Could a private company make a new space shuttle.

[YoetoJoe]

So i was wondering, say a private space company decided to build a craft that was to the same specifications as the space shuttle only modernized it. I'm wondering if a company decided to do this if anything would stand in their way. I'm also wondering how much something like this would cost and how long it would take. On the flip side, what if a company bought one of the original shuttles and got it space worthy again.

[Sampa]

Given the amount of money and man-power required for such a thing to occur...i don't see why they can't build a new one! NorthAmerican did it once!

[sp1989]

That is a good question. I think if you were to build a shuttle certain improvements must be made. A proper abort system must be considered is one of my main concerns. That being said and I love the space shuttle, its not really necessary. The internatonal Space Station has proved that although the space shuttle was key to building it, a shuttle is not necessary. The russian segment were launched on proton rockets and then manned by soyuz. Soyuz are still being used. The most efficient way to get people to and from the space station is a capsule. Orion, Dragon, and CST-100, all can hold 5+ people. Cargo to orbit is done with Dragon, ATV, Cygnus, Progress, and more. So everything can be done with out the space shuttle and at a much lower price tag. So what I am trying to get at is, why would someone want to make a new space shuttle? The only viable use would be for tourism and that I am 100% behind. Still capsules would be more efficient. You can't leave LEO with a shuttle so going traveling past LEO off the table with a shuttle. So could it be done? Absolutely! Should it be done? Not really money can be spent much more efficiently elsewhere to space travel. Will it be done? Most likely no. The closest you will get to a plane in space is maybe the dream chaser and virgin galactic.

[Bill Phil]

I hear that the exact specs were destroyed...

No one should do it. Ever again. Not in the same way.

Think of a vehicle like the Saturn V, but only as capable as the Saturn IB. That's basically the Shuttle.

[SargeRho]

Perhaps LM/ULA could pick up the X-33 project again? As far as I remember, they solved the problems with the composite fuel tanks.

[Kerbart]

I doubt that, with the same specifications, it would be commercially viable, which is what "a company" suggests to be a crucial condition for such a venture.

[UmbralRaptor]

A direct clone of the shuttle is a terrible idea. (It's cheaper to build a new rocket each time)

A crew carrying spaceplane may be of some value.

[magnemoe]

A direct clone of the shuttle is a terrible idea. (It's cheaper to build a new rocket each time)

A crew carrying spaceplane may be of some value.

Yes, dream chaser should work, however its just an pod who uses wings to land, main benefit is lower g load during landing an cross range.

Main problem with the shuttle was that it should do everything.

Some of the older designs for shuttle makes more sense.

First the tasks it should do, drop the huge cargo capacity, it can be done cheaper with an reusable first stage.

Keep an small cargo bay who can have various equipment. For an run to an space station you have an module for pressurized cargo rest of the bay is for unpressurized cargo, this might be stuff for external use on space station or secondary payload. Another setup is eva facilities and an smaller version of the space shuttles arm, this is for repair and assembly. Yes the arm will put requirement on the bay and back section.

Now to launch this use an reusable first stage Falcon 9 style, second stage engines on shuttle and keep the drop tank, as the shuttle is smaller and only burn during the second

stage the tank will be smaller. Now you have an reusable platform who just drop the fairing and the drop tank.

Benefit of an shuttle design is that you can reuse engines on second stage, an combined dragon and second stage is not practical.

It might be an idea to have some main engine fuel in the shuttle too, escape system and circulate but not sure how practical this is.

other option would be to put it on the first too second stage interstage so escape booster would return with first stage, something like dream chaser uses.

You would need another system to eject the tank.

Other benefit is that you could use the first stage with an normal second stage for heavy payloads. An unpressurized version of this shuttle might make sense as an satellite launcher too because of the high degree of reuseability but the upper stage dry weight and limited cargo space might spoil this.

[Tommygun]

With current technology a space plane does not make any sense other than as a research tool for future space plane technology.

If we get to a point where we can reasonably safely launch and recover a spacecraft on a daily basis at an affordable price, then there may be an opportunity for a space plane.

If you want to launch and recover somewhat close to a city, then a winded space plane may be more desirable.

I'm imagining something like Skylon that doesn't take off and land with roaring rocket motors.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Tommygun

[AngelLestat]

It will depends how efficient and out of the box might be the design.

If skylon works.. that will be the design to follow.

I personally dont see any benefic to launch these aerodynamic wing shapes with normal rockets, you get enoght drawback in the launch to make the land benefic pointless.

[Camacha]

Replacing parts and space rating the whole craft again will be as expensive as building a new one, but with the costs, draw backs and legacy problems of the old one. So yes, they could, but no one in his right mind would pay for it.

[softweir]

I hear that the exact specs were destroyed...

On the contrary, after the programme was closed they spent 6 months archiving every everything, starting with the early specification documents, right down to every last scrap of paper and the contents of engineers' notebooks. If anybody wants to recreate the shuttle or any part of it, the problem will be the sheer amount they need to read!

You are probably thinking of Apollo.

[Guest]

SSTO shuttle can bring rather much to orbit. Unfortunately, most of that is the shuttle itself.

© http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/members/8833-Alchemist

[Nuke]

for crew/light payloads only. nothing on the scale of the shuttle itself. large payloads are better left to rockets.

[Bill Phil]

On the contrary, after the programme was closed they spent 6 months archiving every everything, starting with the early specification documents, right down to every last scrap of paper and the contents of engineers' notebooks. If anybody wants to recreate the shuttle or any part of it, the problem will be the sheer amount they need to read!

