Reality Check: Could NASA build Shuttle like Energia/Buran ?

[Michel Van]

Like title say:

The STS:
Four - six Booster with one F-1A engine
Core stage like OTL
Orbiter like OTL but no SSME it got five J-2S

The Engines are reused ten times
The Rocket could launch also Unmanned large Cargo pods like Energia Rocket
On reusability the Boosters could land with parachute and airbags in atlantic ocean
Or have swinging out wings and land on runway at KSC.

it's feasible concept, but how convince NASA & politics to build this in 1970s ?

 

[Nik]

IIRC, it was one of the zillion options considered. Snag was OTL's design was meant as 'one size fits all', able to hoist long hab modules for NASA, those REALLY BIG spy satellites for the TLAs and BIG, JUICY upper stages to boost space probes.

Sadly, the design turned out to be a 'bridge too far'. The 'modular' heat-shield became a maintenance nightmare. The original fuel tank insulation was frothed with CFCs, which was then banned, leading to a less efficient and more brittle 'Plan-B'. The program ran so late that those paranoid TLAs went back to 'trad' rockets. Oh, and NASA decided carrying a 'live' upper stage internally was unwise...

Had the Shuttle been *designed* to fly beside 'trad' rockets, as actually happened, it would have been rather shorter and lighter, with a much smaller payload bay and significantly lower wing-loading, allowing easier heat-shielding. Think 'X-37' writ larger...

And, yes, bringing the wondrous SSMEs back as a heat-shielded, parachuted, air-bagged pod would not just have been viable, but the core of a versatile 'cargo' launcher.
{Weep}

 

[Michel Van]

Nik,
The Modular bricks Heat shield almost killed the Shuttle project in 1978 !
To make matter Worst NASA had no backup Plan in case Modular bricks Heat shield failed, do lack of Money
not only had Rockwell the stupid idea to use different formend bricks, (triangular and acute-angled tiles) what complicated assembly,
they had no glue to fix them right on orbiter, in last moment new invented glue, manage to keep the brick in place during launch and transport...


The Soviet solve the Tiles problem elegant on Buran, only two type of tiles
Left Shuttle layout___________________________Right Buran layout

 

[Archibald]

James Fletcher "phased approach" could be a good start. In September 1971 he tried to get around the OMB cost-cutters by proponing a Mark I / Mark II shuttle. What the OP describe is pretty much Fletcher Mark I shuttle.
I often wonder if some sophisticated guidance system could have brought back a 1*F-1 flyback booster. Inertial was not good enough (CEP was a mile or less), GPS didn't existed yet.
Surely enough a 1*F-1 flyback booster is pretty similar to a cruise misile,, except much bigger.

Maybe TERCOM could be borrowed from the Tomahawk cruise missile ? (although it would be a little late, not before 1974 at best)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERCOM

Below is a (google) book from 1981 that discuss TERCOM
https://books.google.fr/books?id=QCT6qvnrHnMC&pg=PA39&dq="tercom"&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjotISZ5dLQAhWHWhoKHdhpC7sQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q="tercom"&f=false

 

[Michel Van]

Archibald

While in 1988 NASA administration claimed it's impossible to fly the shuttle unmanned to test it after Challenger
the Soviet solved the problem simple way: Buran used Inertial guidance to get close to runway, here a modified instrument landing system for civil airliner take over and bring the orbiter save down.
on 15 November 1988, the biggest unmanned Spacecraft that return save to earth...

...Hell was NASA humiliated

 

[Michel Van]

On reuse of F-1A booster

That had the Soviets engineers in mind for reusable Zenit booster of Energia
using sam landing hardware for unmanned Buran
So why not also for NASA Shuttle ?

 

[Archibald]

Maybe because the solid rocket motor lobby is too powerful ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

The first aircraft to be certified to CAT III standards, on 28 December 1968,[1] was the Sud Aviation Caravelle, followed by the Hawker-Siddeley HS.121 Trident in May 1972 (CAT IIIA) and to CAT IIIB during 1975. The Trident had been certified to CAT II on 7 February 1968.

A flyback booster with a big F-1A must be similar to a HS Trident in weight.

Having proven the reliability and accuracy of the autopilot's ability to flare the aircraft safely, the next elements were to add in similar control of the thrust. This was similarly done by a radio altimeter signal which simply drove the autothrottle servos to a flight idle setting. As the accuracy and reliability of the ground based ILS localiser was increased on a step by step basis, it was permissible to leave the roll channel engaged longer and longer, until in fact the aircraft had ceased to be airborne, and a fully automatic landing had in fact been completed. The first such landing in a BEA Trident was achieved at RAE Bedford (by then home of BLEU) in March 1964. The first on a commercial flight with passengers aboard was achieved on flight BE 343 on 10 June 1965, with a Trident 1 G-ARPR, from Paris to Heathrow with Captains Eric Poole and Frank Ormonroyd.

 

[Michel Van]

Maybe because the solid rocket motor lobby is too powerful ?

Solids are far cheaper and easier, compare to liquid fueled fly back booster with F-1A engine.
unexperienced Fletcher not resisted the temptation, while MSFC screamed "No Solid Booster for US Manned Launch Vehicle !"...