Space Shuttle 2.0

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Yes. And also many many small things, not just such big changes like the engine choice.

The EPS also lacked some refinement, that the shuttle was really depending on the fuel cells even in an emergency was not wise. Adding a small battery for at least being able to start a fuel cell again would have been a better choice, when you can't fly at all without electricity.

And the programming language of the Shuttle was also one part there, that made the Shuttle rather a prototype. While historically the right choice to develop HAL/S, today you would rather use Ada there. Ada already does a lot of the verification automatically that made the Shuttle software development so expensive.

Also, there's a section in velcro rockets detailing other upgrades that might have been made (lots of alternate booster designs). Worth a look when you have some time on your hands.

Silly question, but why not program the Shuttle in say C, or C++?

 

[Hlynkacg]

Because then you wouldnt have to pay people to develope a new programming language. Remember that NASA is a jobs program first and formost.

 

[Urwumpe]

Silly question, but why not program the Shuttle in say C, or C++?

Because C and C++ are not really made for programming real-time and multi-threaded applications. They are both too low-level for that, and C++ was developed way after the shuttle was available - and even C++ is really only suitable for parallel programming with extensions like Intel Thread Building Blocks.

Ada is especially made for such applications like programming a flight computer, and contains many language constructs and is really annoyingly strict regarding the data types, so that it is easy to find future run-time bugs already while compiling the sources, if you use the language features properly.

 

[Pipcard]

They're often used on GEO missions as the final kick stage

I knew about that already.

 

[Pioneer]

Make it a runway HTHL spaceplane like the XR series, moach's G42-200 StarLiner and many more orbiter addons. There could even be a robotically controlled version so that launching satellites would be much cheaper and the manned version(s) could do what the original shuttle was intended to do except launching satellites. If the spaceplane design was too complicated in the first place, how about an SSTO over-sized capsule: http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld034.htm http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld043.htm

 

[orbitingpluto]

More on the topic than I was last time, if you want the Space Shuttle 2.0 but think Space Shuttle 1.3 patched for year 2010P) needs at least a heavy reworking to fit the bill, why not reexamine what the shuttle was born from in the first place? There a book here(link) which in order to detail the process of the the shuttle's move from a idea to the the shuttle we ended up with, spends most of the book with the in between designs. Like the stuff pictured here(some comparison pictures lifted from the book):

Link

Link

And here is the granddaddy of the Shuttle, the Lockheed Star Clipper.

Link

Anyway, the point of bring up all these almost shuttles is to say that there were other paths that weren't taken. Like the Triamese, or one of the two stage fully reusables. The shuttle we got evolved in changing circumstances and in response to the drums of different organizations; change the requirements and suddenly the shuttle you get looks different. So instead of replacing parts that caused trouble, I think we should figure out what the shuttle was built to do, figure out what it should have been, figure out what we learned with this one, and then start from there. If taking the know how of Shuttle 1.3 patch 2010 and using it to make Star Clipper 2020 Beta is what could work, well, did I tell you I like Star Clippers*, and think that would be a neat idea? Maybe two stage reusable that is a Siamese? Maybe a Dream Chaser/HL20 type vehicle that sits above a expendable rocket, as you think maybe we ought to wait til we know more before trying again at reusable LVs. Then again, sticking to the shuttle as it was might a good idea, and changing some parts here and there might work just as well as making a new shuttle inspired design. But if you don't root around and change the requirements and see what happens, who knows if your touting the old Shuttle's mistakes as features in the new one?

So to ask yourself, what was the shuttle meant to do, before it's job was to be all things to all people?

