WI: Carter lets the Space Shuttle die

[fasquardon]

So according to this article on Ars Technica, in June of 1979, the Space Shuttle was in serious trouble. The program was suffering from serious budget over-runs and, if NASA funding were to remain the same or fall in line with the contraction of government spending that was on its way in 1980, the program was basically impossible to complete. Luckily for the Space Shuttle, Carter took quick action to direct temporary funds to NASA to get critical work done and, due to the military aspect of the Shuttle, had the NASA budget protected on the same terms as the Pentagon budget in 1980. The Shuttle was thus able to take its first flight in April 1981 and the rest, as they say, is history.

According to the research made for the article, the key factor that caused Carter, who was not a Shuttle fan, to back the space craft, was the then on-going SALT II talks, since verification of the treaty would require the launch of a pile of spy satellites to keep watch on the Soviets. Additionally, due to the fears of the Soviet leadership of the Shuttle's "nuclear bomber" aspect, it would feature in many of Carter's discussions with Brezhnev, possibly giving Carter a feeling that the Shuttle flying would be a valuable prestige victory.

So let's say the SALT II talks either don't happen or are indefinitely delayed. Carter isn't talking to Brezhnev so much and there is no perceived need to greatly increase spy satellite coverage. As a result, Carter decides not to give NASA emergency funding to catch up on the R&D work on the Shuttle, and the project is instead cancelled.

What happens next?

So far as I understand, most of the STS package was already developed, and of the major parts of the project only the SSMEs and the thermal protective tiles were behind schedule. So does NASA take the solids, the external tank and the J-2 engine and slap them together with a smaller orbiter (which thus needs less thermal protection and can get by with the less efficient engines)? If NASA did do that, how capable would the J-2 powered mini-shuttle be? And how much would down-sizing the orbiter and changing the main engines cost?

Might this smaller shuttle push NASA to develop a Shuttle-C type LV in series or in parallel with its now shrunken orbiter? (I imagine in this scenario, military needs would mean the Shuttle-C LV would get priority over the small orbiter - which could leave the US developing something like the Soviet Energia rocket by the mid-80s.)

Or would NASA instead fully embrace the Titan III and maybe an earlier Titan IV and spend money man-rating them (perhaps to launch Apollo capsules or a dinky shuttle type vehicle based on the systems developed for the now failed Space Shuttle)?

Or would NASA fall out of the manned space flight game entirely for the 80s, or even through the 90s and 00s? Would this make designs like the EU Hermes more likely to fly (perhaps as a capsule, since there is no US orbiter to make space planes look cool)?

And would the Shuttle failing make the NLS more likely to get the go-ahead in the late 80s or early 90s? (I would guess "yes", particularly if there has been no Shuttle-C type vehicle developed).

fasquardon

 

[fasquardon]

Hmm. No interest in what space flight looks like if Carter cancels the STS so late?

fasquardon

 

[cpip]

Hmm. No interest in what space flight looks like if Carter cancels the STS so late?

fasquardon

I've got interest, but no knowledge to offer in support. I'm looking forward to what others might think, though.

 

[Archibald]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/535/1

SALT-II and spy satellites: the KH-8 and KH-9 were complementary. KH-8 took very high resolution pictures of a small area of the Soviet Union. The KH-9 was the polar opposite: a crapload of pictures covering most of USSR but at lower resolution.
Both used film return capsules.
The KH-11 was different. It more or less accomplish both missions and added real-time digital imaging.

Now for SALT-II Carter needed to know if the soviets were digging missiles silos, if bombers were parked on air bases, things like that. And the KH-9 was the right satellite for that job. But it never flew the shuttle because it was retired in 1986.

So Ars Tecnica "SALT-II spy sat" should be the KH-11 Kennen, the first of which flew in orbit aboard a Titan III in 1976. The NRO intented to launch KH-11 aboard the shuttle but needed the Vandenberg pad to shoot into polar orbit, a pad that wasn't ready when STS-51L happened and the military bailed out of the shuttle program.

