WI Buran-style Shuttle stack?

[e of pi]

The Energia-Buran stack that the Soviets developed for their equivalent of the US Space Shuttle put the main engines on the booster core, thus making it possible to adapt the rocket for other payloads such as the Polyus that was the payload of the first test flight. What if NASA independently developed such a design for the STS stack, either with solid rocket boosters as OTL or with liquid boosters like the Energia design?

It seems to me that such a system would greatly simplify design of an equivalent to Space Station Freedom or other second-generation modular station, since core modules could be designed to fill a shuttle-less launch of the core stack on launch with checkout and assembly performed by a second launch with the Shuttle, reducing the overall number of modules and complexity of assembly.

It would also allow an equivalent of Project Constellation or the Space Launch System (which NASA will be developing now in accordance with the just-passed NASA Authorization Act of 2011) to proceed much more easily--the only required developments would be a new capsule and Earth departure stage for simple BEO flight along with mission specific requirements like landers for moon or Mars missions and/or a habitat module for flights to Martian orbit or other long-duration targets like Venus or Near-Earth Asteroids.

It seems to me that the mistake of the 1970s wasn't so much cancelling Saturn V as designing its successor to essentially be a 70+ metric ton heavy launch system restricted to only a single main payload and 15-20 tons of secondary orbital payload by the decision to put the main ascent engines on that 50+ ton main payload.

 

[grdja83]

Wow, it is very unlikely as NASA's decision process at time was rather.... questionable.

But if somehow done. Everything is different. NASA has a HHLV that can operate independently of shuttles. If funding is allowed they could lift Freedom up in 2 or 3 pieces before 1990. And since any potential return to moon projects don't require development of a new HHLV separate from Shuttle stack, we could such program under way in '90es.

It all goes back to how ridiculously NASA was fucked when they admitted to themselves that projected Shuttle launch costs were hopelessly optimistic.

 

[Gridley]

As a POD, how about the USAF doesn't get involved in Shuttle design? That was a case of mission creep if I've ever seen one...

 

[grdja83]

Big issue with entire concept was that due to Shuttle's start as two stage both stage fully reusable system, people kept thinking off it as such even when for cost saving issues reusable flyback first stage regressed to ET and SRMs. And with SSMEs being rather pricey they chose to have them on the part that flies back, the shuttle.

It is a very tangled mess.

If DOD dropped shuttle maybe even entire project would have died due to lack of funds. It was very tight run, because whenever NASA said "yey we'll fit the budget", Whitehouse and OMB would cut the budget even further and say "I trust you can make due with what is provided".

Having a "old" version of shuttle where it is only a small vehicle for crew and minimal cargo would require NASA to develop a HLV , and the money for that simply wasn't there.

Situation to best fit OP requirements would be POD in '68, a minimal shuttle is chosen, to be flown on Saturn IB. But that requires that someone drops the belief that full re-usability is achievable and that it will give greatly reduced launch costs.

 

[Archibald]

A decent shuttle would have had
- four kerosene-fueled strapons, each with one F-1A
- some SSMEs on the core (the current external tank)
- two or three man crew on SR-71 ejector seats
- 20 000 pound payload in a smaller bay

Smaller payload bay and less crossrange mean different shapes are feasible - lifting body or Maxime Faget straight wing orbiter.

Oh, and flying the shuttle unmanned at time would be fine...

 

[Workable Goblin]

As a POD, how about the USAF doesn't get involved in Shuttle design? That was a case of mission creep if I've ever seen one...

It was actually more the NRO. And that was a result of NASA needing to put all US payloads on the Shuttle to have even a chance of hitting the flight rates they needed to to justify the program.

Wow, it is very unlikely as NASA's decision process at time was rather.... questionable.

But if somehow done. Everything is different. NASA has a HHLV that can operate independently of shuttles. If funding is allowed they could lift Freedom up in 2 or 3 pieces before 1990. And since any potential return to moon projects don't require development of a new HHLV separate from Shuttle stack, we could such program under way in '90es.

It all goes back to how ridiculously NASA was fucked when they admitted to themselves that projected Shuttle launch costs were hopelessly optimistic.

True. But the possibility of adapting the Shuttle stack for HLV purposes, eg. with Shuttle-C and its derivatives, was always there IOTL, and would not (in my estimation) have been all that more difficult and expensive than building the cargo pod for this design. So most likely (IMHO) is that while a theoretical capability is admitted, it is never actually used--too expensive, always the bugaboo of space development.

The Energia-Buran stack that the Soviets developed for their equivalent of the US Space Shuttle put the main engines on the booster core, thus making it possible to adapt the rocket for other payloads such as the Polyus that was the payload of the first test flight. What if NASA independently developed such a design for the STS stack, either with solid rocket boosters as OTL or with liquid boosters like the Energia design?

Well...they had plans for things like that since before the Shuttle even flew. They even had the "Saturn-Shuttle", where the SRBs would be replace by an S-IB (that is, the first stage of the Saturn V). But the same thing doomed those that has doomed all SDHLVs--money, or the lack thereof.

