Possibilities with the Space Shuttle?
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
The vehicles would be mated together out near the pad at the integration facility. For the Falcon Heavy, SpaceX is planning vehicle integration out near pad LC39A and and placement on the strong-back. The strong back then rolls to the pad, up the concrete crawler way and is lifted vertically. The actual integration hangar for SpaceX will not be that far away from the pad. It is just at the foot of the crawler ramp. I can see your point that their is so much infranstructure investment at KSC for vertical integration. I just think it is interesting that despite all that investment SpaceX is still planning to do horizontal integration for Falcon Heavy on LC39A.
Their lease doesn't actually cover any of the VAB, and the Falcon was already designed for horizontal integration.
However, the short roll distance at both LC39A and LC40 comes at a cost--there's only an ability to prepare one LV at a time. In contrast, there was an ability to handle several Saturns at a time for LC39, and similar capacity for Titans in the LC40/41 of the old days. But again, you need a transporter capable of moving the vehicle, and a transition to vertical at the pad. The degree to which the vehicle is designed for operations has more to do with the eventual turnaround time than the specifics of the hangar and the transporter.
SpaceX demonstrated a 14-day pad turn around on LC40 last between Asia-sat 6 and CRS-4 last year (Well technically a 13-day turn around since the first launch opportunity for CRS-4 was a scrub). With that quick of turn around I don't think the ability to prepare one LV at a time is that big of constraint if you have the right LV.
Not so. NASA badly wanted the 65,000 pound payload capacity and 60x15 foot payload bay to support space station modules and pushed very hard to get those capabilities into the production vehicle, regardless of the Air Force's desires or interests. Although people blame many aspects of the orbiter on Air Force intervention, careful study of the history generally shows that those aspects were just as desired by NASA or were as much the result of outside constraints as Air Force pressure, particularly as most of the Air Force wasn't very enthusiastic about using the Orbiter and having to play second fiddle to NASA.
Another example is the move to a delta-winged orbiter, which is also often described as being the result of Air Force demands for higher cross-range. In reality, delta-winged orbiters had been studied from the beginning of the program, and whether a high cross-range or low cross-range orbiter was preferable had been a major subject of debate within NASA. Although Max Faget's preferred approach was a low cross-range straight-winged orbiter, this design had potentially severe aerothermal issues around the wing root due to the very complicated geometry in the area, so that delta-winged designs (with simpler wing-fuselage junctions) had less technical risk. It is likely that even if the Air Force hadn't been involved that NASA would have picked a delta-winged orbiter for this reason.
They have a second hangar where they can do individual core and second-stage checkout. (I'm not sure where it is at the moment, it used to be Hangar AO but IIRC the v1.1 core is too long for that now) and they were processing CRS-4 all the way through the week and a half of AsiaSat 6 delays as a result of the loss of F9R Dev-1. With two entire integration hangars instead of just near-site checkout, you can get the turnaround time between launches down even more, close to a week or days, and sustain that rate. Being further from the pad also has obvious implications in the worst case, and doesn't change the transport equation much. Traveling an extra half kilometer (the difference between the pad-to-hangar distance at Vandenberg and the equivalent distance at Orbital's Wallops facility, where they have two full integration cells) takes about 15 minutes at the thrilling speed of 2.5 mph. It's simply not a critical factor, and one aspect of SpaceX's operations I wish they'd change.
You make good points. I have always wondered about SpaceX's hangar being so close to the pad. Whenever I watch a launch I look at that hangar in camera view and think, "Damn that hangar is close if things go wrong." Of course it helps when your rocket has full engine out capability to make sure it doesn't come back down on pad.
Does that mean they moved the Falcon9v1.1 with Dragon full integrated to the hangar near the pad as one load? If SpaceX is going to get DOD loads they will have to demonstrate vertical integration.
