how would you 'shuttle'?

[Umlüx]

everybody knows the space shuttle. but how would YOU design a reuseable, multifunctional crew and payload carrier if you had no insane airforce standards to meet? something thats cost efficient. launches and maybe glides gently back to earth to make space tourism more feasible for untrained persons. and how would you launch it?

the STS cant be the ideal answer to everything?

[Starwhip]

Like so:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM

I'd keep everything inline with one another, it makes everything so much easier.

[Bill Phil]

I would design it as a part of a larger system, like the original Shuttle was supposed to be.

Maybe more of the original designs....

[Streetwind]

everybody knows the space shuttle. but how would YOU design a reuseable, multifunctional crew and payload carrier if you had no insane airforce standards to meet?

I wouldn't.

Having a vessel that hauls both cargo and crew means it's going to fly underutilized on 95% of all missions. It actually was one of the space shuttle's main issues. Of course, I agree that there were a few missions that would not have been possible without the combined crew and cargo capacities of the shuttle, like servicing the Hubble space telescope when it had technical problems. But that kind of starts to lose its meaning when you realize that building and launching a completely new telescope would have cost marginally less than what launching the repair mission ended up costing...

SpaceX has the right idea IMHO: one modular crewed spacecraft and one small cargo spacecraft that are based on the same pressure vessel and are built in the same factory. Both are reusable. Both are launched by the same common booster, which is also (hopefully soon going to be) reusable. The booster can also launch large cargo chunks that don't fit into the small cargo vessel as dedicated payload. And for the rare super-heavy payload, you can bolt several common boosters together into one super-launcher.

This architecture achieves all of the capabilities of the shuttle, with the slight caveat that a small fraction of those capabilities would require two Falcon launches instead of one STS launch. But the two Falcon launches would still cost less than half of that one STS launch - without reusability factored in on the Falcon side.

[magnemoe]

I wouldn't.

Having a vessel that hauls both cargo and crew means it's going to fly underutilized on 95% of all missions. It actually was one of the space shuttle's main issues. Of course, I agree that there were a few missions that would not have been possible without the combined crew and cargo capacities of the shuttle, like servicing the Hubble space telescope when it had technical problems. But that kind of starts to lose its meaning when you realize that building and launching a completely new telescope would have cost marginally less than what launching the repair mission ended up costing...

SpaceX has the right idea IMHO: one modular crewed spacecraft and one small cargo spacecraft that are based on the same pressure vessel and are built in the same factory. Both are reusable. Both are launched by the same common booster, which is also (hopefully soon going to be) reusable. The booster can also launch large cargo chunks that don't fit into the small cargo vessel as dedicated payload. And for the rare super-heavy payload, you can bolt several common boosters together into one super-launcher.

This architecture achieves all of the capabilities of the shuttle, with the slight caveat that a small fraction of those capabilities would require two Falcon launches instead of one STS launch. But the two Falcon launches would still cost less than half of that one STS launch - without reusability factored in on the Falcon side.

The service missions could be done with an smaller shuttle with just an small cargo hold. You would still need the arm but don't need an so large. Have the option to remove the arm if not needed, say you do an crew and resupply mission to space station, no arm and no eva need so you use that space for supplies. bay can hold an pressurized compartment or unpressurized like dragon trunk.

One very fun design would be to make this small shuttle with an smaller external tank, now use an first stage who can land again like they try with falcon 9.

Since the shuttle engines are only used as second stage they can be much smaller, benefit over falcon 9 reusable with dragon is that you only drop the second stage fuel tank.

first stage can be used with an disposable second stage for heavier payloads. Shuttle can be used unmanned, you can also have an pure cargo version with just an larger cargo bay.

[Nibb31]

everybody knows the space shuttle. but how would YOU design a reuseable, multifunctional crew and payload carrier if you had no insane airforce standards to meet?

I wouldn't. Crew and cargo shouldn't mix. Also, anything "multifunctional" is going to be suboptimal. Design specific vehicles for each mission to reduce complexity and weight, or design a common core with mission modules. There aren't that many missions anyway.

launches and maybe glides gently back to earth to make space tourism more feasible for untrained persons. and how would you launch it?

the STS cant be the ideal answer to everything?

Wings are so Buck Rogers! The only reason people are fond of spaceplanes is because they look pretty. In reality, they are useless in space, introduce all sorts of complexity, and carry a huge mass penalty. Cut them off and go for VTVL.

[Frozen_Heart]

If it had to be winged landing.... and assuming that it wouldn't be subject to political meddling.

SLS core, with Pyrios boosters. Liquids are so much safer than solids. Probably not remotely possible but modify the core and boosters to land like the falcon 9/heavy does. That way you get 100% reusability

Make the orbiter have only the OMS engines on it like Buran. Would give it a lot more dV in space. Also it didn't need such huge wings. They were just there to increase cross-range for the air force. If they are smaller it will further increase payload and dV.

Also make it automated. No need to carry crew and cargo together all the time. If you need crew then make a module that can be put in the cargo bay to carry them. (Abort could be handled by explosive bolts blasting the cargo bay doors open, while small SRBs launched the crew module clear.)

If it was anything goes, I'd go for something very similar to the Falcon Heavy, just with an upgraded, reusable upper stage.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Frozen_Heart

[Enterprise0709]

SKYLON

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html

Next question!

[magnemoe]

If it had to be winged landing.... and assuming that it wouldn't be subject to political meddling.

SLS core, with Pyrios boosters. Liquids are so much safer than solids. Probably not remotely possible but modify the core and boosters to land like the falcon 9/heavy does. That way you get 100% reusability

Make the orbiter have only the OMS engines on it like Buran. Would give it a lot more dV in space. Also it didn't need such huge wings. They were just there to increase cross-range for the air force. If they are smaller it will further increase payload and dV.

Also make it automated. No need to carry crew and cargo together all the time. If you need crew then make a module that can be put in the cargo bay to carry them. (Abort could be handled by explosive bolts blasting the cargo bay doors open, while small SRBs launched the crew module clear.)

If it was anything goes, I'd go for something very similar to the Falcon Heavy, just with an upgraded, reusable upper stage.

Problem with Buran is that you loose your engines, I liked my idea of shuttle being second stage with shuttle style drop tank.

Agree with automated option alternate an unmanned version like the dragon 1 pod.

I would not put crew in an cargo bay module, if you do ISS resupply missions you need pressurized cargo space anyway.

Two options, one is to eject the front crew compartment of the shuttle, leave back pressurized cargo space/ eva facilities, this would probably be easier, safer and lighter than having an passenger compartment in the cargo hold who is capable of eject and land safly. The passenger module would still have bottom heat shield.

This allows you to wrap the bottom part in an fairing if needed and you could use an escape tower.

Second option is less safe, treat the shuttle as an escape system, it would be smaller and more nimble than SLS and sit on top of an first stage, might put some small SRB on the interface between first stage and shuttle to ensure an fast getaway. As you here would eject with the fuel tank you would have plenty of options.

One option is to have one unpressurized cargo only version, this would only be interesting in my scenario where you only dropped the fuel tank. if you drop core or second stage you would be better of with an disposable fairing.

Edited February 25, 2015 by magnemoe