 

[SunilTanna]

The original idea was the NASA would get Saturn Vs, and a shuttle, and space station. They eventually got half of 2, over a much longer period than intended, and by making all sorts of compromises along the way, and that's the fundamental problem - you need a POD which results in a lot more money going to NASA.

 

[Michel Van]

the close thing to Buran type NASA shuttle
was 1969 proposal to use Saturn V first stage and orbiter as secondstage
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2010/08/orbiters-ic-launch-from-launch-complex.html

My Proposal
First stage
customized interstage from Saturn-V S-IC to S-II
on that are attached 2 to 8xUA1205 solid booster of Titan IIIC
Second stage
Saturn V S-II stage (5xJ-2 engine)
Third Stage
Centaur (2xRL10 engine) for medium payload in low orbit
or
S-iVb (1xJ-2 engine) for heavy payload like Skylab or GEO mission (with Centaur)
or
Orbiter (J-2 Engine) with 20000 pound payload or 3-4 astronauts
as a lifting body

 

[Thande]

I don't think it would have been chosen at the time, but if it had, NASA would be much better off, as they would be able to build a DIRECT-type in-line launcher from it with very little modifications. Look at Polyus (I know it failed, but for unrelated reasons) - they could have launched the equivalent of the whole ISS in a couple of launches.

 

[Thande]

On reflection, I don't think NASA would have gone for it even back then. Ultimately the shuttle was a way for them to wedge humans into roles that didn't really need them just to prevent the US government from being able to cancel human spaceflight - and in that role it worked very well. A Buran-type system would allow unmanned flights and would therefore be politically a no-no even if in terms of science, technology and engineering it would be superior. Such is the space programme.

 

[CalBear]

While NASA today is, IMO, the embodiment of "rule by committee = failure", the Shuttle's failing are not NASA's (or the USAF) doing. The Credit there goes to Congress.

Congress rejected a much more versatile and mission capable vehicle as being excessively expensive, resulting in the design we have come to know. The orbiter design before Nixon, OMB & the Hill got their hooks into it was effectively a Saturn IVB with the Shuttle as the final stage.

The design the Air Force speared was the REALLY innovative DC-3. It was a two stage launch vehicle/orbiter combo, with BOTH stages fully reusable, both stages manned and with conventional landing configurations. Both would also have had semi powered landing capacity (each vehicle was to be provided enough JP-4 to allow one wave off and go around). The DC-3 was what NASA was capable of proposing in the heady days of Apollo and great success.

It wasn't until the 1970 Five Year NASA budget came out, a plan that cut the Agency's budget by 2/3, that it started down the path to the Agency we know and largely loathe today.

 

[grdja83]

The oldest shuttle versions, that "two stages both manned and fully reusable", it was beautiful... and it would have never worked. I think first stage was supposed to use something like dozen SSMEs, and during '70es that little engine seamed almost impossible to get to work.

That version of shuttle was doomed, as were all oh so very pretty versions that had both stages reusable.

Maybe NASA could have pulled it off by 1985. if they first went on a X-Plane research program and not trying to immediately develop full operational vehicle.

 

[simonbp]

The Energia-Buran stack that the Soviets developed for their equivalent of the US Space Shuttle put the main engines on the booster core, thus making it possible to adapt the rocket for other payloads such as the Polyus that was the payload of the first test flight. What if NASA independently developed such a design for the STS stack, either with solid rocket boosters as OTL or with liquid boosters like the Energia design?

The key is engine recovery. JSC actually did spend several months on 1971 trying to figure out a way to recover the engines from a tank-mounted configuration. They ended up with this massive mechanical nightmare that weighted much more than the performance drop from having the engines on the orbiter. The Soviets left the rockets on the tank because they didn't have the time/money to develop large reusable LH2 engines, so they just developed larger expendable engines and threw them away each flight.

Similarly, reusability was the same reason for the solid over liquid boosters. MSFC really pushed pressure-fed liquid boosters, but JSC won over with the solid boosters because they were simpler and thus more resistant to being drenched in salt water after landing in the ocean...

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Similarly, reusability was the same reason for the solid over liquid boosters. MSFC really pushed pressure-fed liquid boosters, but JSC won over with the solid boosters because they were simpler and thus more resistant to being drenched in salt water after landing in the ocean...

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.

Whereas with a liquid fuel booster all you have to do (in theory) is wash the salt off and refuel it.... (OK, so practice is different from theory, and making the whole thing saltwater resistant is non-trivial...) Still

 

[grdja83]

I never found out, have any RSRMs ever actually been reused?

 

[Workable Goblin]

The design the Air Force speared was the REALLY innovative DC-3. It was a two stage launch vehicle/orbiter combo, with BOTH stages fully reusable, both stages manned and with conventional landing configurations. Both would also have had semi powered landing capacity (each vehicle was to be provided enough JP-4 to allow one wave off and go around). The DC-3 was what NASA was capable of proposing in the heady days of Apollo and great success.

