|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?
Putting aside the budget for design and building Its job description would be
to do essentially what todays shuttle does, only at low cost. Lets assume a cargo ONLY variant for really heavy lifting. But the basic jobs would be the same. Taking as many as 10 astronauts to orbit. Payload bay similiar to todays vehicle. Lets add a nifty feature. A payload bay passenger pod for tourists Now low cost per poiund is essential. Just how could this be done? Please keep this friendly and fun. Its not going to happen but might be fun to discuss |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?
Dale writes:
If you want a reusable spaceplane at lower cost that's ready in less than 20 years, I think it would need to be very different than today's shuttle. No huge cargo bay, no SSMEs, and lifted into orbit with an expendable booster. Use the same booster to launch heavy cargo. At least that commonality might save a few bucks. I fear it won't save as much as you'd think. At the current price of getting to LEO, the demand is slipping badly. As a result, expendables in the US are going to be getting more expensive, not cheaper. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?
"jeff findley" wrote in message ... (Hallerb) writes: Please keep this friendly and fun. Its not going to happen but might be fun to discuss I fail to see why it's fun for you to start the same thread with the same flawed assumptions over and over, but maybe I'm the only one... Note, he didn't say it would be fun for anyone OTHER than him. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?
jeff findley wrote: (Hallerb) writes: Putting aside the budget for design and building Its job description would be to do essentially what todays shuttle does, only at low cost. Lets assume a cargo ONLY variant for really heavy lifting. But the basic jobs would be the same. Taking as many as 10 astronauts to orbit. Payload bay similiar to todays vehicle. Lets add a nifty feature. A payload bay passenger pod for tourists Now low cost per poiund is essential. Just how could this be done? By focusing on low cost per kg to LEO, not on a shuttle replacement. Just look at the developing OSP fiasco. It certainly isn't going to reduce the cost to get into LEO. Low cost per pound is the wrong criteria. A better one is the overall cost to accomplish the set of assigned missions. A very critical thing is to properly specify the set of missions and not try to make one vehicle do everything. For example: The Shuttle is both used to transport humans to and from orbit and to lift heavy payloads such as space station components. While a new Shuttle design might be able to do this in a more optimum manner, that range of capabilities makes a really cost efficient design very difficult. It also won't come by ignoring the R&D costs, as you propose. Look at the development of air transports starting with the Wright Brothers (and Langley). Low cost access to air travel wasn't developed by the government and it certainly wasn't developed by ignoring R&D costs. Well, a good case can be made that government R&D did result in the development of low cost air travel. The money spent developing both the C-135 ( Air Force version of the 707) and the C-5 transport were great helps in getting efficient jet transports into commercial service. Boeing developed the 707 basically on spec and hope but major funding came from the government refueling aircraft contract. Boeing didn't win the C-5 program but I believe they got considerable mileage from the R&D for their losing entry. Low cost access to air travel was helped along some by government research (not development of actual production aircraft), but it was helped more by the government buying services, like delivering the mail. The government buying more space related services is certainly helpful and they are doing this right now. I note that the government is becoming more and more dependent on space services but still hasn't shown much interest in developing low cost access to space for their own projects. Please keep this friendly and fun. Its not going to happen but might be fun to discuss I fail to see why it's fun for you to start the same thread with the same flawed assumptions over and over, but maybe I'm the only one... Jeff Discussing alternatives is frequently a good idea. The reason I have stayed away from many other threads is they have diverted from an original discussion into nasty back and forth remarks, frequently on completely unrelated subjects. I like the approach of outlining different approaches and trying to match them with each other, discussing pros and cons. Most of the people who discuss things in these newsgroups sound more like lawyers than engineers. U.S. law takes an adversary approach where each side tries to make its own case and refute that of their opponent. Mike Walsh |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?
On 02 Jan 2004 10:43:29 -0500, jeff findley
wrote: I fear it won't save as much as you'd think. At the current price of getting to LEO, the demand is slipping badly. As a result, expendables in the US are going to be getting more expensive, not cheaper. Will this make reusables any more attractive in the mid to long term? Of course, the US could reduce the price of launches in an attempt to increase demand. We don't seem to have any philosophical problem with subsidizing the companies that would be the customers (I live in Washington State, and we just gave Boeing a lot of costly concessions to bribe them into simply assembling the 7E7 here). But we no longer have much leverage in the LEO market- companies can go to other countries that offer cheaper services, just as Boeing can move to any state it wants to to save money- the only defense we had (since we still regard Boeing as "our" company) was to give away the farm. In the bigger picture, maybe this is the only defense the US has as well. Maybe Nixon was right- the 21st century will be China's century... Dale |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?
On 2 Jan 2004 16:39:35 GMT, Andrew Gray wrote:
The cheapest concievable way to design and provide something which is essentially a new copy of what we currently have would, presumably, be to set up a New Shuttle Office within NASA, get it to produce lots of new documentation, and then buy the existing three orbiters from another part of NASA. For added points, since this process will take about a year of marking time, you could repaint them and do up the upholstery while you wait. LOL- we've been doing this kind of "smoke and mirrors" thing with the budget for years. You may have to add some dingleballs around the windows and an 8-track deck to fool the majority of us, though Dale |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?
What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?
My idea was a first stage totally reflyable one. At low altitudes it would act lke a airliner and be a oversized 747. maybe 3 times the size of a normal 747. it would take off with jet engines and refuel along the way repeatedly to a high altitude. this way all the fuel wouldnt have to be onboard at take off. once at release altitude the rockets would be ignited and the speed increse dramatically. at actual peak altitude the first stage would detach and fly like a regular airliner back to ksc. the smaller orbiter with its own rocket engines would be ignited to put it in orbit. advantages, totally reusable. most of the flight gaining altitufe would be using regular jet engines, a well understood idea. the first stages push to orbit shouldnt need anything like the solids thrust since it would already be at what 100,000 feet? the orbiters rocket engines could be small since thire job would be only final orbit insertion. launch wouldnt be a fully loaded bomb. service of irst stage would be easier with it flying back ntact to ksc. with in flight refueling the vehicle could be flown to the equator for added weight to orbit capacity. a in flight failure prior to release wouldnt be so hazardous just fly to a landing site. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | October 6th 03 02:59 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |
Risks | Hallerb | Space Shuttle | 38 | July 26th 03 01:57 AM |
NYT: NASA Management Failings Are Linked to Shuttle Demise | Recom | Space Shuttle | 11 | July 14th 03 05:45 PM |