AHQ: Shuttle II?

In the late '80s and mid '90s there were several proposals to replace the Space Shuttles with a new, follow-on program incorporating "lessons learned" to (hopefully) achieve the initial goals of the Shuttle program (cheap, reliable space access). (eg., this Langley proposal, X-33, or OSP, all of which had their own approaches) So, the question here is how that could be achieved for real, preferably prior to the *Columbia accident, and what effects having a Shuttle II program started by, say, the late 1990s might have. It seems that it might be interesting if the program is started and going well (ie., not failing terribly like X-33, however unlikely that might seem) when a *Columbia-style disaster hits.
 
If I remember correctly the issue with the SSTO X-33 was with the materials. To make the cargo/passenger fraction of the plane/craft viable the H2 tank had to be made of super strong/light composites and/or alloys. They weren't able to get this right.
Now this does not mean the X-33 failed horribly, they just missed the point where technology and 'money to spend' meet. I think if the money would have been kept flowing to the X-33 project to push past the obstacles (time=money and thats the only solution for the issue, more time for research and testing) I think the program may have been in advanced testing stages at the point of the 'Columbia' incident. Remember that the X-33 was a proof of concept, only meant to go to 100kms up. The follow on craft would have been the real SSTO monster.
Lockheed Martin it seems are continuing to dabble in this project but the liquid H2 tank continues to be an issue.
 
Best bet is if they didn't try for a SSTO, as that's just tough, really tough.

Something like the X-33 with reusable boosters might have worked...
 
I like the reusable booster idea but I think there is a better way.

This is the way I see SSTO* working. You take off horizontal, and with just enough fuel to takeoff and get to refueling altitude. Once airborne the spaceplane can carry more, airborne tankers come in and top it up then the pilot firewalls the throttles and points the nose up. You'd need jets and rockets or some kind of combined cycle engine... RB545?? ...but taking off light and adding fuel further up might make it a bit easier.
 
I like the reusable booster idea but I think there is a better way.

This is the way I see SSTO* working. You take off horizontal, and with just enough fuel to takeoff and get to refueling altitude. Once airborne the spaceplane can carry more, airborne tankers come in and top it up then the pilot firewalls the throttles and points the nose up. You'd need jets and rockets or some kind of combined cycle engine... RB545?? ...but taking off light and adding fuel further up might make it a bit easier.

That's been discussed (Dark Horse, I think). Mid-air refueling of rocket fuel, particularly if it's cryogenic, is a MAJOR technical challenge. And mid-air refueling with one vehicle flying on rockets! (Using both jet and rocket engines would increase weight a lot.) Not saying impossible but...not necessarily cheaper or easier than other suggestions.
 
That's been discussed (Dark Horse, I think). Mid-air refueling of rocket fuel, particularly if it's cryogenic, is a MAJOR technical challenge. And mid-air refueling with one vehicle flying on rockets! (Using both jet and rocket engines would increase weight a lot.) Not saying impossible but...not necessarily cheaper or easier than other suggestions.
1) Black Horse
2) that project involved non-cryogenic fuels (Kerosene and H2O2)
3) payload to LEO was <1tonne, fuel to be transferred was about ?half? a modern aerial tanker's total load (i.e. scaling to useful sizes would involve possibly dozens of tankers)
4) H2O2 :confused: OK, so it's non-cryogenic, but it's a disaster waiting to happen. Cf HMS Exploder (officially Explorer, the RN's Walther cycle sub); Kursk sub explosions, etc.
 
1) Black Horse
2) that project involved non-cryogenic fuels (Kerosene and H2O2)
3) payload to LEO was <1tonne, fuel to be transferred was about ?half? a modern aerial tanker's total load (i.e. scaling to useful sizes would involve possibly dozens of tankers)
4) H2O2 :confused: OK, so it's non-cryogenic, but it's a disaster waiting to happen. Cf HMS Exploder (officially Explorer, the RN's Walther cycle sub); Kursk sub explosions, etc.

It depends on if you use a violently corrosive & hypergolic mix of chemicals such as C-Stoff (which was a mix of Methanol, Hydrazine & Potassium Cuprocyanide) to decompose the H202, as the Walter Cycle engines used by Nazi Germany did, or use a silver gauze to do the above, as the Blue Steel missile, & the Black Arrow satellite launcher used in their engines...
 
Top