As of July 1979 Columbia was already at The Cape. When the 747 SCA landed at The Cape in March 1979 the subsonic trip had peeled off thousands of tiles. That, and SSMEs were regularly destroying their test bench.
People don't realise that Columbia spent exactly two years in OPF-1 at The Cape, from March 1979 to April 1981. Most of these two years were spend gluing tile after tile by hand !

So the question is, what to do with Columbia ? Enterprise is a mockup while Challenger is still a test article. The orbiter was so big it would not be a valuable hypersonic research aircraft.

Maybe stick a single J-2 (or maybe a single SSME ?) in the rear with a LOX/LH2 tank in the payload bay, with a crew of two or three on SR-71 ejection seats. That thing wouldn't fly very high or fast. And the 3 X SSMEs were so heavy, there might be serious center of gravity issues.

If NASA did do that, how capable would the J-2 powered mini-shuttle be?

NASA actually had a study of a J-2 powered shuttle in late 1971, when Nixon OMB very nearly killed the shuttle. James Fletcher called it the Mark I shuttle. Deferring the SSME would save time and money.
Well, payload would fall from 65 000 to 20 000 pounds (25 000 pounds if lucky).
Most of that big 15*60 ft payload bay would never be filled.

Or would NASA instead fully embrace the Titan III and maybe an earlier Titan IV and spend money man-rating them (perhaps to launch Apollo capsules or a dinky shuttle type vehicle based on the systems developed for the now failed Space Shuttle)?

Or would NASA fall out of the manned space flight game entirely for the 80s, or even through the 90s and 00s? Would this make designs like the EU Hermes more likely to fly (perhaps as a capsule, since there is no US orbiter to make space planes look cool)?

Bringing back Apollo is only a matter of will (see Orion !) but NASA was dead-set, obsessed with wings until 2003 and STS-107.
I can see NASA getting out of manned spaceflight altogether, per lack of a strong argument.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world...

- Buran only started in 1976 and the soviet really hated it, so they would happily drop it as soon as Carter killed the shuttle.

- As of June 1979 Hermès looks like this
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy1/cacaprout1/1981 hermes 02_zps7td5vv4w.jpg
Preliminary studies were only beginning.

The X-40 and X-37 got started in 1998 as subscale orbiter shapes.

 

[fasquardon]

Bringing back Apollo is only a matter of will (see Orion !)

Orion is significantly different from the Apollo.

And could the Apollo really be brought back in the 80s? The capsule last flew in what, '75?

I have a feeling that if the choice for NASA was no manned space flight or Apollo, they'd hold their noses and take Apollo.

NASA actually had a study of a J-2 powered shuttle in late 1971, when Nixon OMB very nearly killed the shuttle. James Fletcher called it the Mark I shuttle. Deferring the SSME would save time and money.
Well, payload would fall from 65 000 to 20 000 pounds (25 000 pounds if lucky).
Most of that big 15*60 ft payload bay would never be filled.

So the J-2 (or was it the J-2S?) could launch the shuttle orbiter with a few tonnes of payload?

I wouldn't have expected that.

Maybe stick a single J-2 (or maybe a single SSME ?) in the rear with a LOX/LH2 tank in the payload bay, with a crew of two or three on SR-71 ejection seats. That thing wouldn't fly very high or fast. And the 3 X SSMEs were so heavy, there might be serious center of gravity issues.

YOW! That thing would be a real dog.

Also, it flying at all depends on them finding the money to fix the tiles.

fasquardon

 

[fasquardon]

Might this smaller shuttle push NASA to develop a Shuttle-C type LV in series or in parallel with its now shrunken orbiter? (I imagine in this scenario, military needs would mean the Shuttle-C LV would get priority over the small orbiter - which could leave the US developing something like the Soviet Energia rocket by the mid-80s.)

What do the people make of the chances of the US developing a Shuttle-C type rocket with the solids, ET and the J-2 engine?

fasquardon

 

[Shevek23]

J-2 does not really work at sea level-I believe the problem lies in the gas generator for the pumps. I'm not sure if the modifications that created J-2S solved that, but I suspect they did. Still the J rockets were mainly intended to operate in vacuum, not for a first stage.

OTOH as I understand it, 5 of either J series type rocket equal three SSMEs in thrust (in vacuum). If the SSME were the only holdup, it could be abandoned and 5 J-2S used instead. I am not sure it is possible to ground-light even those though. If not, it would be possible to order a new run of boosters, one that delivered extra thrust at takeoff.