You are probably thinking of Apollo.

I was talking to some NASA guys who did work on the Shuttle. According to them, something was destroyed. But this doesn't prevent a shuttle. It just won't be the same.

For Apollo, they just forgot about it...

[Motokid600]

The only reason I can see to have a shuttle is for if one day we decide to have a women carry a baby to term in weightlessness. If there was an emergency. Or after the birth. The mother and child would need a shuttle to return.

Is it worth devising a new shuttle just for one experiment? Probably not. That'd be very interesting though.

[prophet_01]

I think it largely depends on the size and what you want to use it for. I consider a small shuttle to be nothing more but a winged pod. A bigger version like the NASA's space shuttle is one approach for a second stage recovery (not full recovery of course). I don't see why the basic concept is such a bad idea. Of course there were many problems with the final design, some of them as a rsult of decisions that didn't follow the initial idea to reduce the costs per launch. Too many capabilities and the real price of recovery are a big part of the problem. The originally expected price of a shuttle mission wasn't too bad, it just wasn't possible to get even close to those expectations.

Like others mentioned, a reusable first stage with sane recovery costs could make the whole design a lot more economic. The shuttles SRB's

turned out to be very expensive to reuse and landing equipment in the ocean isn't the best approach to minimise costs (salt water does bad things to your shiny high tech equipment...)

The external tank turned out to be not cheap at all, but I don't see how that part could be avoided on heavy shuttles without building something like a buran (which is arguably even less economical, cause I don't see a way to recover something the size of an energija). Maybe this gets less of a problem with a more specialised -> lighter shuttle. But I won't bet on it and in the end, not even space x will be capable of reusing second stages within the next years (more likely the next decade).

And finally, the shuttle's heat shield was an aspect that definetly needs to be worked on. If a similar design should ever be considered, the maintenace costs need to be reduced significantly. There is an interesting concept that has been tested by the DLR (german govermental aerospace organisation, partner/member of ESA) called SHEFEX. It's basic idea is to minimise the variants and shapes of panels used in a reentry system. The space shuttle used a vast number of very specific parts which resulted in high costs and very limited on board repair capabilities.

[Nibb31]

The only reason I can see to have a shuttle is for if one day we decide to have a women carry a baby to term in weightlessness. If there was an emergency. Or after the birth. The mother and child would need a shuttle to return.

Huh? That makes zero sense.

SSTO shuttle can bring rather much to orbit. Unfortunately, most of that is the shuttle itself.

There is no such thing as an SSTO shuttle.

I was talking to some NASA guys who did work on the Shuttle. According to them, something was destroyed. But this doesn't prevent a shuttle. It just won't be the same.

A bit vague, eh? For the Shuttle, the tooling and facilities were destroyed or converted to build the SLS. You could rebuild the tooling, but at that stage you might as well make the tooling for a completely new design.

For Apollo, they just forgot about it...

No they didn't, it's an urban legend that "blueprints were lost". The Apollo-Saturn or STS vehicles were made of thousands of components that are likely still in the archives of contractors and NASA somewhere. The thing is, even if you had the blueprints for each part, they would be useless because the industrial environment is too different. First, you'd have trouble just finding a microcard reader or a working tape drive to read the files. And then we don't use the same manufacturing techniques or materials nowadays as we did in the 60's during Apollo, or in the 70's during Shuttle. You would have to manually convert blueprints to CAD files and redesign each part. Again, at that stage it's better to start from scratch.

Now, to answer the OP, given that the Shuttle was a money pit for NASA, it would make no sense for a private company to operate one either.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Nibb31

[GoSlash27]

The main problem is economic viability. Boeing isn't going to sink billions into a launch system that will never turn a profit.

Best,

-Slashy

[Frozen_Heart]

Why would you want to rebuild the shuttle? The whole design was a huge mass of flawed compromise.

[Bill Phil]

Nibb31, that's no urban legend. Not at all. The F-1 Engine's data was forgotten and was destroyed. Why else would NASA have to take apart an F-1 to study it?

As for rebuilding the shuttle, it'd be better to build a new system entirely. One not as complicated.

[Motokid600]

Huh? That makes zero sense.

I thought it'd be an interesting experiment that we'd have to try at some point. A shuttle would be required.

[Nibb31]

Nibb31, that's no urban legend. Not at all. The F-1 Engine's data was forgotten and was destroyed. Why else would NASA have to take apart an F-1 to study it?

Because even if you have the blueprints, it's still easier to study the real thing.

I thought it'd be an interesting experiment that we'd have to try at some point. A shuttle would be required.

I don't see what a shuttle has to do with human reproduction in space.

[Yukon0009]

The shuttle's original purpose was to act as a reliable, cheap and fast launch system, and although it was superbly awesome, the shuttle failed in it's objectives. Hence, I doubt another shuttle-like system will be built, as recovering first stages SpaceX style or just recovering engines as ULA planned may be cheaper or safer.

Answer: Yes, a private company could build one (given money, motivation and time) It's just that another shuttle wouldn't serve much purpose.

(Dosen't mean I don't want another shuttle, though.)

[tater]

I would answer "no," because a private company can't make something that is not close to cost-effective and stay in business. If they had other goals, presumably any business with enough excess cash to spend billions on spaceflight would also contain people smart enough to not waste money, even if the goal was not spacecraft as a business, but to use it for some other purpose. In that case they'd still go with something else.

Long story, short, the shuttle is a poor thing to recreate, and only something a government would come up with in the first place.