A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 2nd 04, 06:33 AM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #3  
Old January 2nd 04, 04:41 PM
jeff findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?

(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.

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.

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.

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
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
  #4  
Old January 2nd 04, 04:43 PM
jeff findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #7  
Old January 2nd 04, 08:14 PM
Michael Walsh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 04, 12:49 PM
Dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 04, 01:08 PM
Dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 04, 03:15 PM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.