Shuttle/ISS extended?

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Shuttle derived" is not limited to "uses the Orbiter". In fact, the
Orbiter is generally the first part to go.


A couple of weeks back is when you first started to hear about the side
cargo pod configuration instead of the vertically stacked (DIRECT) concept.
In short, this would be a Shuttle C redux, except on Shuttle C you were
supposed to have the SSMEs be retrievable from orbit after coming down
in a reentry pod.
If that gets dumped from the concept, then they had better go with the
RS-68, as even a simplified single-use SSME is going to be damned
expensive if used as a expendable part of the architecture.
In fact this could end up costing more per flight than the Shuttle - as
any savings in inspection and refurbishment after every flight will be
eaten up by the loss of the cargo pod and the engines.
The other problem is that once the ISS is decommissioned, the only other
use for this booster will be Moon missions or building another space
station, as it's too big for much else, just like the Saturn V (Congress
isn't going to spring for a Mars mission no matter how blue in the face
Buzz Aldrin gets).
It's even too big for the ISS mission, as the size of modules it could
carry would be a lot larger than the Shuttle can launch.
The booster just doesn't have a long-term rational use no matter how
quickly and cheaply it can be made.

Pat

hubble could still be retrieved and returned as long as shuttle is
still operational.

astronauts dont want to risk their lives to return a museum display.
frankly hubble should be sent to a much higher long stable orbit, for
history reasons in the future

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
news


Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
However it's brought back every Spacelab mission it's flown.


I don't know if those count though, as they were never released on-orbit
and then retrieved later, like other things were.
Does anyone know if they ever picked up a military payload and returned
that to Earth?

The question though was concerning what it had returned, not what it had
returned it didn't start with.

Point is, it returned heavy items quite a few times.



Pat



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

The question though was concerning what it had returned, not what it had
returned it didn't start with.

Point is, it returned heavy items quite a few times.


True.

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:

LDEF, SpaceHab, SpaceLab, the Hubble repair fixtures, the MPLM's, etc.
etc...

A while back we had a discussion in which the heaviest payload returned
was, but I can't remember which one it was or how much it weighed.
I do remember that how it could be positioned in the cargo bay was very
important due to CG concerns on return.

Pat

In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:

It's even too big for the ISS mission, as the size of modules it could
carry would be a lot larger than the Shuttle can launch.
The booster just doesn't have a long-term rational use no matter how
quickly and cheaply it can be made.

Is it time to trot-out SPS again then?-) (Solar Power Satellites)

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote:
Is it time to trot-out SPS again then?-) (Solar Power Satellites)


That thought did occur to me, but paradoxically, it's _too small_ for
that mission.
When they were discussing those things back in the 1970's-1980's the
boosters made the Nova rocket concepts look small.
One drawing I saw was of a gigantic Boeing SSTO used 20 F1 engines.
This was supposed to carry 500,000 into LEO.
The earlier NEXUS was sort of large also:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nexus.htm

"Fully recoverable, it would touch down in the ocean following a return
from orbit. Parachutes would slow its descent."

They don't say how many parachutes or how large they would be... but
I'll bet it's more than on the Apollo CM, and that they would be
slightly larger also.

"Retro-rockets, firing during the last seconds, would assure a gentle
landing."

Gentle...not quiet...but gentle.
Nearby (say 5-10 miles) surfers will get on their boards on hearing the
sound and ready for the incoming wave of displaced water. :-)

Pat

On Jul 29, 5:37�pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
Is it time to trot-out SPS again then?-) (Solar Power Satellites)

That thought did occur to me, but paradoxically, it's _too small_ for
that mission.
When they were discussing those things back in the 1970's-1980's the
boosters made the Nova rocket concepts look small.
One drawing I saw was of a gigantic Boeing SSTO used 20 F1 engines.
This was supposed to carry 500,000 into LEO.
The earlier NEXUS was sort of large also:http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nexus.htm

"Fully recoverable, it would touch down in the ocean following a return
from orbit. Parachutes would slow its descent."

They don't say how many parachutes or how large they would be... but
I'll bet it's more than on the Apollo CM, and that they would be
slightly larger also.