I figure it's some combination of faster to build (SpaceX always seems to be in a hurry building new pads) and permits (a lot of the Cape is protected wetlands these days, making it challenging to build new footings as I understand). But yeah, it's rather scarily close.You make good points. I have always wondered about SpaceX's hangar being so close to the pad. Whenever I watch a launch I look at that hangar in camera view and think, "Damn that hangar is close if things go wrong." Of course it helps when your rocket has full engine out capability to make sure it doesn't come back down on pad.
Nope, they bring the core, second stage, and payload in separately and mate them in the hangar. Preparing the individual parts elsewhere speeds things up a bit, but the final integration requires the facilities of the hangar and transit requires lift onto the T/E for transport to the pad. It's one thing I wonder with for Falcon Heavy--there's going to be a lot longer integration time per launch for that, and having twin hangars would help even more there. I sort of wonder if that's why they put the Vandenberg hangar a bit further back from the pad--to let them run another hangar and access to the pad up next to it.
Of the payload, at least. Probably you'll see something like Delta IV--horizontal integration of most of it, then they crank it vertical and lift the payload and fairing on as a single unit, then roll back the tower for launch.
I haven't read the last batch of posts, so forgive me if this was already mentioned.
Assuming a better Shuttle, which would seem to require a set purpose (space station), timetables for operations, being launched atop a rocket with escape methods and procedures, better design and a gradual and evolving design which is tested and improves over time rather than NASA trying to go the most advanced route first:
What effect would this have on the prospect of civilian space travel? The Baby Boomer idea was that civilians traveling into space on some Pan Am rocket plane would be common by the year 2000. That did not come to pass. However, it seems that had the Shuttle program been better at innovating space plane design and all the technologies and procedures involved in common place, cheap and easy(/ier) space travel, that in turn would have gone into the private market and could have pushed the prospect of civilian space flight further along than in actual history.
Assuming a better Shuttle, which would seem to require a set purpose (space station), timetables for operations, being launched atop a rocket with escape methods and procedures, better design and a gradual and evolving design which is tested and improves over time rather than NASA trying to go the most advanced route first:
What effect would this have on the prospect of civilian space travel? The Baby Boomer idea was that civilians traveling into space on some Pan Am rocket plane would be common by the year 2000. That did not come to pass. However, it seems that had the Shuttle program been better at innovating space plane design and all the technologies and procedures involved in common place, cheap and easy(/ier) space travel, that in turn would have gone into the private market and could have pushed the prospect of civilian space flight further along than in actual history.
Archibald
Banned
Whatever the shuttle concept, it will remain a bloated monster.
The big issue is, whatever happens to the space shuttle, truth is that technology is not up the task of civilian space travel.
In short, technological state of the art prevents building a truly economical transporation system top orbit.
There are not many ways to build a Single Stage To Orbit vehicle.
- VentureStar (1997)
Couldn't be build because of an impossible mass fraction
- X-30 / NASP / Orient express (1986)
Couldn't be build because the scramjet never worked
- HOTOL (1986)
The engine cycle didn't worked (Skylon hopefully will solve the issue, but not before 2030 at best)
Beyond that are TSTOs, either the Kistler K-1 or Falcon 9R. They are not optimal for civilian space travel, however.
Last edited:
Perkeo
Banned
You don't need a Space Shuttle to build space stations. Saljut, Skylab, Mir and a large portion of the ISS WERE built without the Space Shuttle, and the ISS currently IS maintained without the Space Shuttle. Skylab couldn't be continued because the NASA at the time had no replacement for Apollo, but nothing required that successor beeing a Space Shuttle.
To my understanding, the Space Shuttle concept is based on two premises:
1) Reusable launch vehicles makes carrying a payload from into outer space more cost effective.
2) Reusable vehicles allow more launches than expendable launch vehicles.
IOTL, both assumptions turned out to be wrong. and it's very difficult to change that with today's - let alone with the 1970's - technology. Unless you can fulfil at least one of those premises, the Space Shuttle is simply an expensive mistake.
Therefore, I'm more interested in the possibilities without than with the Space Shuttle
To my understanding, the Space Shuttle concept is based on two premises:
1) Reusable launch vehicles makes carrying a payload from into outer space more cost effective.