My answer is servicing space stations, to haul people and cargo to and from them, and maybe even building the things part by part. It's what the shuttle is good at, think about the missions to the Mir and the ISS, and building space stations in Orbiter with the shuttle. Looking back at the decisions that lead to the shuttle, first there the big effort was space stations with a vehicle to service them(the shuttle), then it was station and shuttle equally, and when the station wasn't supportable, it was shuttle alone, with some chance of a station later. The payload bay diameter was fixed at 15 feet by NASA, to accommodate future space station modules, despite the Air Force not caring too much about it and the OMB wanting a cheaper(smaller) shuttle. The RMS is needed to manipulate large objects, and while Hubble and the various small RMS deployable satellites like SPARS do fit, so do modular station parts. Included in the shuttle's design is the need for people to operate it, and space for passengers. All this reinforces my belief that the shuttle was meant to service a space station, and maybe build or expand it. Taking this as truth(or ignoring it, or pointing out the flaws, or coming up with your own version), what should the requirements of the Shuttle 2.0 be like?

I really should go to sleep now, so my own idea will have to be sketched out tomorrow, but I hope to see your replies. :goodnight:

*Aside from the Star Clipper [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=1221"]here[/ame], there's one in [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=1932"]World of 2001[/ame], a Soviet version with some differences; while it is like the real Star Clipper(the Lockheed one I mean, it was a paper project) it has a reusable flyback first stage the real one doesn't, along with the ability to have just the drop tank(Star Clipper Original), or the drop tank and the flyback first stage(the Kludge), allowing you to do things like deliveries to lunar orbit! I picked it out of Wo2001 to live in a non-2001 install as a small cargo hauler, as it's bay is sadly too small to haul any of the shuttle sized station modules. Being small is a strength though, as it has less TPS area to be looked after, and may be less expensive(gut feeling), but aside from that I can't estimate whether it would compare favorably against the Shuttle that was, let alone regular rockets in it's payload class(it can haul about 10,000 to 15,000 kg). Remember that there is also the flyback reusable fist stage to contend with in estimating costs, which I am nowhere near to being able to deal with just the drop tank, never mind the optional first stage, or both at the same time, or when a upper stage is in the mix. Still, that Soviet knock off of a Star Clipper has my heart, and it's caused me to go off topic intentionally in a footnote with a happy grin on my face the whole damn time. Economics and reality be damned.

 

[OrbitalConfusion]

I miss the shuttle. I really did like her. But, I just cant see how that general design would be anything but the way it is now. The cost, safety and efficiency is just not there.

Sitting on top of a rocket seems to be the way to "fly" for safety. I read an article sometime ago talking about this subject. Basically, escaping due to some massive failure is a lot easier to do then on the shuttle.

Buran in my opinion was the shuttles design and given the customary russian twist. You know, in soviet russia Buran fly's YOU. but his lifting capacity was technically more and he could do his whole thing unmanned. Im sure the sts could, but never did.

I think in alot of ways the shuttle is a driving force that put nasa in the problems it faces today. They kinda boldly just hung-out in low earth orbit. We need the "WOW" factor... 40 years ago we put a man on the moon. The whole world watched. ISS and stuff like that is cool for us space geeks but for the average person, they dont care. The public needs to be wow'd. The hard work that went into Apollo... That in itself has advance technology more than anything we have done today in my opinion.

 

[orbitingpluto]

I didn't realize that the tomorrow was Memorial Day, and after finding that out I had my hands full. Sorry about the delay.


So what does Shuttle 2.0 need to do it's job, which in my mind is supposed to service space stations? First requirement is the ability to launch humans with the kind of margin for safe recovery that should have been mandatory in Shuttle 1.0, and was mandatory in other American human LVs like Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. Equipment to get the crew away from a LV explosion on the pad, whisk crew away during a troubled and about to go BOOM! ascent, should all be integrated at stage zero of a Shuttle 2.0 design, and not as afterthoughts. The kind of safety equipment might take the form of ejection seats, individual crew escape balls, or some sort of detachable crew compartment, but it should be mandatory. Otherwise, you have to make the thing unmanned; Space Shuttles ought to be crewed.