"Retro-rockets, firing during the last seconds, would assure a gentle
landing."

Gentle...not quiet...but gentle.
Nearby (say 5-10 miles) surfers will get on their boards on hearing the
sound and ready for the incoming wave of displaced water. :-)

Pat

looks like NASA STILL wanting to pay off existing shuttle
contractors by sticking with the higher operational cost shuttle
derived system. in a few years we will probably find out again why its
a bad idea.........

meanwhile expendables are available, added production would help
everyone, and man rating shouldnt be a killer cost. just add a
excellent launch boot escape system.

eventually private industry will have their own manned launcher at a
fraction of nasa cost.

the agency needs to realize that will likely kill the agency

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:10:47 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

A couple of weeks back is when you first started to hear about the side
cargo pod configuration instead of the vertically stacked (DIRECT) concept.
In short, this would be a Shuttle C redux, except on Shuttle C you were
supposed to have the SSMEs be retrievable from orbit after coming down
in a reentry pod.

Not in the final Shuttle-C proposals. The final Shuttle-C design,
which came very close to go-ahead in 1991 before dying of Space
Station overrun budget hijacking, used a very Shuttle-like,
non-recoverable boattail.

If that gets dumped from the concept, then they had better go with the
RS-68, as even a simplified single-use SSME is going to be damned
expensive if used as a expendable part of the architecture.

That's not true. SSME is very expensive primarily because not many had
to be built, being a reusable engine. Higher production rates should
cut the unit cost considerably. SSME will always be more expensive
than RS-68, but that higher price buys you a lighter, smaller,
regeneratively-cooled engine with better thrust/weight and much better
ISp, all of which buys you a smaller, lighter SDLV than a comparable
RS-68 SDLV (look at the Goliath that Ares V became once it dropped
SSME. Now they're reconsidering that switch.)

In fact this could end up costing more per flight than the Shuttle - as
any savings in inspection and refurbishment after every flight will be
eaten up by the loss of the cargo pod and the engines.

But the payload is so much greater than Shuttle's that it's highly
unlikely to be more expensive per flight than Shuttle.

The other problem is that once the ISS is decommissioned, the only other
use for this booster will be Moon missions or building another space
station, as it's too big for much else,

That's true of Orion, as well. Which is exactly why NASA pitched
Return to the Moon and not Mars First.

Brian

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:22:32 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

Surely, no one in their right mind would think that a shuttle derived
design made sense. If the shuttle proved anything, it was that a fragile
hypersonic glider with a long hot period during descent for the sake of
a high cross range and once round abort is not the way to go.

SDLV gets rid of the fragile, hypersonic glider and replaces it with a
throwaway cargo/engine pod.

"The shuttles can carry a far greater load into orbit than any other
rockets now in use,"

Only just - the Ariane 5 is not far behind.

Delta IV-Heavy is actually the runner-up, not Ariane V. If built,
Atlas V-Heavy and potential Delta IV-Heavy upgrades would exceed
Shuttle's payload capacity.

LEO payload capacity:

Shuttle: 55,000 lbs.
Delta IV-Heavy: 50,000 lbs.
Ariane V: 46,000 lbs.
Atlas V 551: 44,500 lbs.
Proton: 44,100 lbs.

The 1970s era Saturn V had
several times the payload to LEO.

The Shuttle propulsion system routinely places ~225,000 lbs. into low
earth orbit, its just that 180,000 lbs. of that is the Orbiter.
Replace the Orbiter with something lighter and more mass-efficient,
and you approach Saturn V-payload class.

"and can also bring heavy items back to the ground."

Never has though, has it?

Many times. Twenty-five Spacelab missions (20,000 lbs. or so each),
fifteen SpaceHab flights as standalone research and supplementary
cargo to Mir and ISS, eight MPLM cargo flights to ISS, LDEF, Palapa
and Westar, European Retrievable Carrier, Japan's Space Flying Unit,
and numerous small satellites launched and recovered on the same
mission (SPAS, SPARTAN, Wake Shield Facility) although none of them
were particularly large.

Brian