A different direction after Challenger loss

On Feb 22, 9:12*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article b95168c8-6ef5-4089-9dd2-98e086e7b523
@e10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com, says...



perhaps one day privaate industry will build a shuttle version 2

If they do, it won't be *anything* like the space shuttle.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Arent they working on a smaller but similiar shuttle besides the
military version?

On Feb 20, 7:01*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article om,
says...











On 13-02-19 17:16, Jeff Findley wrote:

Essentially what you're proposing now sounds like a TSTO shuttle. *Many
possible configurations of the shuttle were examined before NASA settled
on the configuration we got, which is more of a 1.5 stage to orbit
vehicle.

Is it not possible that NASA settled on a big ass SSME first and then
added whatever else when needed ? Just wondering how sqewed their
decision making was and whether they truly looked at all possible
configuraions.

The impression I got was that they started off with a single stage
concept, built as big an engine as they could, and then realised they
needed boosters.

No, that's not the case.

SSME really isn't "big" in terms of thrust. *It's "only" about a 400k lb
thrust engine where the F-1A (mostly developed) would have been about
1,800k lb thrust. *The biggest LOX/LH2 engine "on the drawing board" in
the 60's would have been the M-1 1,200k lb thrust.

The SSME was about the biggest engine you could stuff in the aft section
of the shuttle design chosen. *In fact, it was optimized for a 1.5 stage
launch vehicle (operation from sea level to orbit), hence the shorter
nozzle, high combustion chamber pressure, and ability to throttle near
the end of its burn.

Well, if you want to get technical, a single F-1A could have fit
within the aft fuselage of the shuttle, though that means that engine
absolutely has to work all the time, because if it doesn't, there is
no RTLS, TAL, AOA, or ATO. You just take a plunge in the Atlantic.
-Mike

On Feb 18, 10:28*am, JF Mezei wrote:
On 13-02-18 11:54, Jeff Findley wrote:

Why would liquid boosters have made a difference? *The ET would still
have had SOFI on the outside due to its cryogenic propellants.

It is my understanding that SRBs generate a hell of a lot of noise and
vibration compared to liquid fueled engines.

So I was wondering if a significant reduction of vibration would have
reduced foam shedding.

Not really. If you want to see the same thing on the only other
comparable system; Buran/Energia (an all liquid propellant system)
which also had significant debris shedding on launch with shards of
sharp ice falling off, at least one of which struck Buran's port wing
tip right behind the RCC leading edge. If that ice had struck just
10-30 cm further forward, it would have put a good sized hole in the
RCC and the same thing that happened to Columbia would have happened
to Buran, only 15 years earlier. As it was, Buran lost three tiles in
that area, and suffered serious thermal damage to the airframe
underneath.

In fact, the problem could have been made *worse* as it's very likely
that liquid boosters would have been LOX/kerosene, which would have
introduced even more sources for ice and/or SOFI to be shed.

Would liquid boosters have changed the general shape of the stack ?
Longer ET *to accomodate storage of more LOX, with kerosene stored in
the booster itself ? Or would each booster have been self contained and
thus likely taller ? ( a taller one exposes more of the orbiter to
potential for foam shedding).

It depends on the design. The Energia boosters were modified Zenit
rockets, and they never reached higher than where the SRBs on STS did.
-Mike

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Feb 22, 9:12 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article b95168c8-6ef5-4089-9dd2-98e086e7b523
@e10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com, says...



perhaps one day privaate industry will build a shuttle version 2

If they do, it won't be *anything* like the space shuttle.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Arent they working on a smaller but similiar shuttle besides the
military version?


Umm, which military version?

And I assume you mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Feb 23, 10:47*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message
....

On Feb 22, 9:12 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article b95168c8-6ef5-4089-9dd2-98e086e7b523
@e10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com, says...

perhaps one day privaate industry will build a shuttle version 2

If they do, it won't be *anything* like the space shuttle.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Arent they working on a smaller but similiar shuttle besides the
military version?

Umm, which military version?

And I assume you mean:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser



--
Greg D. Moore * * * * * * * * *http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net

Theres that small scale X mini unmanned vehicle thats stayed in orbit
over a year.

then theres dreamchaser

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:18:30 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

Arent they working on a smaller but similiar shuttle besides the
military version?

No. Lots of speculation about a potential "X-37C" but so far
absolutely no indication Boeing or the Air Force plan to or even want
to build one.

Brian

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article dcdf2f03-ac1c-4cd5-ad69-
, says...

On January 28, 1986, challenger was lost after the O ring failure.

Now lets consider a different NASA path. it became all too clear the
shuttle had no launch boost escape.