Mmmm...not so much. The DC-3 was Faget's baby (he's the guy who designed Mercury and Apollo). The Air Force (which was mostly acting as a proxy for the NRO--Dwayne Day has a bunch of great articles about this at The Space Review) actually didn't like the DC-3, since it had too small a payload/payload bay (= it couldn't fit the big recon satellites, especially the signals intelligence payloads bound for geostationary) and had an insufficient cross-range (= it couldn't easily AOA, and I suppose they feared the Soviets might shoot it down). The design itself had some severe thermal flaws--stub-wing designs don't play well with reentry stresses--so it would have been rather problematic even if it had gotten into service.

Also, the DC-3 isn't what NASA was capable of proposing. The AAP was, and that was one hell of a program. Waaaay too expensive between the Great Society and the Vietnam War, though, and generally declining interest in space exploration (and lack of a "broad mandate" for NASA).

It wasn't until the 1970 Five Year NASA budget came out, a plan that cut the Agency's budget by 2/3, that it started down the path to the Agency we know and largely loathe today.

I would date that back to '68 or '67. '68 is when the Saturn V production line was shut down (yes, before Nixon was even elected!), while '67 was when the Outer Space Treaty (banning government claims on celestial bodies) was signed and ratified. Records from the Johnson administration indicate that the latter was partially done to curtail a large space program. It was definitely before FY 1970, though.

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.

Whereas with a liquid fuel booster all you have to do (in theory) is wash the salt off and refuel it.... (OK, so practice is different from theory, and making the whole thing saltwater resistant is non-trivial...) Still

Er, what? Given the...highly specialized nature of rocket engines, dropping them into the oceans and reusing them is far from trivial, and probably no easier than refurbishing an SRB. They did propose LRBs (multiple times) later, in the '80s and '90s, but there was never the funding and will available, for several reasons. One particularly important one is that the Shuttle is actually nearly space-limited if it launches into it's "best" orbit--that is, a practical payload (eg., a satellite or a spacecraft) massing at the limit of what it can carry would come pretty close to not actually being able to fit in the payload bay.

 

[Michel Van]

I never found out, have any RSRMs ever actually been reused?

they replace the old SRBs with RSRMs after the Challenger disaster in 1989
and reused them until last Shuttle flights

so far i know the RSRMs gona will used as a Five-segment version for ARES-1 launch rocket

 

[Bahamut-255]

they replace the old SRBs with RSRMs after the Challenger disaster in 1989
and reused them until last Shuttle flights

so far i know the RSRMs gona will used as a Five-segment version for ARES-1 launch rocket

Unless it's cancelled fully in FY2011, and I say 'bout time. I see too many flaws in its design i.e. Can't shut down 1st stage once lit. If abort required, must accelerate away from accelerating rocket. As yet not fully known Pogo Oscillation issues to name a few. Personally I'd feel safer in an unmodified Proton rocket.

Back to topic, making STS more like Energia/Buran does make a certain amount of good sense, as it would have allowed for the simpler setup of an unmanned carrier version, insertion of very large (size) payloads, and provided a possible means of return to the Moon, using the same basic hardware in the same basic configuration - side-mounted payload. Assuming of course that the political will was there, which I seriously doubt would be the case.

 

[Polish Eagle]

I never found out, have any RSRMs ever actually been reused?

I recall reading an article saying that an SRB segment from Atlantis's first flight was reused on her most recent flight.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Er, what? Given the...highly specialized nature of rocket engines, dropping them into the oceans and reusing them is far from trivial, and probably no easier than refurbishing an SRB. They did propose LRBs (multiple times) later, in the '80s and '90s, but there was never the funding and will available, for several reasons. One particularly important one is that the Shuttle is actually nearly space-limited if it launches into it's "best" orbit--that is, a practical payload (eg., a satellite or a spacecraft) massing at the limit of what it can carry would come pretty close to not actually being able to fit in the payload bay.

I'm quite sure that it wouldn't be 'easy', but there were several plans to do just that.
Saturn V-B
Saturn S-IC-TLB
etc.

There were many such programs, but perhaps the most exciting, and therefore most tragic, was the possibility of making the Saturn heavy lift launch vehicle partly reusable. 'In terms of dollars spent, the reusable Saturn first stage would have an initial cost of about $25 million per copy. Boeing predictions show that it would cost about 13% of that amount to recover and repair the stage, plus a labor cost of about 10% for repair and checkout. Company spokesmen say the 23% total is an 'outside figure. Itís our most pessimistic prediction.' And they add that with the redesign of the S1C, rather than adaptation of the unit, the 13% part of the refurbishing cost would be pared to about 3-4% of the stageís original cost...The Rocketdyne F-1 engine used to power the S-1C has already been run for periods of more than 40 hours with no component failure or more than normal wear. This is equal in time to some 960 flights. Rocketdyneís H-1 engine, small relative of the F-1, was fired and dunked into the ocean several times by NASA in a test of its ability to be refurbished. Each time it was washed off, checked out and repaired, and test-fired again. Cost of the refurbishment was estimated at about 4% of the cost of a new engine. Comparable figures have been projected for the F-1...They calculate that if just one booster was built and reused, it would have paid for itself by the third flight.'7