. �A payload canister would
replace the orbiter and be delivered to orbit. �(Perhaps
to be handled by Parom.) �The SMEs, pumps, and other
valuables would be packaged much like the Ares design
for Mars Direct but be recovered and reused.

Recovery systems would be smaller and less massive since less is to be
brought back. �The cargo to orbit would
be larger since it all stays there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

a shuttle C could be based on existing shuttle, using current shuttles
for cargo

On Dec 29, 8:41 am, bob haller safety advocate
wrote:


a shuttle C could be based on existing shuttle, using current shuttles
for cargo


Not viable. The current shuttles need a crew. The onorbit operations
of an orbiter are not automated. A substantial design of the avionics
would be required