However---the other pacing item is the dang tiles. Orbiter cannot operate without the tiles! The problem is getting them to stay on. Omitting the tiles means the Orbiter cannot return!

I do see one graceful way out for Columbia, assuming that both tile and engine programs are scrubbed and no one wants to hold the mostly completed vessel pending their perfection.

Using the solid boosters and an array of 5 J-2S (conceivably fewer will do) NASA must fall back on a disposable launcher--that or scrap all the work done on STS and simply adopt a rocket design off the shelf). But besides the two rocket types they have, well in hand, the fuel tank design. I suspect the tank can be re-sized by the way, with some moderate design work. It would be hard to make and handle a much bigger tank but smaller ones can be accommodated easily.

So yes, a half-assed form of Energia lies ready to hand. They could even use it to launch payloads sidesaddle which is what Energia did with Polyius. (I wish they wouldn't and redesign the tank to put payloads on the nose, but the idea here is for NASA to have an out to launch something ASAP; the tank was designed for side loads... hold the phone, the tank was designed for lifting side loads! It might be necessary to go even crazier and supply any sort of payload with a booster solid (assuming the J-2S's don't work at sea level) plus the 5 liquid engines, all mounted on the side under the actual payload, to get the stress pattern that the tank was designed form.

I do think it would be worthwhile to take some time to redesign the tank so it works with in-line stresses. In that case the liquid engines sit on the bottom of the tank, and are lit whenever pressure conditions allow. Assuming there is no time or budget to redesign the solids so they must work with the same thrusts and burn times as OTL, then the longer we delay lighting the J-2S's the less overall mass to orbit the system can deliver, unless we supplement the 2 boosters with a third mini-solid to compensate. But note that delaying lighting the liquid fuel engines means we can make the tank scantier, with a lower volume allowing for reduced burn time. Or, lifting the same load, the solids burning out at the same time but with lower velocity, the fact that the tank has not been at all depleted during the booster burn might compensate. If that is the boosters alone can manage to get the system up high enough for the J engines to be any good.

Anyway with such a system operational as a heavy cargo launcher, non-reusable (unless we want to bother to see if recovering the solids is worthwhile) NASA needs to design a completely new crewed vehicle that can be lifted by this system. The constraints are pretty loose, except that one structure we absolutely cannot use is Columbia!

Stripped of her TPS, Columbia cannot be launched with the expectation of ever recovering her.

On the other hand---the TPS weighed a lot. Perhaps someone knows just exactly how much the tiles massed? Stripping them off lowers the burden on our half-assed launch system. We have also omitted the SSMEs, which takes 12 tons off the tail. Without that mass, or something to replace it as ballast there, the Orbiter would never reentry correctly even if it had magic TPS; the mass balance of the craft as an aircraft is all off now. But it is 12+ tons lighter.

What good does it do us to put a untiled, engineless hulk of an Orbiter into orbit? Well there was the OtL proposal to turn an aged Orbiter into a space station! Equipped with solar panels, upgraded with modules placed in the cargo bay, taking advantage of the mass stripped off (OTL versions did not assume no SSMEs though because they figured it would launch and position itself one last time) for more equipment and stores, the Orbiter is, as has often been demonstrated throughout the 80s and 90s OTL, basically a mobile mini-station, a Space Winnebago.

Thus although without tiles Columbia can never serve as an Orbiter shuttle, she can remain in orbit forever or until demolished as a space station.

As for what sort of craft might be shuttling people and upgrade cargo to this station--that is pretty wide open. Apollo could be revived, and ride on a shrunken version of the launch system, with fewer J-2s and a smaller tank and smaller SRBs, or Big Gemini developed for the same sort of launch. Or a smaller spaceplane that does not contain its orbital engines and has some other sort of TPS system. Perhaps the notion of a lenticular capsule will be revived, on the grounds that a circular planform allows for relatively simple installation and removing of a disposable ablative system on a removable base.