So nasa still resumed flying but did a general shuttle redesign.

They moved away from the solids, and designed a compatible liquid
flyback booster with more power. One of the uses of more power was a
jettisonable crew compartment. giving the shuttle what it should of
never flown without, launch boost escape. Other redesigns would of
included elminating the APUs that used hydrazine. All those would be
great to have, and saved big bucks on processing. Eventually upgraded
TPS, going to blankets rather than individual tiles. Plus changes to
extend the shuttles life in orbit. Upgrading tires etc. Shuttle C
cargo would of been a natural outgrowth of the upgrades and a larger
more powerful flyback booster could of covered heavy lift

The costs of operation could of been cut enough to pay for the
upgrades. Plus perhaps additional new orbiters could be built slowly
over time. Keeping the design fresh. Older orbiters could of been
retired to museums as they were replaced.

The big mistake was freezing the basic design after challenger.

The shuttle could of been a safer much more capable vehicle if it
wasnt starved for cash......

NASA didn't have the tens of billions it would have required for the
"redesign" that you propose for an alternate history. Your premise is
invalid, so your alternate history is fantasy.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Jeff, what else would you expect from the bobbert? Lunacy such as this is
par for the course with him.

In article 2cb1df5f-8bd1-46d0-907f-ebcb3be75542
@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, says...

On Feb 22, 9:12*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article b95168c8-6ef5-4089-9dd2-98e086e7b523
@e10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com, says...



perhaps one day privaate industry will build a shuttle version 2

If they do, it won't be *anything* like the space shuttle.

Arent they working on a smaller but similiar shuttle besides the
military version?

No one anywhere on the planet is building a "shuttle version 2". No
orbital vehicle currently under development has any shuttle heritage,
except for the SLS, which is not an orbital vehicle (it's just a launch
vehicle whose upper stages are to be expendable, not reusable).

And no, the military X-37B is *nothing* like the space shuttle. Just
because the thing has wings and lands on a runway does not mean it's a
"shuttle version 2". It has nothing in common with the space shuttle
just as the Wright Flyer has nothing in common with a DC-3.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article 5e0a4295-bbd8-4ad7-91f0-0d5683463093
@xb8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, says...

On Feb 20, 7:01*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article om,
says...
On 13-02-19 17:16, Jeff Findley wrote:

Essentially what you're proposing now sounds like a TSTO shuttle. *Many
possible configurations of the shuttle were examined before NASA settled
on the configuration we got, which is more of a 1.5 stage to orbit
vehicle.

Is it not possible that NASA settled on a big ass SSME first and then
added whatever else when needed ? Just wondering how sqewed their
decision making was and whether they truly looked at all possible
configuraions.

The impression I got was that they started off with a single stage
concept, built as big an engine as they could, and then realised they
needed boosters.

No, that's not the case.

SSME really isn't "big" in terms of thrust. *It's "only" about a 400k lb
thrust engine where the F-1A (mostly developed) would have been about
1,800k lb thrust. *The biggest LOX/LH2 engine "on the drawing board" in
the 60's would have been the M-1 1,200k lb thrust.

The SSME was about the biggest engine you could stuff in the aft section
of the shuttle design chosen. *In fact, it was optimized for a 1.5 stage
launch vehicle (operation from sea level to orbit), hence the shorter
nozzle, high combustion chamber pressure, and ability to throttle near
the end of its burn.

Well, if you want to get technical, a single F-1A could have fit
within the aft fuselage of the shuttle, though that means that engine
absolutely has to work all the time, because if it doesn't, there is
no RTLS, TAL, AOA, or ATO. You just take a plunge in the Atlantic.

True, but the F-1A was not considered suitable as an upper stage engine.
NASA had a serious love affair with LOX/LH2 engines at that time. So
much so, that F-1A development was abandoned.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article 3dfd7c9e-c899-46b1-834d-6b091942c318@
7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com, says...

On Feb 23, 10:47*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message
...

On Feb 22, 9:12 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article b95168c8-6ef5-4089-9dd2-98e086e7b523
@e10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com, says...

perhaps one day privaate industry will build a shuttle version 2

If they do, it won't be *anything* like the space shuttle.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Arent they working on a smaller but similiar shuttle besides the
military version?

Umm, which military version?

And I assume you mean:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser



--
Greg D. Moore * * * * * * * * *http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net

Theres that small scale X mini unmanned vehicle thats stayed in orbit
over a year.

then theres dreamchaser

No one should be surprised that you think these are "shuttle version 2"
vehicles since you can't remember their names, let alone any technical
details. If you did, you'd know that these bear no resemblance to the
space shuttle. More specifically, they really have no common hardware.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer