With the upcoming conclusion of the space shuttle program, I look back and wonder, what PoD could have allowed the Space Shuttle program to accomplish more and allow it to be used to the full extent originally imagined and also allowed it to leave NASA with a vehicle when the shuttle expires?
Space Shuttle AH
- Thread starter smurat91
- Start date
Easy, Skylab B! A least, shunting the spare Skylab into a parking orbit once the ASTP 'milking stool' had been removed from the tracked transporter. At most the wrapping of the ASTP mission into a multi-visit set of missions to Skylab B, the Apollo CSM giving Skylab B a few boosts to keep it's orbit up. The visits would be closer to the solar maximum which bought down the original Skylab so it should have its orbit maintained for long enough.
If the Shuttle had something to Shuttle to then it would have been seen as the best thing since sliced bread.
If the Shuttle had something to Shuttle to then it would have been seen as the best thing since sliced bread.
Archibald
Banned
Depends from the shuttle itself. Basic design degraded rapidly in 1972, up to the shuttle as we know it today.
A more efficient shuttle would drop the solids and use a Saturn V first stage as booster.
That would keep Saturn V alive, at least partially. With SSME instead of J-2 in the second stage, performance would be excellent.
Next step: have a cargo shuttle flying along the basic shuttle. the cargo shuttle could launch Skylab B, providing a cheap space station (as Riain noted above)
The shuttle itself had plenty of missions. Satellite servicing, space station, build Mars spaceships in low Earth orbit.
A more efficient shuttle would drop the solids and use a Saturn V first stage as booster.
That would keep Saturn V alive, at least partially. With SSME instead of J-2 in the second stage, performance would be excellent.
Next step: have a cargo shuttle flying along the basic shuttle. the cargo shuttle could launch Skylab B, providing a cheap space station (as Riain noted above)
The shuttle itself had plenty of missions. Satellite servicing, space station, build Mars spaceships in low Earth orbit.
Yes, they were even considering launching Skylab B after Challenger.
So let's say they launch the Skylab 5 flight, where the Apollo CSM boosts Skylab so that it's still in orbit in 1981. Columbia visits and pushes it higher, while resupplying it (there were many schemes to do this). This would be cheaper than the 1.5-2 Billion dollars needed for another Saturn launch.
After that, there were all sorts of plans. Using spacelabs as modules on the sides, for example. This would provide a destination for the Shuttle, so it's not just buzzing around LEO for the first decade of its life. Maybe, in addition to Shuttle-Mir, we have Soyuz (or Buran)-Skylab.
However, to make the Shuttle truly cost-effective, you'd need a mass-production of components. You'd need a dozen External Tanks rolling off the assembly line each year, and maybe an extra Orbiter to make use of them. The scale could possibly make Shuttle flights cheaper. To make the most use of the Shuttle hardware, you'd need to have two systems, sharing components.
System 1 is the STS, including the Orbiter. This would be used for Station and Satellite servicing.
System 2 is the Shuttle-derived. Shuttle-C, Shuttle-Z, or David Baker's design for an Ares rocket all fall into this category. These would be bulk flights, launching Station components, or Lunar and Mars flights.
The production of components for all these flights can drive costs down a bit.
But all this assumes a POD when the Shuttle design was finalized. As Archibald said, we could save more and make it safer by using an S-IC as the booster.
The problem with the shuttle is that it was designed only to go so far and to fit a limited niche. The original purpose was to operate alongside the Saturn V. The Saturn V (and successor modifications) would operate beyond Low-Earth-Orbit while the Shuttle would carry out LEO missions, thus cutting cost. That brings up the issue that cutting a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle for its niche companion with limited distance and mission abilities is like not producing cars and buses and only producing scooters, and thus short sighted and ignorant. But overall, the point is that the space shuttle, being designed only to do so much, can only be expected to do so much.
I'm afraid the shuttle was a failure because the first generation of space enthusiasts didn't realize that spaceplanes like the Shuttle would be really hard to keep cool. The Shuttle did it by spending impractical numbers of dollars on regular heat shield maintenace
The way it should've been done would've been to have run a few X-planes and seing it couldn't work. Then NASA would've known early to've gone back to a Saturn-style big lifter instead.
Only now are we seeing a design that flies without burning - an X- missile of a waverider. But it's only practical at pretty recent levels of supercomputing.
Sorry...
The way it should've been done would've been to have run a few X-planes and seing it couldn't work. Then NASA would've known early to've gone back to a Saturn-style big lifter instead.
Only now are we seeing a design that flies without burning - an X- missile of a waverider. But it's only practical at pretty recent levels of supercomputing.
Sorry...
background story to R&D of Space Shuttle
1960s NASA look on re-usable Space craft for futur space station
around 1967 as the Saturn IB was laid off
and the megalomaniac "Integrated Manned Programme" came up
the Shuttle became Saturn IB replacement with payload around 15-20 tons
in same time Rockwell proposed a re-usable Saturn V (with Wing and jetengine on each stage)
during 1968 to 1973 NASA study scores and scores of diverent Space Shuttle system
USAF joins the Shuttle R&D for military mission payload goes from 15 up to 28 tons
1969 President Nixon decided to proceed with Space Shuttle development
1970 january NASA boss Thomas O. Paine laid off Saturn V mothballed production line
in order to save cost for Apollo and Skylab and lay all hope in future space shuttle
1970 september Thomas O. Paine left NASA after Nixon refuse take the "Integrated Manned Programme"
James C. Fletcher get the mess Paine left behind and makes the Space Shuttle to priority progam
on march 15, 1972 the Space shuttle get Final design: Orbiter/Tank/Booster
1973 it get his today form with Solid booster...
Note on Engine
NASA look in F-1 and J-2 engines for use in Space Shuttle and
came to conclusion that they are wear out to fast after 20 flights
and order the R&D of SSME with contingency of 100 flight
in end a SSME makes only 10 flights in Space Shuttle...
1960s NASA look on re-usable Space craft for futur space station
around 1967 as the Saturn IB was laid off
and the megalomaniac "Integrated Manned Programme" came up
the Shuttle became Saturn IB replacement with payload around 15-20 tons
in same time Rockwell proposed a re-usable Saturn V (with Wing and jetengine on each stage)
during 1968 to 1973 NASA study scores and scores of diverent Space Shuttle system
USAF joins the Shuttle R&D for military mission payload goes from 15 up to 28 tons
1969 President Nixon decided to proceed with Space Shuttle development
1970 january NASA boss Thomas O. Paine laid off Saturn V mothballed production line
in order to save cost for Apollo and Skylab and lay all hope in future space shuttle
1970 september Thomas O. Paine left NASA after Nixon refuse take the "Integrated Manned Programme"
James C. Fletcher get the mess Paine left behind and makes the Space Shuttle to priority progam
on march 15, 1972 the Space shuttle get Final design: Orbiter/Tank/Booster
1973 it get his today form with Solid booster...
Note on Engine
NASA look in F-1 and J-2 engines for use in Space Shuttle and
came to conclusion that they are wear out to fast after 20 flights
and order the R&D of SSME with contingency of 100 flight
in end a SSME makes only 10 flights in Space Shuttle...