 

[Shevek23]

Note that this Launch System I propose, cobbled together from leftover SRBs, tanks and J-2S, is not in any sense the same as Shuttle-C, because Shuttle-C was going to recover the SSME engines it needed, but in this system we dispose of the J engines along with the tank, and perhaps might as well admit we are not saving any money by recovering the Solids either and just let them go. In short, it is all disposable.

But even if we assume the total mass to LEO takes a hit due to using J-2S engines, we still have a system that can deliver payloads ranging from 60 to 120 metric tons--nearing or even exceeding what Saturn V put into orbit!

Considering that the entire STS program is scrubbed, not because someone looked ahead and foresaw it would not be cost-effective, but because no one was willing to commit to the sort of huge NASA budget that could pay to do something with somewhere between 200 and a thousand tons launched into LEO every year, this Launch System goes suddenly, by elimination of the integrated Orbiter, from an inadequate turkey that can't launch itself into LEO to a gigantic white elephant that launches 10 or 20 times a reasonable payload in one shot!

Which suggests a more rational sizing, if we could get the budget to downscale the SRBs and fuel tank, would use not 5 but just one J-2S, and then we'd expect the payload to be about 20-30 tons. Which would not only be more in line with economical launches but also still be quite enough for a very nice manned system to ride on.

Even this would allow quite a lot of bold action in space, if we had the manned spaceship to go with it.

And per my pleas on other threads, I suggest the engines can be recovered to Earth for study and eventual development of reusability. Or more boldly, plans to recover the entire fuel tank with engines attached.

 

[fasquardon]

But even if we assume the total mass to LEO takes a hit due to using J-2S engines, we still have a system that can deliver payloads ranging from 60 to 120 metric tons--nearing or even exceeding what Saturn V put into orbit!

Well, plugging the numbers into Silverbird of a vehicle including: 2 SRBs, 1 ET and 5 J-2s - I get a payload to LEO of 44-57 tonnes (depending on whether I use the sea level thrust of the J-2 or the vacuum thrust - just to note, if I assume the J-2 sea level ISP, the vehicle can't get to orbit at all). If I set it to have the J-2s start after booster separation and using the numbers for vacuum performance, Silverbird tells me that this Shuttle-C can launch 54.5 tonnes to LEO. That's actually alot better than I was expecting. It looks like it might be a half decent vehicle!

One option for reducing the cargo to LEO for smaller missions would be to reduce the hydrogen/LOX load-out. By halving the propellant load, the payload to LEO is reduced to 26 tonnes. That's enough for a big space capsule and to take most medium lift capsules.

As you say, the ET could be shrunk, and shortening the tank should be fairly easy to do. Given most NASA missions are likely to need payloads in the 10-30 tonne to LEO class, I think you are right that they would invest in some tank shortening. Assuming the volume of the tank is halved and this results in a decrease in the tank dry mass by 1/3rd, the payload to LEO of this smaller ET (with 5 J-2s still) would be 38.8 tonnes. Reducing the number of J-2s to 1 would result in a payload to LEO of 24 tonnes. Having 2 J-2s, the payload of the half-size ET shuttle-c would be 31 tonnes.

I suspect that all of these Silverbird results are assuming an inline configuration, by the way. As I understand it, that's a pretty big modification to the structure, so all of these results might be 10-20% lower if launching side-saddle.

What good does it do us to put a untiled, engineless hulk of an Orbiter into orbit? Well there was the OtL proposal to turn an aged Orbiter into a space station!

I remember reading about how the shuttle was a pretty capable space station... And it is definitely a way for NASA to get some work out of their investment. I wonder if they'd end up using the cargo bay for anything?

I wonder if it would be worth turning Challenger and Enterprise into space stations as well...

So NASA would get a big humiliation and might get a nice rocket and a decent space station in the 80s...

fasquardon

 

[fasquardon]

I just realized something... The shuttle being cancelled will be an issue for cooperation with the Europeans. In 1973 the ESRO had agreed to develop Spacelab in return for seats on shuttle flights. If NASA has no shuttle (or rather, has a shuttle-space station), what happens to that deal?

