Could a private company make a new space shuttle.

[RAINCRAFTER]

Britain, finish your hybrid Jet and Rocket engine and stick it on Skylon already! (Danny)

Seriously, I think Real-Life SSTOs would be so much better than a Shuttle Clone. They would be cheaper because of no giant SRBs and/or Fuel tanks, and even if the SSTOs were unmanned, we could use normal rockets for manned flight. Also, doing anything with the Shuttles was not only expensive, but required a lot of manpower and time.

Oh, and I say "no" to the original question if you haven't figured that out yet.

[Guest]

...

There is no such thing as an SSTO shuttle.

...

It was just a KSP-related joke. Nowadays, there is no space-flying shuttle at all.

[Kryten]

There's X-37, and maybe a few others depending on what sites you read.

[Motokid600]

.

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

A pregnant women and/or child could not withstand reentry with a capsule. You would need a shuttle for low g reentry. Why do you have to be so short? Did I anger you in some way? "That doesn't make sense." Okay... Why doesn't it make sense? Because it makes sense to me.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Motokid600

[Nibb31]

A pregnant women and/or child could not withstand reentry with a capsule.

How do you know that? How do you know that reentry with a space shuttle would be ok? How do you even know that pregnancy and birth in zero-g would be ok either? It's just such an extremely unlikely (and unethical) experiment that it's really weird to bring that up in a thread about space shuttles.

[Motokid600]

I know that reentry with a shuttle is less intensive and would be an ideal vehicle for such a situation. I don't know about unethical. I for one would be very interested to see how such an experiment would play out. But above all my original statement was more of a jest as to the legths we'd need to go in order to justify another shuttle.

Sorry for stepping on your foot though, try not to hit me.

Here I'll change it up since its so taboo apparently. We could use a shuttle for more delicate experiments in space if we needed to return the results.

Itd have to be a hell of an experiment to justify building a shuttle. Like seeing how a fetus develops in space for instance... Why.. is that so strange again?

Edited April 7, 2015 by Motokid600

[Guest]

There's X-37, and maybe a few others depending on what sites you read.

X-37 is unmanned and relatively small. It's shuttle's chicken at best.

[AngelLestat]

In the weird weird case than a pregnant women needs to reentry earth in a capsule.. I would said.. lets try it.. what is the point to make a new spaceshuttle just for that? Maybe in 30 years will be needed.

The baby inside the women will not suffer any problem from g forces.. he is in a liquid, he would not feel nothing, just a little increase of liquid pressure.

From the mother perspective I am not sure, of course is not recomended, but I guess her chances are good.

[Dkmdlb]

This conversation is about to take a hard turn to the... anatomical.

[adsii1970]

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!

Let us not forget that corporations are in business to make money. There is no other rule of thumb. If a company knew they could make money off the shuttle as designed and operated by NASA, I am sure there would be a company out there that would not only be operating them but would be ordering them as United Airlines orders 767s from Boeing. Although I was in love with the shuttle and even contemplated going to the Naval Academy to become an astronaut, the shuttle was always well over budget, costly, and never lived up to the ideal of being a reusable vehicle that could be readied for launch within two to three weeks of landing. It never achieved the dream it was designed to accomplish but the design did give us a great deal of inspiration and data on which to build future space planes. The truth is that the shuttle simply was not financially viable for continued use in manned space flight.

With that said, I am extremely disappointed that NASA is pulling out old blueprints for the Apollo program and simply following the "bigger is better" mantra. While the Orion may be a great platform for large scale lunar development and eventual colonization and quite possibly that of Mars, it has its limitations. NASA needs the funding to develop ORION and a VTOL space plane at the same time. The two platforms could be complementary and actually extend the possibilities of manned spaceflight and space exploration.

[Moon Goddess]

Officially according to NASA no one has ever had ... in space, and they won't send anyone in a relationship up together, and I am quite certain that a pregnancy test is part of the medical testing before launch, so I think pregnancy in space is kinda a moot point.

[Motokid600]

In the weird weird case than a pregnant women needs to reentry earth in a capsule.. I would said.. lets try it.. what is the point to make a new spaceshuttle just for that? Maybe in 30 years will be needed.

The baby inside the women will not suffer any problem from g forces.. he is in a liquid, he would not feel nothing, just a little increase of liquid pressure.

From the mother perspective I am not sure, of course is not recomended, but I guess her chances are good.

Well that's only if there's a complication and the mother needs to get back asap. Yea maybe your right they could withstand a capsules reentry, but the idea is to birth the kid in space. The ISS would need a new dedicated module and imo.. A shuttle to return the infant and mother.

But at this point I got half a mind to make my own thread because everything else is off topic other then the need for a shuttle to return home.

The topic title is "Could a private company make a space shuttle." Well... Of course it can. The question at this point is why. And such an experiment ( or even delicate experiments in general ) to me would be the only reason. Delicate experiments upon which the results would be destroyed with the more violent reentry of a capsule.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Motokid600

[adsii1970]

But at this point I got half a mind to make my own thread because everything else is off topic other then the need for a shuttle to return home.

The topic title is "Could a private company make a space shuttle." Well... Of course it can. The question at this point is why. And such an experiment ( or even delicate experiments in general ) to me would be the only reason. Delicate experiments upon which the results would be destroyed with the more violent reentry of a capsule.

