WI: Shuttle Liquid Rocket Booster?

Suppose that, instead of the SRBs, something very much like the Sigma Corporation's EDIN05 pressure-fed liquid booster pack is adopted to boost the Space Shuttle. What happens?

A brief description of the EDIN05 can be found in the Jenkins book on the Space Shuttle. Since y'all probably don't have a copy, this essentially mounted the Orbiter and External Tank atop a recoverable (parachute into the sea) pressure-fed liquid booster pack utilizing three 800,000-pound-force kerosene and liquid oxygen engines*. Like the OTL Shuttle, it would use parallel-staging; the ET and Shuttle were modified slightly to provide more propellant and allow larger payloads to be launched. In reality, it was proposed in 1976, but this was much too late for it to be taken seriously (it would have required extensive and expensive pad and VAB modifications). Similar systems, however, were proposed during the late (just prior to approval) studies, so the idea here is that first a system essentially identical (instead of merely similar) to the previously described design is developed and second that the budget trades work out slightly better for NASA, enough to make developing this stage look reasonable. In theory it could be reused; probably about as practically as the SSMEs (advantage of being a simple pressure-fed liquid engine, but disadvantage of being dunked in seawater).

* You may object that 2.4 million pounds-force of thrust is much, much less than the 5.6 million pounds-force generated by the SRBs. True, but the EDIN05 stage would also weigh far, far less than solid propellant boosters. There's not enough data given for me to do any sort of accurate calculation, but a first stage booster might have a dry mass of 5-7% of its loaded weight compared to the 15% or so of solid boosters, for example.
 

Archibald

Banned
Similar systems, however, were proposed during the late (just prior to approval) studies, so the idea here is that first a system essentially identical (instead of merely similar) to the previously described design is developed and second that the budget trades work out slightly better for NASA, enough to make developing this stage look reasonable. In theory it could be reused; probably about as practically as the SSMEs (advantage of being a simple pressure-fed liquid engine, but disadvantage of being dunked in seawater).
Pressure-fed and
Like the OTL Shuttle, it would use parallel-staging
?

On March 15, 1972, James Fletcher announced the shuttle would have solid rocket motors. The alternative was a couple of pressure fed boosters.

You should have a look at that document. Klauss Heiss was an economist working on the infamous Matematica study.

http://www.highfrontier.org/Archive/hf/The%20Space%20Shuttle%20Decision%20Revisited%20and%20the%20Road%20Ahead%20-%20the%20Jamestown%20Group%20Proposal.pdf

The October 1971 Compromise on Solids vs. Pressure-Feds:
I SHOULD HAVE LIED.

Had the author simply presented to Morgenstern the optimal, most economic
approach, namely the Liquids version of TAOS when considering ALL the tradeoffs
and risks vs. the slightly higher non-recurring costs THE DECISION WOULD
HAVE BEEN LIQUIDS: no Challenger disaster in 1986, at least 50% lower costs
per flight and by now a rational evolution of the Space Shuttle to new, Shuttle
derivative efficient re-usable Space transportation options. Had “Solids” never
been mentioned as “saving” $500 million in the 1970’s in RDT&E costs, that
option would never have raised its ugly head and prevailed – for entirely political
reasons (Utah, Thiokol) and NOT technical merit.
Admittedly Heiss was bitter - for four decades until his death in 2010 he was loathed for his economic study of the shuttle that seemed to made so little sense... Sure, the mathematica study is laughable, with perfect hindsight.
I tend to think, however, that
a) no-one had ever tried that before: the economy of RLV
b) Heiss at least had something right: the breakeven point between ELVs and RLVs, which is circa 40 / 50 flights a year.
 
after Challenger disaster, they proposed new Shuttle Liquid Rocket Booster, but the proposal ran into problem:

for Engine they had only SSME, so each booster hat 4 SSME
The new design gave more payload, but Orbiter hardware was limited to 29000 kg
also was the recuperation of LRB were a huge problem
with the 4 heavy SSME in back end and light weight fuel tank on top, it's start to somersault wildly on way down.
try to use a parachute under that condition
Then study deployable stabilizer and Wings, to fly the LRB back to the Cape with help of a jet engine.

here LRB became very expensive in R&D and NASA terminate the Program...
 
In fact every upgrade or replacement over the 30 odd years the STS was in service was cancelled citing either cost, complexity, or both. The real problem in most cases was simply lack of political will.
Bear in mind it was politics that contributed to the issues with the SRB's. Had they been built in a more convenient location on the coast they could have been built in one piece and shipped by barge but to make sure everyone got a piece of the pie they were built by ATK in Utah and had to be shipped by road, meaning they had to be designed to be shipped in sections, hence the O-rings.
 

Thande

Donor
Here's a picture (from Astronautix) of the concept Truth is talking about.

The major problem I can see is, wouldn't this make the stack too large for the VAB?

Screen PNG.png
 
Here's a picture (from Astronautix) of the concept Truth is talking about.

The major problem I can see is, wouldn't this make the stack too large for the VAB?

Not unless the EDIN05 stage is at least 54 meters tall (which it can't be, because then it would be almost as tall as the ET itself). The Saturn V was 110 meters tall, the Space Shuttle only 56. Clearly the Saturn V fit in the VAB.
 
VAB was design to take Saturn V vertical on it's launch pad & Crawler = so 120 meters
and all Shuttle design were smaller on 78 meter high

back to EDIN05
during the Shuttle Design phase 1968, were allot proposals like Sigma Corporation's 1976 proposal
every major Aerospace company had one or even more !

Ballistic Recoverable engine package 1-1/2 Stage Concept. (NASA HQ MT72-6998 11-14-74)
it use 10 engines (7 on engine package) 3 on orbiter on ET of 180ft long and 33ft ø
launch weight 3.2 mio lb.

Boeing prosed Saturn V first stage with pressure fed F-1 engine
other stage with Lox/liquid Propoane or with nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50.

General Dynamics went even more radical idea with Fully reusable Shuttle (CV8014)
three "Boost unit" who launch a Orbiter only with OMS no SSME !
those Liquid Rocket booster land with parachute in ocean
two after launch, the third make almost a orbit and land near two other 40 minute later
 
Top