2) Reusable vehicles allow more launches than expendable launch vehicles.
IOTL, both assumptions turned out to be wrong. and it's very difficult to change that with today's - let alone with the 1970's - technology. Unless you can fulfil at least one of those premises, the Space Shuttle is simply an expensive mistake.
Therefore, I'm more interested in the possibilities without than with the Space Shuttle
Archibald
Banned
The soviet build Mir using automated tugs. Kvant-1 used a sperate FGB tug, but all other moduls were build with an "integrated tug" - they had the docking and guidance system aboard and were autonomous. Once at Mir, they docked to the frontal, radial port of Salyut legacy (DOS-7 core).
Once docked they sprouted a robotic arm.
The arm fixed itself to the core. Then the module literally tilted by 90 degree on a hinge, docking to the lateral ports (the front, radial port was to remain free for Soyuz and Progress resupply ships).
NASA could have build its own FGB tug, perhaps using Lockheed Agena.
Once docked they sprouted a robotic arm.
The arm fixed itself to the core. Then the module literally tilted by 90 degree on a hinge, docking to the lateral ports (the front, radial port was to remain free for Soyuz and Progress resupply ships).
NASA could have build its own FGB tug, perhaps using Lockheed Agena.
The advancement of cheap civillian spaceflight depends a lot on the specifics of the Shuttle. If it's just an incrementally better Shuttle, with a mission cost closer to $250m than the $800m of OTL...well, even if you build a passenger module that fills the cargo bay and cram it full of 40 people, that's $5.2 million a ticket. There's maybe enough people to fill that cargo pod once, maybe twice per decade, but not much more. I'm not sure that civilian space travel would be substantially more achievable unless the cost of payload in LEO is closer to $500/kg (putting a ticket in the ~$77-200,000 range depending on the mass of vehicle per passenger), which might be achievable with a fully-reusable system, but requires a major leap in development over the OTL Shuttle--flyback boosters, an integrated fuel tank inside the Orbiter, etc.
Shy of demonstrating true and rapid reuse, there's not much Shuttle can do to significantly advance civilian spaceflight because shy of true and rapid reuse, there's no way for space to be cheap enough for anyone who couldn't afford to crash a Lamborghini and pay out the cost out of pocket to do it.
Alternately, just how bad can the Shuttle be? Could it be anymore craptastic than the OTL?
It can't be that worse than OTL. Otherwise the astronauts will refuse to fly it. They're willing to take risks, but they're not stupid.
Oh, you have got to be shitting me. Was that seriously considered? How did anyone think it could be a good idea?
i afraid yes, Rockwell dit proposed the "Breadbox" to NASA / USAF
the idea was to shorten the length the propose orbiter to minimal
i have no idea how the External tank and Booster configuration was on that Proposal
other mad proposals
replace the Solid booster by Liquid booster using Nitrogen tetroxide/Alumizine fuel
Alumizine was a mixture of 43% aluminum powder suspended in hydrazine with a gelling agent.
the aluminum powder would increase the combustion heat and thrust.
they discover that stuff was not stable as one of storage drums of Alumizine exploded by it self...
other proposal was by McDonnell Douglas
to use a Titan IIIL and four UA1205 solid rockets as booster to launch Orbiter
later they proposed to put five UA1207 solid rockets on Space shuttle external tank.
Archibald
Banned
More seriously, one of the worse shuttle proposal I've seen was one that used Titan III-L. Just imagine:
- four Solid Rocket Motors, each with seven segments thus six O-rings of Challenger fame, for a total of 24 O-rings.
- the Titan hypergolic core, enlarged with more engines and even more dangerous propellants
- on top of that, an external tank orbiter with the usual foam issues.
So much failure modes !
- four Solid Rocket Motors, each with seven segments thus six O-rings of Challenger fame, for a total of 24 O-rings.
- the Titan hypergolic core, enlarged with more engines and even more dangerous propellants
- on top of that, an external tank orbiter with the usual foam issues.
So much failure modes !
Wow! That's a really craptacular design. Is that even capable of stable flight? Or flight capable period?