I guess it could be turned into a deal for seats on space capsules...

fasquardon

 

[RanulfC]

Hmm. No interest in what space flight looks like if Carter cancels the STS so late?

fasquardon

This was like 19 minutes after the first post! Let us get some research done and coffee drunk first

Randy

 

[fasquardon]

This was like 19 minutes after the first post! Let us get some research done and coffee drunk first

Check the time stamp again, it was a day after and when the first post had dropped back to page 3.

You know, the page where single posts go to die.

fasquardon

 

[fasquardon]

Hmm. I just had a thought. What if NASA salvaged the bulk of the work on the orbiter by taking the nose of the orbiter and making it a large capsule? Basically make it a specialized crew transport bus, hopefully with a good degree of re-usability so after landing it could be checked out, have the "back" wall removed (where the nose of the orbiter would transition into the cargo bay in the shuttle) and replaced with a new wall with a new coat of ablative thermal protection and then be ready to launch again.

Either that, or truncate the orbiter, removing the cargo bay, making the shuttle a smaller and lighter crew transport space plane (I have no idea if the aerodynamics would work with this idea). Making the shuttle lighter would allow NASA to use a simpler thermal protection system - I think a nose-only space plane could have gotten away with all metal construction.

fasquardon

 

[RanulfC]

So according to this article on Ars Technica, in June of 1979, the Space Shuttle was in serious trouble. The program was suffering from serious budget over-runs and, if NASA funding were to remain the same or fall in line with the contraction of government spending that was on its way in 1980, the program was basically impossible to complete. Luckily for the Space Shuttle, Carter took quick action to direct temporary funds to NASA to get critical work done and, due to the military aspect of the Shuttle, had the NASA budget protected on the same terms as the Pentagon budget in 1980. The Shuttle was thus able to take its first flight in April 1981 and the rest, as they say, is history.

According to the research made for the article, the key factor that caused Carter, who was not a Shuttle fan, to back the space craft, was the then on-going SALT II talks, since verification of the treaty would require the launch of a pile of spy satellites to keep watch on the Soviets. Additionally, due to the fears of the Soviet leadership of the Shuttle's "nuclear bomber" aspect, it would feature in many of Carter's discussions with Brezhnev, possibly giving Carter a feeling that the Shuttle flying would be a valuable prestige victory.

Neat article, thanks for the link.

So let's say the SALT II talks either don't happen or are indefinitely delayed. Carter isn't talking to Brezhnev so much and there is no perceived need to greatly increase spy satellite coverage. As a result, Carter decides not to give NASA emergency funding to catch up on the R&D work on the Shuttle, and the project is instead cancelled.

What happens next?

You mean beyond Carter still being a "one-term" President with a worse reputation than he had at the time of his defeat by Reagan?
He'd already canceled the B-1 program and if he added the Shuttle to that list it would have devastated the American aerospace economy sector. Between lay-offs and possible business closures, (both Rocketdyne and Rockwell stated around that time that cancelling their contracts would put them out of business completely) and force reduction at all the NASA centers...

But it wouldn't happen. Carter could propose it but I see Congress finding a way to keep it going. It probably would have morphed into a "test program" but considering that everything was being re-designed and re-directed to eventually fly on the Shuttle, (even our spy-satts as much the NRO and Air Force disliked that idea) because it was supposed to end up being THE only US launch vehicle at some point. (It's entire economic justification rested on that happening eventually after all) It would have to go on in some form or fashion if only to keep NASA centers, and contractors open and the majority of people employed, (sounds familiar) even if cut-backs and re-direction is involved. More so as addressed below, despite all the over-runs and late schedules the system at this point is pretty much ready to go and only requires a couple (albeit rather important) systems that are having issues.

So far as I understand, most of the STS package was already developed, and of the major parts of the project only the SSMEs and the thermal protective tiles were behind schedule. So does NASA take the solids, the external tank and the J-2 engine and slap them together with a smaller orbiter (which thus needs less thermal protection and can get by with the less efficient engines)? If NASA did do that, how capable would the J-2 powered mini-shuttle be? And how much would down-sizing the orbiter and changing the main engines cost?

Might this smaller shuttle push NASA to develop a Shuttle-C type LV in series or in parallel with its now shrunken orbiter? (I imagine in this scenario, military needs would mean the Shuttle-C LV would get priority over the small orbiter - which could leave the US developing something like the Soviet Energia rocket by the mid-80s.)

