WI Buran-style Shuttle stack?

Errr... What? The SRBs were meant to be expendable, and originally were. It was only after some guy in NASA decided that more 'reusable' was better that they decided to recover and refurbish the SRB's and AFAIK, it costs more to refurbish one than to build a new one.

No, you're mixing up the history a bit. There were a few initial proposals, both within JSC and unsolicited from Grumman, that used existing expendable SRBs, but by the time of JSC was laying out the Phase C Shuttle studies, the decision had already been made that the boosters would be reusable (and there would be two of them). MSFC wanted to give the contractors the option of pressure-fed (i.e. no-turbopump) liquid boosters, because they would have higher performance. JSC, however, thought they were too complex and expensive. So, all the Phase C/D contractors used SRBs in their proposals.

Here's an image showing the difference: http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/p398.gif (from http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/chapter09.htm )
 
on those test were made during 1961
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5948
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=6012

concusion on the report
In order to establish an approximate cost factor, a log was kept of the procedures, reconditioning manhours, materials, and an itemized list of replaced engine parts. The cost to recover and recondition the H- 1 engine was approximately 5 per cent of the cost of a new one.

there is a big BUT
that Test were made with cold engine !
if rocket stage fall under parachute into ocean
the engine are still very hot in contact with much colder seawater
the engine get brittle, wat result later in brittle fracture during reused !

next to dat also the rough landing if one parachute fails, wat wrecked the stage
wat happen during ARES-X test, RSRM was wrecked beyond repair

They made Test on Five-segment version RSRM for ARES-1 on August, 2010
but something wend wrong. because it rains burnt dirt and chucked all over the place
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=6970
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=6999
http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story/ATK-fallout/Jv5DnBUzBEu8uBF3adO9fw.cspx
 
No, you're mixing up the history a bit. There were a few initial proposals, both within JSC and unsolicited from Grumman, that used existing expendable SRBs, but by the time of JSC was laying out the Phase C Shuttle studies, the decision had already been made that the boosters would be reusable (and there would be two of them). MSFC wanted to give the contractors the option of pressure-fed (i.e. no-turbopump) liquid boosters, because they would have higher performance. JSC, however, thought they were too complex and expensive. So, all the Phase C/D contractors used SRBs in their proposals.

Here's an image showing the difference: http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/p398.gif (from http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/chapter09.htm )

Not as much as you seem to be. By the very source you cite (see below) the liquid boosters first proposed would all have been reusable, and the solids were not originally, although they apparently quickly became so. To that extent I was mistaken (I had a very distinct recollection, from living through that time, that the initial SRBs weren't meant to be reused and that was wrong.)


http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/chapter09.htm said:
The OMB also would allow a booster "of the reusable pressure-fed type," which Low had recommended.
...
Boeing and NASA-Marshall, however, would not be denied, as they proposed a new alternative: a pump-fed booster. Though this again was to be an S-IC variant, it would be without wings, tail, jet engines, landing gear, or crew compartment. Instead it amounted to the standard S-IC, fitted out to land in the ocean by using parachutes. A retro-rocket was to cushion its impact in the sea; it then would float like a ditched airplane as it awaited rescue. After refurbishment, it would fly again.
...

The strong case of a solid motor also gave a strong case for choosing the solid motor. No one had previously tried to recover and reuse a solid booster; those of the Titan III had simply plopped into the deep, to provide homes for fishes. Early in January, a NASA official had said, "It is not contemplated at this time that a solid-rocket booster would be recoverable." Yet the modest staging velocity of the solids, as low as 4000 ft/sec, meant that their heavy casings could easily serve as a heat sink. They also could withstand the stress of dropping by parachute into the ocean. NASA-Marshall and its contractors found that reusability of these solids would cut the cost per flight to around $10 million, allowing the Shuttle to maintain its advantage and to capture its traffic from expendables. [Aviation Week: January 10, 1972, p. 15; March 20, 1972, pp. 14-16; memo, Sullivan to Rice, March 13, 1972; letter, Low to Rice, January 11, 1972.]


I also agree with Michael van that the complexities of re-using the liquids were probably severely underestimated.


OTOH, the complexities of re-using the solids were also severely underestimated, to the point where it's really as cheap to make new ones. Unfortunately, I was just about to post the original version of this post with cites supporting that latter statement when my computer crashed, and I haven't re-created the search needed to find that info.
 
there were several proposals for retrieval of first stage with out ditching
here a few:

Paraglider
the stage unfolded a special parachute and glide back
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/sdoc12ani.gif
unfortunately with onpowerd glide the stage not making it back to launch site
you need a Jet-engine to fly it back

Fix big wings
the frist stage look more like Shuttle and fly with Jet engines back to launch site
but this give more Problems
the wings undergo aerodynamic encumbrances during launch
there is only a small margin or wing are rip off !
next to that the Wings and Jet engines increase the weight of first stage
and who get the to be punish: the Payload get downsize over 30% !

Insane stuff
that a real proposal by Hiller Aircraft
a Gigant Helicopter chase the falling frist stage hanging under parachutes
captures the stage, dock with it and fly back to launch site
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1045/1
you must see the picture of the Monster Chopper in article...

you understand now, why JSC was so fun albout SRB...
 

Archibald

Banned
on those test were made during 1961
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5948
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=6012

concusion on the report


there is a big BUT
that Test were made with cold engine !
if rocket stage fall under parachute into ocean
the engine are still very hot in contact with much colder seawater
the engine get brittle, wat result later in brittle fracture during reused !
you're right about "hot" engines dropped into cold, salwater. But, Boeing has the answer to that problem ! Before dropping the big upper stage into the ocean, just blew the LOX tank dome. Have the stage fall in the water LOX-tank first, with the engines up. When the open LOx tank hit the water, an immense volume of air is trapped, and the stage floats like a giant plug or cork !
This is how Boeing intended to recover the S-IC if used as the shuttle booster. Much simpler than trying to turn it into a Mach 5 A380-sized monster aircraft !
 

Stephen

Banned
With a good heavy lift rocket like an Energia or Saturn 5 you could build the space station quicker with larger modules, launch larger quicker interplanetry probes, and a bigger man sized Hubble space telescope.
 
With a good heavy lift rocket like an Energia or Saturn 5 you could build the space station quicker with larger modules, launch larger quicker interplanetry probes, and a bigger man sized Hubble space telescope.

to comparison
Phase-B space station 1970 study (launch with Saturn INT-21)
core Module: 16.5 m long, 10 m ø, 75 tons.
ISS Option C 1993 study (launch with Shuttle C)
core Module: 28m long, 7mø, 77 tons
ISS US-Module Destiny: 8.5 m long, 4.3 m ø, 15 tons.
 
Top