A different direction after Challenger loss

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

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.

And if they did, no one, besides Bob, would call it a "shuttle version
2" since it has nothing in common with 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

On Feb 25, 9:03*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...



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.

And if they did, no one, besides Bob, would call it a "shuttle version
2" since it has nothing in common with the space shuttle.

Jeff

well they are using the knowledge of lessons from the shuttle in their
design, like ability to remain in orbit over a year, presumably
electrical controlled flaps etc. and TPS bankets rather than
individual tiles, just to name a few.

The shuttle is a static museum display but has taught us a lot,

In article addef52f-fbb2-448f-b205-fb95ff45bab8
@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, says...

On Feb 25, 9:03*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:18:30 -0800 (PST), bob haller hall...
@aol.com
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.

And if they did, no one, besides Bob, would call it a "shuttle version
2" since it has nothing in common with the space shuttle.

well they are using the knowledge of lessons from the shuttle in their
design, like ability to remain in orbit over a year, presumably
electrical controlled flaps etc. and TPS bankets rather than
individual tiles, just to name a few.

In other words, it is different than the space shuttle in almost every
fundamental way other than the fact it has wings and lands on a runway
at the end of its mission.

Sorry Bob, but things that are different just aren't the same, no matter
how much you squint your eyes or contort your thinking.

The shuttle is a static museum display but has taught us a lot,

Sure, if you mean it taught us how *not* to design a reusable orbital
vehicle. Because of this, no follow-on vehicle currently flying or in
development bears *any* resemblance to the space shuttle. Calling any
of them "shuttle version 2" is just stupid.

Here is a historic example: Gemini started as Mercury Mark II and
planned to use as much of the design as possible. But, the differences
in the design grew so large that the name did not stick and it was
called Gemini instead.

In the case of today's orbital "spaceplanes", they didn't even start out
as "shuttle version 2", so there is even *less* reason to call them by
that name. The only orbital spaceplane which did bear a resemblance was
the Russian Buran design, and we all know how "well" that program ended
up.

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 om,
says...

On 13-02-25 08:59, Jeff Findley wrote:

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.

What do those X vehicles use for heat shields ?

Newer materials not found on the space shuttle.

NASA Ames Wins Invention of the Year Award for X-37B Heat Shield
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/2...ins-invention-
year-award-x-37b-heat-shield/

From above:
Toughened Uni-piece Fibrous Reinforced Oxidation-Resistant
Composite (TUFROC), a low-cost, lightweight, two-piece,
thermal protection system (TPS) for use on space vehicles
during atmospheric re-entry at hypersonic speed. TUFROC, a
patented technology invented by David A. Stewart and Daniel
B. Leiser of Ames, has been successfully demonstrated on
the X-37B Reusable Launch Vehicle.

Wouldn't Shuttle flights have provided empirical evidence to support
aerodynamic theories for re-entry at very high speeds ? I realise that
the X vehicles are more "flying body" than "delta winged plane", but
surely they benefitted from some of the data collected by shuttle during
re-entry ?

Much in the same way that practical aircraft benefited from the first
flight of the Wright Flyer. But follow-on aircraft bore little
resemblance to the original Wright Flyer (except for a handful of
aircraft designs).

What we're seeing in spaceflight isn't the emergence of "space shuttle
version 2", but completely different designs.

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 m,
says...

On 13-02-25 09:22, Jeff Findley wrote:

In other words, it is different than the space shuttle in almost every
fundamental way other than the fact it has wings and lands on a runway
at the end of its mission.

While the vehicle may be different in design, can one not argue that it
is similar in mission/function ? (liftoff on a rocket, re-enter as a
flying body instead of ballistic, and then glide to a runway and land on
wheels).

Sure, but I wouldn't call it "space shuttle version 2" like Bob is
trying to do.

Cars being built today bear little resemblance to Model T, but they
are
from that heritage and perform similar functions.

And the Shuttle was the model T of re-usable space planes. It is quite
normal that a new space plabe built 35 years later would benefit from
huge advances in aerodynamics, computers and materials and would be
significantly different. But that doesn't mean that they don't share
anything at all in terms of the basic principles of a reusable space plane.

But very few (none?) would ever be called "Model T version 2".

The space shuttle is dead. The only vehicle like it was Buran and that
program died after its one and only orbital flight.

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

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:54:44 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:

No
orbital vehicle currently under development has any shuttle heritage,

Not completely true. Orion will use surplus Shuttle OMS engines, even
in the new ESA-supplied Service Module.

Brian

In article m,
says...

On 13-02-25 14:54, Jeff Findley wrote:

NASA Ames Wins Invention of the Year Award for X-37B Heat Shield
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/2...ins-invention-
year-award-x-37b-heat-shield/

Cool. So, in a hypothetical scenario where NASA would build Shuttle
V2.0, would they likely use this new heat shield technology ?

And forgetting realities of budgets etc for a second, could NASA have
retrofitted Shuttle V1.0's tiles with this material ? Would this have
been capable of handling the heat load of the belly tiles , or only be
able to replace the blankets in the less extreme portions of orbiter ?

Could this be used on SpaceX's Dragon ?

Not sure if that material would make sense for Dragon (I'm not a
materials guy, I majored in dynamics and control with a minor in
structures).

Dragon uses its own version of PICA, if memory serves. PICA is yet
another heat shield material developed by NASA Ames.

NASA Ames Helps Re-enter the Dragon
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/comm...eatshield.html

So yet again, the space shuttle heat shield technology has been
leapfrogged by something else newer.