Why a full sized orbiter/shuttle? With the scenario that has been presented would not a small X-37, as currently in experimentation by the Air Force, be sufficient? Instead of having the cargo hull devoted to electronic surveillance equipment as currently configured, it is large enough that it could hold possibly two with relative ease. It is large enough where it could be used for emergency evacuation (and land like an aircraft for those delicate needs) yet small and efficient enough that a ISS module could be fitted with four of them with relative ease (or I would suspect...).

Keep the X-37 computer controlled so no need to reduce the amount of habitable space for human-centered controls. This way, if truly a medical emergency, the person in question could be evacuated and returned as close as needed to an appropriate center rather than a hard landing in Siberia or the Pacific and a second crew member is not pulled off the mission to return the injured to earth. The possibilities are fascinating!

Just thinkin!

[Motokid600]

@adsii1970 - Any vehicle that could provide more tolerable reentry forces, yea.

----------------

What else other then what I said would benifit from such a vehicle? Again just trying to find a legit reason to even entertain the idea of a new shuttle ( or whatever you want to call it )

Edited April 7, 2015 by Motokid600

[adsii1970]

What else other then what I said would benifit from such a vehicle? Again just trying to find a legit reason to even entertain the idea of a new shuttle ( or whatever you want to call it )

In all honesty, there really is no need for another shuttle if the ISS is all we are talking about. However, if we take it to the next logical step - long term presence in space (think 2001 with the orbiting space station), which would require more regular traffic between Earth and the station, then a VTOL craft would be economical providing that it could utilize the average large international airport configuration. This would allow for multiple routes to and from Earth to the station, would allow the creation of an affordable and true space tourism industry, and would actually lead to further benefits in space craft design and experimentation - between WWI and WWII, most of the aviation advances were because of the cargo/tourism demands and I believe such space planes would have the same results. Again, we are talking about the future...

[Motokid600]

How would a new station be built in the future? After what we've learned with the shuttle program are rockets the better choice for manoeuvring modules in orbit? I can easily see an unmanned tug perform docking. And a construction crew could stay on the base module in long shifts. So... yea. Other then what adsii1970 is saying for future applications i suppose a shuttle may never move past concept for a long time.

[SargeRho]

I think space-to-surface transport might be a good use for a space plane. An SSTO or MSTO space plane that has a massive payload bay, but doesn't launch with any or a small payload, but has the capacity to land with a lot of cargo, bringing things built or mined in space down to the surface. Arseloads of platinum-group metals perhaps? Helium 3, once we get to that point, maybe even advanced pharmaceuticals produced in zero-G.

Edited April 8, 2015 by SargeRho

[Firwen]

How would a new station be built in the future?

Mir and the Chinese station have been built without the shuttle. It is possible, just less "convenient" due to the really good capabilities of the shuttle for EVA, placement and reparations in space.

However, I am one of whose who think that a really cheap, large public affordable access to space will not happen without the democratization of SSTO. And very likely SSTO spaceplanes, reusing some of the concepts of the shuttle / venture star / dream chaser.

It is just that propulsion technologies are still not ready for this.

[Moon Goddess]

Mir and the Chinese station have been built without the shuttle. It is possible, just less "convenient" due to the really good capabilities of the shuttle for EVA, placement and reparations in space.

However, I am one of whose who think that a really cheap, large public affordable access to space will not happen without the democratization of SSTO. And very likely SSTO spaceplanes, reusing some of the concepts of the shuttle / venture star / dream chaser.

It is just that propulsion technologies are still not ready for this.

Working with the hypothetical here, lets say SpaceX does achieve each stage being reusable. In that situation what's the advantage of a SSTO. You'll have to rework the stages before next flight, but you'd need that on a spaceplane as well.

[Nibb31]

SSTO means single stage to orbit.

SSTO does not mean reusable.

SSTO does not mean spaceplane.

SSTO does not even mean retrievable

You can have a all combinations of single-stage/multi-stage, reusable/non-reusable, retrievable/non-retrievable, and spaceplane/capsule/lifting body/whatever...

SSTO alone is pointless. If your requirements are efficiency and low cost, then there are many different ways to achieve them.

[Firwen]

Working with the hypothetical here, lets say SpaceX does achieve each stage being reusable. In that situation what's the advantage of a SSTO. You'll have to rework the stages before next flight, but you'd need that on a spaceplane as well.

I would say, the recovery and reworking cost.

The main difference would be between a rework in one case, and a recover, a transport, a rework and reassembly in the other case.

When I mean long term and affordable, I mean really long term and affordable by a large fraction of the humankind.

If you want this, you need a recovery as easy and as cheap as possible, a reworking as cheap and as fast as possible to maximize your availability and lower your costs. That's a common point with any other transportation domain: road, rail, navy or air. That's a point that has been optimized for road and navy transports years ago and that start now to be optimized for airlines too.

If between each launch, you need to recover 3 separated stages ( if you arrive to recover the last one ) of a rocket in different locations, transport them via navy and reassembly them, this is very likely to not be the most fast and cheap solution.

I would much more bet on a solution of the style of VentureStar or Skylon for this: SSTO, spaceplane design, reusable and recoverable by design.

Now this would mean to overcome two major issues:

- To have a propulsion system able to provide a decent TWR ratio and a sufficient ISP . Which the current chemical engines today do not.

- To overcome the extra engineering complexity of such a system....

However, I agree with you that on the relatively short term, and with the current technology, the choice made by SpaceX are definitively the most sane and safe ones.