What if we were to design a NEW shuttle today?

(Hallerb) wrote in message ...
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?


Something like this.

"http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/iss/iss08/photo_10-16.html"
"http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/iss/iss07/progress-m-48/photo_08-27.html"
"http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/usp/yamal-200/photo_11-20.html"

- Ed Kyle

Hallerb wrote:

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


1) Newer technologies...make the shuttle lighter, fewer parts...more
modular in construction. It doesnt have to be pretty.
2) Replace the booster and external tank with a modernized but simple
heavy lift rocket.
3) Outsource the construction and Dont let it become a pet project of
the defense contractors.
4) pay attention to not just construction costs but upkeep costs.
It may pay to pay a little more upfront to avoid to avoid costly
maintenance.

In article ,
stephen voss wrote:

Hallerb wrote:

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.

Big difference in requirements between cargo-only and man-rated systems.

I susupect that you don't save anything by having a cargo version of a
man-rated launcher system; better to have two different launchers.

Time for Sea Dragon?

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


1) Newer technologies...make the shuttle lighter, fewer parts...more
modular in construction. It doesnt have to be pretty.
2) Replace the booster and external tank with a modernized but simple
heavy lift rocket.
3) Outsource the construction and Dont let it become a pet project of
the defense contractors.
4) pay attention to not just construction costs but upkeep costs.
It may pay to pay a little more upfront to avoid to avoid costly
maintenance.

Steve Hix wrote:

Big difference in requirements between cargo-only and man-rated systems.

I susupect that you don't save anything by having a cargo version of a
man-rated launcher system; better to have two different launchers.

Time for Sea Dragon?

I suspect a shuttle 'replacement' will be reached incrementally
from expendable launchers. The steps might be:

(1) Make the first stage reusable (and piloted).
(2) Make the second state reusable, but have a separate (and
non-recoverable) payload module. The second stage propellant
tank could possibly be reusable, or just the engines/guidance.
(3) Have a larger second stage with an internal payload bay.

This progression might stop early if later stages aren't worthwhile.

I doubt Sea Dragon makes sense until we need megatons of payload
in orbit.

Paul

In article ,
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:

Big difference in requirements between cargo-only and man-rated systems.

I susupect that you don't save anything by having a cargo version of a
man-rated launcher system; better to have two different launchers.

Time for Sea Dragon?

I suspect a shuttle 'replacement' will be reached incrementally
from expendable launchers. The steps might be:

(1) Make the first stage reusable (and piloted).
(2) Make the second state reusable, but have a separate (and
non-recoverable) payload module. The second stage propellant
tank could possibly be reusable, or just the engines/guidance.
(3) Have a larger second stage with an internal payload bay.

This progression might stop early if later stages aren't worthwhile.

I doubt Sea Dragon makes sense until we need megatons of payload
in orbit.

We don't? :}

The little Sea Dragon was rated for about 3M lbs thrust, which puts it
in, what, Titan-class payloads? (The big one is the interesting one; 80M
lbs. thrust class.)