I am asking this in a context where I an curious whether this is a very
narrow field of application and works for a small unmanned vehicle which
I assume has greater G load during re-entry and thus shorter hot phase,
or whether this new material is a true replacement for the older tile
technology.


What we're seeing in spaceflight isn't the emergence of "space shuttle
version 2", but completely different designs.

A vehicle can still be a generic shuttle class vehicle even if it has
nothing to do with the NASA Space Shuttle V1.0 vehicle.

The space shuttle is a large delta-winged vehicle that carries its main
engines to orbit, but does not carry the tanks for those engines to
orbit. In conjunction with the solids, it's a stage and a half design.
Nothing today resembles it, so I'd hesitate to call anything else a
"space shuttle".

In other words, a "shuttle" can be viewed as any vehicle that is
reusable and can land on a runway to allow for frequent flights.

Perhaps, much in the same way that both the DC-3 and Wright Flyer are
both aircraft. But no one in their right mind would call the DC-3 by a
name that contains "Wright Flyer" in it as they have absolutely nothing
in common besides being aircraft.

X-37B is not "space shuttle version 2", as Bob asserts. It shares
*nothing* in common with the space shuttle besides landing on a runway
at the end of its mission.

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 om,
says...

On 13-02-26 08:38, Jeff Findley wrote:
X-37B is not "space shuttle version 2", as Bob asserts. It shares
*nothing* in common with the space shuttle besides landing on a runway
at the end of its mission.

Lets assume for a minute that the X37 programme would have lead to Nasa
designing a successor to the Space Shuttle. (manned ship with some cargo
capability).

Space Shuttle V1.0 heritage would have started to show onto the new one
(Canadarm, ECLSS and fuel cells, toilet, some of the manoeuvring
software, perhaps the cargo holding latches etc.

And if the X37 were scaled up to Space Shuttle size, it is possible that
orbital systems like OMS and thruster designs could have been taken from
the Shuttle since the ones for the X37 test vehicles would have been too
small.

And while it may or may not make sense, NASA might have wanted to re-use
the pad structures as much as possible which may have led to the new
shuttle staying at pad for long times to load cargo etc via a modified RSS.

or perhaps they would have redesigned the flow so that all is loaded in
the VAB and stack moved to pad the day before launch.

We can only speculate since this hasn't and isn't likely to happen. But
when you look at the failed CEV thing, NASA wanted to re-use PAD 39. So
it is likely that for a scaled up X37, it would want to do the same.

Possibly, but *none* of the above fits with the (then) goals of
traveling far beyond LEO. All of those pointy bits on a winged vehicle
(nose, wing leading edges, and tail leading edges) make for very hot
regions on reentry. It's bad enough keeping those bits cool on a LEO
reentry.

Capsules are a much better choice for reentry at the very high
velocities which would be encountered on a far beyond LEO mission.

No, an X-37B follow-on, shuttle-like, vehicle makes much more sense for
the military than it does for today's NASA. And if the military does
this, I think it's even less likely they'll use shuttle heritage
components. They've got their own experience with hardware used on
their own launch vehicles and satellites. They're more likely to use
what they know than to pull in shuttle 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

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 13-02-27 09:13, Jeff Findley wrote:

Possibly, but *none* of the above fits with the (then) goals of
traveling far beyond LEO.

While JJ Abrams rewrote future history in 2009 by having the enterprise
built on an IOWA farm, the big star ships will most likely be built in
orbit, not on the ground. Same as the ISS which was assembled in orbit,
not on the ground.

Never liked that part of the movie, but he had a good point. If you have a
ship capable of warp and other things, taking off from the ground should be
trivial.



But the military doesn't have much of an interest in manned space
flight, do they ?


Oh they have lots of interest, but no justification.





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

In article om,
says...

On 13-02-27 09:13, Jeff Findley wrote:
Possibly, but *none* of the above fits with the (then) goals of
traveling far beyond LEO.

While JJ Abrams rewrote future history in 2009 by having the enterprise
built on an IOWA farm, the big star ships will most likely be built in
orbit, not on the ground. Same as the ISS which was assembled in orbit,
not on the ground.

And to assemble large structures in orbit, you need launchers that can
do frequent trips.

You need up-mass.

A space plane may not be well suited for re-entry from outer space, but
to act as a shuttle between ground and the assembly site in LEO orbit,
it works well.

The *down-mass* "requirement" just isn't there. ISS is still running
just fine without the huge down-mass capability of the shuttle.
Building and assembling structures in space requires *up-mass*, not
down-mass.

In other words, a space plane should be seen as a tool to assemble an
expedition ship just as a dump truck is a tool needed to help dig
foundations for a skyscraper.

A space plane is not *needed* to do the things you're talking about. It
might be "nice to have", but it is not *necessary*.

Capsules are a much better choice for reentry at the very high
velocities which would be encountered on a far beyond LEO mission.

But capsules aren't exactly very capable of bringing people back from
the planet to rejoin the expedition ship for the trip back to earth.

B.S. If you need a bigger capsule, build a bigger capsule. The fact is
that there is currently no hard requirement for large down-mass from
space. The requirement is to get people, and some cargo, back. Dragon
fits that bill for ISS just fine.

No, an X-37B follow-on, shuttle-like, vehicle makes much more sense for
the military than it does for today's NASA. And if the military does
this, I think it's even less likely they'll use shuttle heritage
components.

But the military doesn't have much of an interest in manned space
flight, do they ?

Never enough to fund it, which is why they're having so much fun with
the unmanned X-37B.

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