STS was only considered a "modular" system after the Shuttle started flying. At the POD it's not really meant or able to be radically changed like that. The ET is not designed to have the engines on the bottom and a multiple, (see 5 suggested below) J2's are going to be a problem to integrate, (Orbiter body is only a bit under 22ft/6.91m wide and the SII, which had 5 J2's was over 30ft/10m in diameter) unless you happen to believe that someone seriously considers the J2-plug/cluster nozzle...

The main problem with a "smaller" orbiter is that they already HAVE an Orbiter, (note capitalization there ) they just don't have the proper engines or heat-shields for it. (Enterprise has finished the test flights by 1978) Now at this point however they are well aware that the Orbiter has some 'issues' to deal with, (Pilot-Induced-Oscillation and the much higher than expected drag from the engines for example) but overall the Orbiter and most of the launch system was ready while there only remained two items that where hanging up the system. There is no benefit to making a smaller orbiter or trying to make major changes to the overall design at this point unless there is absolutely no chance of either the engines or heat-shielding being developed and at this point both were to the point where money was all that was really needed and it could be traded for time if no supplemental funding had been authorized.

Or would NASA instead fully embrace the Titan III and maybe an earlier Titan IV and spend money man-rating them (perhaps to launch Apollo capsules or a dinky shuttle type vehicle based on the systems developed for the now failed Space Shuttle)?

To quote Jim from NSF; "No"

To be more informative, NASA wasn't going to 'embrace' the Titan or give up at this point in trying to fold Air Force operations into the Shuttle program. SLC-6 at Vandenberg is already approved and contracts are being let to transform it into a Shuttle launch site and the Air Force, (again albeit reluctantly) is assuming that the Shuttle will take over all Titan, (and most DoD) launches with little they can do to stop it. They might get an extended Titan contracting and more funding for the study and design of what would become the Titan-IV but I have my doubts as they (inadvertently actually) had already piled on the Shuttle bandwagon by officially posting "requirements" that NASA had adhered to in the Shuttle design process. A delayed Shuttle program, (and really that's the closest you can come to cancelation at this point in time) might get them an independent Titan-III launch capability for a while longer but everyone was well aware that no matter what, (short of killing crew and crashing Orbiters for the first several shuttles) everything was going to be launched on Shuttles at some point.

Or would NASA fall out of the manned space flight game entirely for the 80s, or even through the 90s and 00s?

The "gap" would have extended to the mid-80s without the supplements but it would have come at some point and I can see Reagan arguing FOR increased funding as part of the overall DoD funding increase once elected. Most of the problems would have been pushed back somewhat and I doubt that would have been corrected per-se but the first flight would have been delayed for several years at any rate. With Reagan at the helm there's a chance you might have actually seen Air Force Shuttles as well as NASA ones with all that entails

Would this make designs like the EU Hermes more likely to fly (perhaps as a capsule, since there is no US orbiter to make space planes look cool)?

"Space Planes" were what everyone had been "assuming" that routine space flight would look like so I don't see much difference with a delayed Shuttle program. The problem with "smaller" space planes is they are tougher to shield, (which is the primary reason Hermes didn't get built) and have some operational issues with being used on "normal" LVs. (The reason that Dream Chaser and the X-37 both launch under shrouds which is dicey for a manned vehicle BTW) BAe proposed the Multi-Role Recovery Capsule as an alternate to Hermes because they were already aware of the issues with Hermes due to size and constraints of being launched on Ariane while everyone else was simply in denial It wasn't until after Challenger that anyone was even considering going 'back' to capsules anyway, and then only in a limited and supporting role.

