Space Exploration in a Continued Cold War

[Michel Van]

you say it, Archibald

to make matter worst, the Original Shuttle Concept underwent budget cuts.
in end instead of Two stage shuttle, were fist stage could be used as reusable Booster for bigger Cargo rocket
got NASA a deadly 1/2 Stage contraption with Solid Booster and with NO rescue system.

in USSR the Politics and Military insist on "Analog characteristics of Space Shuttle Bomber"
yes, the KGB and others believed that the US shuttle was a USAF bomber !
They could not believed that system was more for Civilian use...
in end they build Buran as "appendage" to Energia Booster.

 

[Nebogipfel]

Now biggest dark spot on Moon, called Oceanus Procellarum, is made from what ?
mostly of Rare earth element !

It has a higher content of minerals containing REE compared to the surroundings, but is not made mostly of the elements (would be chemically very difficult for such a large structure). So I wonder if the additional transport costs would even out the advantages.

 

[e of pi]

If they can get the Venture Star to work. Big if because I am not convinced that the Math of a TSTO using the technology available is actually possible. However it would be great if somebody could prove me wrong. Once you have a cheap re-usable spacecraft for orbital activity then in my opinion a very good case can be made to user propellant depots for all your manned BEO missions instead of pouring money into developing a expensive HLV.

Brovane,

I think you mean SSTO? Getting a TSTO with VentureStar-class tech is actually pretty easy. There's a whole lot of fuzzy assumptions there, but mostly ones that are excessively conservative.

 

[AMBOMB]

The Russians gave up the space race after we went to the Moon. Presumably, they realized they couldn't beat us and figured that it's better not to race at all than to race and lose. So, even if the cold war had continued, I don't see it having a big impact on space exploration.

 

[Michel Van]

The Russians gave up the space race after we went to the Moon. Presumably, they realized they couldn't beat us and figured that it's better not to race at all than to race and lose. So, even if the cold war had continued, I don't see it having a big impact on space exploration.

the Soviet din't give up the space race after Apollo 11
They hab try to launch Manned Lunar landing after the L3 program like L3M
But they had problem with there N1 launch rocket so that was abandon, in Favor of Vulcan launcher
then came Nixon decision for Space Shuttle and Vulcan became Energia/Buran with major delays in R&D on hardware until it was ready in 1988...

 

[brovane]

Brovane,

I think you mean SSTO? Getting a TSTO with VentureStar-class tech is actually pretty easy. There's a whole lot of fuzzy assumptions there, but mostly ones that are excessively conservative.

Thanks for catching that. I meant SSTO since that is what VentureStar was supposed to be. I think TSTO is possible with the VentureStar tech.

Very interesting Excel sheet. Is that something you created or was that lifted from a study?

 

[AMBOMB]

the Soviet din't give up the space race after Apollo 11
They hab try to launch Manned Lunar landing after the L3 program like L3M
But they had problem with there N1 launch rocket so that was abandon, in Favor of Vulcan launcher
then came Nixon decision for Space Shuttle and Vulcan became Energia/Buran with major delays in R&D on hardware until it was ready in 1988...

They didn't try to send a manned mission to Mars after we sent one to the Moon.

 

[e of pi]

Very interesting Excel sheet. Is that something you created or was that lifted from a study?

From scratch. It was a stripped-down version of my standard TSTO design tool I use for Eyes, modified for Google Drive based on what I could recall not having access to the original at that moment. The original's a bit more elegant.

I messed around a bit with copies of that same modified spreadsheet here, if you're interested.

 

[Delta Force]

From scratch. It was a stripped-down version of my standard TSTO design tool I use for Eyes, modified for Google Drive based on what I could recall not having access to the original at that moment. The original's a bit more elegant.

I messed around a bit with copies of that same modified spreadsheet here, if you're interested.

I wonder what kind of commercial and recreational opportunities would emerge with such low launch costs? Would something like the DC-X rocket make it possible for businesses not even involved in aerospace to have their own small satellites?

 

[e of pi]

I wonder what kind of commercial and recreational opportunities would emerge with such low launch costs? Would something like the DC-X rocket make it possible for businesses not even involved in aerospace to have their own small satellites?

It'd certainly make it possible, but it doesn't mean it would happen. What's the benefit to...I dunno, McDonalds of having an orbiting McSat? Those that do would be those with some business reason for it--you could see microgravity research for pharma, perhaps, but it's going to be more about people whose businesses already could benefit from microgravity experiments being able to afford it than random companies starting to put up sats.

You probably could see some kind of commercial manned flights--both tourism or researchers sent up to Dow Chemical Station or something, and perhaps some fuel tankers for depots for NASA or the like.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Also, what is the advantage of using rockets for landing instead of more conventional options such as parachutes or gliding? There seems to be a much higher risk of catastrophic failure.

Parachutes are much rougher--they have a limit on how much they can practically slow you--so you need landing rockets anyways (as the Soyuz has), at least if you want to do land landing (well, there are other options like airbags, but the Soviets had experience with rockets). Rockets also allow a certain degree of powered, controlled flight, and hence allow a more precise landing than parachutes, which is why SpaceX, for example, is planning on using rockets as the primary landing system for its capsules.

Additionally, as with SpaceX, you can reuse your landing rockets as abort rockets, so you get double duty out of them.

The United States would probably use the DC-X for DoD missions and the VentureStar for manned missions, but neither is suitable for missions beyond low Earth orbit. Any ideas on what the United States might use for launching payloads beyond Earth orbit and for manned missions to the Moon and elsewhere?

I have to step in here and point out that VentureStar was a pure 1990s program--started under Clinton--and was cancelled because it basically was not working. A continuing Cold War quite possibly butterflies it away from existing, and even if it doesn't the technical immaturity of the design probably dooms it.