Requirement Two is the ability swap crews and bring cargoes to a space station, and then bring crew and delicious down mass to Earth. Let's emphasize that, down mass is pretty damn important. Things like a payload bay start coming up as desirable things, and thus need to be described. Payload bays are part of requirement three though, so more on that in the next requirement. Docking fixtures, and means to transfer items that aren't dry goods comes up here though. People on the station need goods that range from gases and liquids to food and dry goods, and many other things I'm not going to describe. Another part of up cargoes are station needs, which includes things that can be stored in the habs to things that most certainly shouldn't, like propellents for example. Getting these cargoes to the station could take the from of having a different vehicle supply them, like how ATV's and Progresses fulfill the tanker/tug role on the ISS. Here the ability to have a liquids/gases carrier(to attach to the station via hoses, or dock to station at a special filling port) for things safe enough to store in the shuttle's payload bay could come in handy; it could be like a MPLM without being pressurized on the inside, or a regular MPLM with additional equipment on the aft end for carrying the gases/liquids. Docking equipment for the shuttle should be APAS or LIDs type, carried modules would have their docking equipment decided individually. Swinging back around to crews, I think something like 5-6 is reasonable; 2 or 3 for operating the shuttle, with the rest being station crew or EVA/construction crew depending on the mission. What kind of construction those crews can do depends on their work site, which includes the payload bay.

Requirement Three is a payload bay, and the size of the payload bay roughly determines the size of the shuttle, and it's mass. I want to reduce the size of the shuttle, making it less of a burden, as every kg of shuttle means more thrust needed to more the thing, and more thrust uses more kg's of propellent, and so on. Using Shuttle 1.0's 60 by 15 foot(18.2 by 4.57 m) bay as a reference, my Shuttle 2.0 will be roughly half in length but have the full width of 15 ft. While this means transporting station modules will be hampered by not having Shuttle-like length, I don't believe transporting station components should be the main job, resupply should. Retaining the width keeps a lot of volume and retains use of things like the MPLMs without change, as well as the occasional station part that fits. Construction/repair tasks on Shuttle 2.0 are obviously going to different then similar jobs on Shuttle 1.0, some even being more difficult as a result of those differences. A smaller bay isn't just part of focusing on resupply though, it's part of requirement four.

Requirement Four- Shuttle 2.0 should be lighter and smaller than Shuttle 1.0. By reducing the payload bay length alone, mass could be reduced, thrust requirements at lift-off and other times(orbital maneuvering for one) relaxed, TPS area reduced, and so on for great benefit to costs and technician time. Since there isn't any need for military missions involving polar missions and once around orbits, Shuttle 2.0 doesn't need as much crossrange as Shuttle 1.0, and could result in some mass savings as there isn't as much need for big wings; though as there are other factors at work in deciding how big the wings need to be(down mass for one) and I'm no expert, I'm going to warn against anyone taking my opinion as fact. Anyway, being smaller helps reduce launch costs, as expense goes up the more mass you have to move.

Requirement Five is avoiding the high costs of Shuttle 1.0's operations. Doing so is part of why Shuttle 2.0 is smaller, less mass means less thrust required, less propellent, etc. A big part of this is how Shuttle 2.0 is launched, and for that I don't have a good answer for now. I do believe costly engine programs should be avoided, though that leads to to the end of this post.

Cheaper, smaller, and focused on supporting a space station- if all this seems like it was inspired by stuff from the late sixties, and answer is it was. Details like how it launches, or how much payload to to orbit will have to wait til I get the gumption to do the hard bit and figure out the numbers; being truthful, nobody should wait on that. Besides, this isn't my Shuttle 2.0 thread anyway:lol:. Big thank you to Bruce for rousing me up, it isn't often I write something long like this anymore.:tiphat:

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I'm not sure spaceplanes are "in vogue" at the moment with governments who'll foot the bill, but some of my favorite projects are...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ptAqeqIdoX0/TAh-Nf-biqI/AAAAAAAABKw/5_feru7jXKw/s320/maks_os-last2.png

Or even Klipper

http://img.weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/spacex-8.jpg

MAKS looks like it'd be a fun ride to orbit, but Klipper ride a Proton in a more conventional(?) manner.

Ah, what about Hermes?

 

[Pipcard]

What about HOPE?

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I'd considered including the Japanese HOPE orbiter to my list, but held back because it didn't have a launch vehicle already developed.