And would the Shuttle failing make the NLS more likely to get the go-ahead in the late 80s or early 90s? (I would guess "yes", particularly if there has been no Shuttle-C type vehicle developed)

No because Challenger wouldn't have happened as OTL since the whole Shuttle program would have been pushed back. That "time-period" (85/86) would have been when Shuttle was ramping up rather than at it's peak flight rate, which if you think about it might have been "better" (not for the unfortunate crew involved mind you) but it would have brought the issues forward at a time when there was less pressure to make spaceflight "routine" and possibly more understanding in both the administration and public that the Shuttle was still only a first generation RLV rather than an operational system. There might have been more focus on actually fixing the problems rather than patching them over and more consideration of the STS AS a "system" so that rather than considering alternatives as competitive, such as Shuttle-C and a new Orbiter design, they might be seen as complementary and the system as a whole as evolving rather than needing replacement. (Probably not but it's a thought)

Everything is going to be pushed back under the circumstances but NASA is not going to be willing, (or able really) to absorb the same "lessons learned" they did from OTL Shuttle and they are more, not less, likely the simply keep pushing the Shuttle as the ultimate solution all the way through the 90s and into the 2000's.

Randy

 

[fasquardon]

You mean beyond Carter still being a "one-term" President with a worse reputation than he had at the time of his defeat by Reagan?
He'd already canceled the B-1 program and if he added the Shuttle to that list it would have devastated the American aerospace economy sector. Between lay-offs and possible business closures, (both Rocketdyne and Rockwell stated around that time that cancelling their contracts would put them out of business completely) and force reduction at all the NASA centers...

Yes. I imagine if Carter did succeed in shutting the shuttle down it would lead to an absolutely abysmal reputation for him in the aerospace community. Particularly since the shuttle would be "the great bright future that was almost ready to fly", rather than "that friggin' dog that destroyed NASA".

I have to say, I am really intrigued what the impacts would be if the aerospace industry were devastated during the recessions between '79 and '82.

The "gap" would have extended to the mid-80s without the supplements but it would have come at some point and I can see Reagan arguing FOR increased funding as part of the overall DoD funding increase once elected.

Yeah, that seems fairly plausible.

With Reagan at the helm there's a chance you might have actually seen Air Force Shuttles as well as NASA ones with all that entails

What does that entail, besides a massive economic drag on the airforce? The shuttle actually being deployed as the nuclear bomber the Soviets feared it was?

And I was, for a moment, thinking Carter's cancellation would give the US a good rocket and more scope to do really interesting things in space. Now you're convincing me that this will just draw out the agonies of the shuttle's design stage and result in a shuttle that was even more of a drag on US space activities...

They might get an extended Titan contracting and more funding for the study and design of what would become the Titan-IV but I have my doubts

Hmm. The airforce wouldn't use the shuttle's troubles to push for their own independent system to receive more funding? I could see Carter being convinced that the Titan IV was a better way to go in this situation, given how he was driven by national security concerns on this issue.

unless you happen to believe that someone seriously considers the J2-plug/cluster nozzle...

Would the J-2T fit on the shuttle space-wise?

At the POD it's not really meant or able to be radically changed like that.

The engines can't be mounted on a side-mounted pod below the cargo canister?

It would take some money to develop, but I imagine if NASA had a choice between that and no use at all out of any of their shuttle investment, they'd start developing.

The ET is not designed to have the engines on the bottom and a multiple, (see 5 suggested below) J2's are going to be a problem to integrate, (Orbiter body is only a bit under 22ft/6.91m wide and the SII, which had 5 J2's was over 30ft/10m in diameter) unless you happen to believe that someone seriously considers the J2-plug/cluster nozzle...

Well, I ran the silverbird numbers with 5 J-2s and the extra weight of the orbiter. The thing can't reach orbit. By adding a 3rd SRB as Shevek suggested, the orbiter and its 5 J-2s can reach orbit with 6.7 tonnes of payload. (Mind you, to mount that 3rd SRB you'd need to change the launch pads again and change the design of the ET so the orbiter could either sit on top, or sit side-saddle opposite the 3rd booster, almost certainly making the ET heavier.)

So if NASA remains wedded to the orbiter, they're going to have to get the SSME. And some form of TPS so they can get crews back down.

No because Challenger wouldn't have happened as OTL since the whole Shuttle program would have been pushed back. That "time-period" (85/86) would have been when Shuttle was ramping up rather than at it's peak flight rate, which if you think about it might have been "better" (not for the unfortunate crew involved mind you) but it would have brought the issues forward at a time when there was less pressure to make spaceflight "routine" and possibly more understanding in both the administration and public that the Shuttle was still only a first generation RLV rather than an operational system.