That being said, the design would stick around; as I have noted elsewhere, Lockheed had been shipping it around since the 1960s. But it's entirely possible that it just remains a paper proposal rather than a real design.

 

[fortyseven]

Robot moon base.

 

[Delta Force]

It'd certainly make it possible, but it doesn't mean it would happen. What's the benefit to...I dunno, McDonalds of having an orbiting McSat? Those that do would be those with some business reason for it--you could see microgravity research for pharma, perhaps, but it's going to be more about people whose businesses already could benefit from microgravity experiments being able to afford it than random companies starting to put up sats.

A lot of strange things could happen if it costs only a few tens of thousands of dollars to put a sizable payload into orbit, and a few hundred thousand dollars to put someone into LEO.

Also, there are the things that can be manufactured in microgravity. I'm not sure how much of it was just theorizing on what could be done as opposed to what is known to be possible, but in the 1980s there was talk of manufacturing extremely high quality electronics, metals, chemicals, medicines, and optics in microgravity. Perhaps precision measuring equipment and scientific instruments could be produced in space too.

Parachutes are much rougher--they have a limit on how much they can practically slow you--so you need landing rockets anyways (as the Soyuz has), at least if you want to do land landing (well, there are other options like airbags, but the Soviets had experience with rockets). Rockets also allow a certain degree of powered, controlled flight, and hence allow a more precise landing than parachutes, which is why SpaceX, for example, is planning on using rockets as the primary landing system for its capsules.

Additionally, as with SpaceX, you can reuse your landing rockets as abort rockets, so you get double duty out of them.

I suppose if they are trustworthy enough for an abort situation they would be trustworthy enough for landing. If the system is anywhere near as precise as an ICBM reentry vehicle, the capsules could land in more convenient locations for recovery, such as the space center, a refurbishment facility, airport, etc.

I have to step in here and point out that VentureStar was a pure 1990s program--started under Clinton--and was cancelled because it basically was not working. A continuing Cold War quite possibly butterflies it away from existing, and even if it doesn't the technical immaturity of the design probably dooms it.

That being said, the design would stick around; as I have noted elsewhere, Lockheed had been shipping it around since the 1960s. But it's entirely possible that it just remains a paper proposal rather than a real design.

Was VentureStar the Space Shuttle Mk. II, or was that something else? It seems unlikely that the Space Shuttle would have served for three decades without replacement in a Cold War world, and that a replacement would likely have been scheduled for service in the 2000s.

 

[Archibald]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Rocket-Company-Patrick-Stiennon-ebook/dp/B00BWEEWOI

 

[e of pi]

Was VentureStar the Space Shuttle Mk. II, or was that something else? It seems unlikely that the Space Shuttle would have served for three decades without replacement in a Cold War world, and that a replacement would likely have been scheduled for service in the 2000s.

VentureStar was not Shuttle Mk II. There were a number of studies called "Shuttle Mk II," but unfortunately I can't turn up any at the moment. I'd like to think Shuttle would see some kind of replacement myself, but I'm not sure it's hugely more likely that IOTL. After all, it was a Cold War world that saw Shuttle's original funding cut to the point that the resulting vehicle had serious compromises--compromises to operations that made it impossibly slow to turn around, compromises to economics that left it actually more expensive than a continuing Apollo, and worse, compromises to safety that lead to the deaths of two crews. Moreover, it was in a Cold War world--under Reagan, even, in the last gasp of Soviet attempts to match the US--that saw the best NASA could hope for after Challenger being the construction of Endeavour from pre-existing spare components. It'd have been nice to see a true replacement for shuttle that would improve on all its compromises and be closer to the original design goals of reusability, but I don't think one can expect one just because of a continuing Cold War.

 

[Delta Force]

Could the Space Shuttle have been designed or retrofitted with an improved thermal protection system? I've never seen anything on that, despite the tiles being so problematic for maintenance and safety. If possible, perhaps that could have been implemented on a Space Shuttle Mk. II design including lightened external tanks, improved solid rocket motors, and the return of ejection seats and a reduction in crew size.

 

[e of pi]

Could the Space Shuttle have been designed or retrofitted with an improved thermal protection system? I've never seen anything on that, despite the tiles being so problematic for maintenance and safety.

Changing the TPS on Shuttle to something other than the tiles is essentially impossible--I'm not aware of any other reusable options that can handle the heat flux experienced by the orbiter. Metallic TPS like VentureStar, for instance, would IIRC require a ballistic coefficient 20% lower. In order to switch TPS, therefore, you'd have to completely replace the Orbiter--either massively reducing weight or adding more area to spread the heat over. Neither is trivial.

If possible, perhaps that could have been implemented on a Space Shuttle Mk. II design including lightened external tanks, improved solid rocket motors, and the return of ejection seats and a reduction in crew size.

Finally found the link I was looking for--take a look at the Beyond Apollo post here on two shuttle replacement studies and click through the images at the top for a lot more details. Note that one design eliminates the SRBs in favor of multiple stages of drop tank, while the other goes for a reusable flyback booster--really showing that even by the early 80s it was clear the SRBs were a poor solution. "Improving" them can make them slightly safer or give slightly improved performance, but doesn't fix their underlying economics issues.

As for ejection seats...I tend to think the seats are a flawed solution. They can only protect during specific phases of flight, and they may not provide enough protection during an explosion of the stack like Challenger. Moreover, with the seats, the OTL Shuttle would IIRC be limited to just two crew. That's not really acceptable. In a custom-designed replacement for Shuttle, as with the two studies linked, options were examined for having the entire forward compartment be an separable escape vehicle, which would have been protection during much more of the flight and offered more options and better safety were it needed.