MAKS would have used an Antonov 225, Klipper a Proton and Hermes the Ariane V. Hope would have to have a new launcher, or a pricey-to-flight-prove adapter for something already in existance.

It is a nice looking craft though, but I can only find drawings (did they ever build a full-scale mock-up?).

 

[Pipcard]

Maybe the canceled H-IIA 222 (very outdated article) could have launched it.

Also, a Proton-launched spaceplane with a payload bay, and designed as an alternative to Buran.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Ah The LKS. Probably would have been a wonderful little spacecraft had the politicos at the time not condemned it to death (then snuck into the facility and destroyed the mock-up).

I do like the LKS (and learning to mesh one with Blender but not having much luck ATM), but Klipper should/would have been a next-gen craft whereas LKS was a mini Buran.

I've got a 50% complete OK-M meshed up with Anim8tor, but not anywhere close to something I'd want to give over to anyone. The OK-M is similar in operation to Donamy's Jason (not in the looks dept though). The nose would swing down to reveal a docking port and the cargo rides in the back (door hinges open downwards and payload extracted, maybe there was a retractable pallet(?)). Cancelled to concentrate on MAKS.

 

[Urwumpe]

I would not call a MAKS or Klipper a Shuttle 2.0.

The payload bay of the Shuttle is one critical item IMHO, since it is a very good EVA platform. It could be optimized, maybe a bit smaller, but a minimal payload bay would be too small. The robot arm is mandatory as well.

Same with the Jason there. While it has robot arm, it lacks the payload bay as full EVA platform. If you would include ergonomics and lighting conditions in the simulation, the differences between Shuttle and Jason are pretty visible. it would need a bigger work platform there, more flood lights, more points for attaching tools and payloads, etc. A good design, but no Space Shuttle 2.0.

Still, a MAKS would be a cool addition to Orbiter, since it is pretty much a realistic DG.

 

[N_Molson]

Anyway, the future seems to belong to smaller spaceplanes. Maybe the shuttle was too big, which increased operational costs and launch system expenses. Though, of course, it was handy to carry whole station modules. But the initial segment of the ISS was sent "alone" atop a Proton rocket after all, so having a robotic arm and a "EVA workbench" space in the cargo bay might be enough to serve the purpose.

 

[Urwumpe]

Anyway, the future seems to belong to smaller spaceplanes. Maybe the shuttle was too big, which increased operational costs and launch system expenses. Though, of course, it was handy to carry whole station modules. But the initial segment of the ISS was sent "alone" atop a Proton rocket after all, so having a robotic arm and a "EVA workbench" space in the cargo bay might be enough to serve the purpose.

Well, if you could have the workbench separated from the Shuttle in the same way, like a orbital work platform to be supplied by smaller shuttle flights, it could maybe work economically... after all you need this platform only in space, why land it again?

 

[Donamy]

How about the Jason.

 

[Urwumpe]

How about the Jason.

We are already discussing it in the thread as one of the best successor projects. :lol:

 

[N_Molson]

The other interesting possibility with the Shuttle vast payload bay was the possiblity to catch back a massive satellite, repair and service it on Earth, then launch and deploy it again. But since most of the big satellites are beyond LEO, and often in GSO, this would have required a lot of dV and a (very) improved heatshield.

 

[Urwumpe]

The other interesting possibility with the Shuttle vast payload bay was the possiblity to catch back a massive satellite, repair and service it on Earth, then launch and deploy it again. But since most of the big satellites are beyond LEO, and often in GSO, this would have required a lot of dV and a (very) improved heatshield.

Or the planned orbital infrastructure beyond the STS based around Space Station Freedom, with the STS really only becoming LEO assembly platform and shuttle.

But such a vision is missing in spaceflight as whole today. When the highway system was build in the USA for a multiple of the ISS costs, nobody complained. When you try to do such a highway system in space, everybody will complain about "this money should be better spent on Earth" - even if this means that in the future missions will have to carry their own "highways" with them and cost a multiple of the "space highway" in total.