The O-rings were gonna go sooner or later.

I'm not convinced that them going earlier in the flight series would have been any better. Consider the impact of the Apollo 1 fire - and that happened during a ground test.

I'm not sure how possible anything besides patches were after the shuttle started flying, since flying the shuttle burned so much of the budget and changing anything once it was built was so hard (and thus expensive).

fasquardon

 

[Archibald]

You have a good point with Spacelab. The Europeans (mostly Germany) would be really pissed off.

Judgements of the Spacelab project have been very severe – a German official once called it the most
expensive gift from Europe to the United States since the Statue of Liberty. Doug Lord, NASA’s
Programme Director, wrote that it was as if the US had hired a European development contractor to
build the laboratory, only that the contractor used its own money (though it has to be said that Lord
also entitled his personal recollections “Spacelab. An International Success Story”). Indeed the terms
of the ESA/NASA Agreement and the subsequent evolution of the project clearly reflected the very
uneven balance of power between the partners with the odds stacked heavily in favour of the USA.

 

[Archibald]

What do the people make of the chances of the US developing a Shuttle-C type rocket with the solids, ET and the J-2 engine?

fasquardon

You should browse "DIRECT" at nasaspaceflight.com.

 

[fasquardon]

You have a good point with Spacelab. The Europeans (mostly Germany) would be really pissed off.

Huh... That would tend to weigh against the shuttle actually being cancelled.

You should browse "DIRECT" at nasaspaceflight.com.

I did. There's ALOT of stuff on it. What exactly am I looking for here?

fasquardon

 

[Archibald]

DIRECT did a thorough analysis of Shuttle-derived HLVs and tried to find the best vehicles and the best compromise (better than Constellation Ares 1 / Ares 5).
They designed the Jupiter 120 / 130 and Jupiter 246 launch vehicles.

The five threads must be thousand of pages, fortunately (for you !) there is a different thread that is much shorter.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34811.0

My personal feeling about DIRECT: the smallest vehicle, the Jupiter 120, could haul no less than 120 000 pounds into orbit. Alas, Orion only weights half of that (60 000 pounds or so).
You can see how bad did Clongton (one of the top DIRECT rocket scientists) took my question about this (I'm the same Archibald)

Basic issue with shuttle-derived HLVs is that the E.T diameter and the sheer power of SSMEs results in a minimum 100 000 pounds+ to orbit launch vehicle, way too much for a) Orion, b) communication satellites c) military payloads, d) science payloads (probes).
I would say that more or less 99% of what goes into Earth orbit and beyond weight less than 65 000 pounds, so Titan III / IV and EELVs are good enough for the job.

Which doesn't mean that a HLV is good for nothing: it could launch heavy science missions, the main issue is that space science budget is just too tight for very large telescopes or fat planetary probes.
Ares V and SLS are no differents.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12554/la...nities-provided-by-nasas-constellation-system



Ares I, as bizarre at it seems, was an atempt to force-down Shuttle-derived hardware into an EELV-class launch vehicle (that is, Delta IV Heavy 65 000 pounds to orbit).

Huh... That would tend to weigh against the shuttle actually being cancelled.

Sure it would. IOTL ESA, Canada and Japan each got space station Freedom agreements with NASA in 1988. They got space station packages, a slice of the coming space station.
Over the next five years the political weight of these agreements was such that Freedom couldn't be cancelled.
It would have been a political and PR nightmare for NASA to try and cancel those agreements in order to kill Freedom. There was no way to get around those international "contracts"

Cancellation of Spacelab would negatively impact US - Germany relations, including Brandt famous Ostpolitik. Other european countries would be less concerned.

Apollo

Apollo - Titan would be the most logical option for manned spaceflight.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35996.0

The core issue is that NASA dumped all Apollo--related hardware to the Smithsonian museum late 1976, long before your POD. Bringing back Apollo would be expensive.
This great document lists what was left of Apollo circa 1975. Most of it was either scrapped or send to aerospace museums.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/hrst/archive/1690.pdf

 

[Archibald]

Hey Fasquardon, I looked at your profile and messages and threads you started, and there were a lot of them about the space program. Do you intend to write a space TL someday ?