Space Shuttle V2 Thought Experiment

[shynung]

...or just catch it before it reaches the water. Seriously, this is a plan sponsored by ula of all people- its easy, simple, and conservitive, requiring very little engineering effort.

SpaceX's plan works better for the boosters, getting 100% recovsry, but core stage recovrry with spacex cuts deep into mass to orbit. The ULA plan recovers 90% of the costs without the mass penalty for the core stage- or the extra mass of wings for yhe booster and horizontal bracing to land on its s ide.

I've read somewhere in Wikipedia that spy satellites in the Cold war era (before digital cameras were invented) dropped film capsules in heat-resistant pods, which are then caught by planes in midair. ULA has a very good reason for sponsoring this method.

Though, a rocket engine is much heavier than a film capsule.

[Rakaydos]

Though, a rocket engine is much heavier than a film capsule.

Lighter than a Saturn 5 stage, though... http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1045/1

Was never actually built, but still...

[Teutooni]

Considering the constraints outlined in the op, I'd say it would require some rather exotic fuels like MSMH to be able to lift heavy payloads reusably. As I understand it reusability cuts into payload fraction and would make large payloads prohibitively costly. Given STP metastable metallic hydrogen SSTOs with incredible payload fractions would be possible. 1500 second Isp with similar thrust to RP-1/LOX, yes please!

Edited May 14, 2015 by Teutooni

[shynung]

Considering the constraints outlined in the op, I'd say it would require some rather exotic fuels like MSMH to be able to lift heavy payloads reusably. As I understand it reusability cuts into payload fraction and would make large payloads prohibitively costly. Given STP metastable metallic hydrogen SSTOs with incredible payload fractions would be possible. 1500 second Isp with similar thrust to RP-1/LOX, yes please!

I don't know any tank material that can reliably contain metastable metallic hydrogen at long enough periods to be useful.

Also, no need for SSTO. Staging is OK, as long as the expended stages are recovered. I'm thinking of Falcon 9R style vertical landing on land.

[Rune]

Eh, perhap as a backup, but from what I'v read, even getting sea spray in the engine workings is an issue with reuse. (something that's likely to be an issue with reusing the falcon heavy's center core via barge) A midair recovery bypasses the issue entirely.

I'm trying to find a source like crazy, but some F-1's were dunked in seawater to test just how bad they got. They were both immediatly washed with fresh water to remove the corrosive salts, and left to dry on their own. Later, they disassembled and inspected them, and I think they even did some test firings. It was during the golden days of NASA, when they were thinking about reusable versions of the S-IC. You know what they found? All rockets could have been used without issues. Seawater is a really bad thing... if you are designing something to sit in water for months. Let's not get things out of proportion, a turbopump or a cooling loop handles hot gaseous oxygen in some engines by design.

Rune. And obviously some inspection and design effort would be spent to mitigate any problems.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Rune

[Teutooni]

I don't know any tank material that can reliably contain metastable metallic hydrogen at long enough periods to be useful.

Also, no need for SSTO. Staging is OK, as long as the expended stages are recovered. I'm thinking of Falcon 9R style vertical landing on land.

The problem is there is no clear consensus afaik as to how metallic hydrogen behaves if it can be produced at all. It could be metastable under mild pressures, possible needing to be cryogenic. But yeah, that is probably even more far-fetched than tail-landing 100-tons-empty lifting stage needed for 60-tons payload to LEO.

[QuesoExplosivo]

When I saw the thread title, I thought it was talking about putting a V2 missile inside the Space Shuttle.

[Iskierka]

The Russians already figured out how to meet all your specified requirements, and likely a reasonable fraction beyond in payload, they just never made it because 60-ton payloads are not launched on the regular enough for such a large vehicle to be worth it.

The "Energia II" / "Uragan" / "Buran-T":

It is missing one potentially useful capability of the original Shuttle and Buran, but as you also don't specify a requirement to be able to return payload to Earth, this seems acceptable. Energia II would be incapable of this as it would mean having its nose section extended and exposing non-TPS sections, as well as significantly altering its CG.

[magnemoe]

The Russians already figured out how to meet all your specified requirements, and likely a reasonable fraction beyond in payload, they just never made it because 60-ton payloads are not launched on the regular enough for such a large vehicle to be worth it.

The "Energia II" / "Uragan" / "Buran-T":

http://www.buran.fr/documentation/img/uragan4m.jpg

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_750_750/p/5/005/0b4/116/3aca59d.jpg

http://www.espacial.org/images/gif/gk175_mov1.gif

It is missing one potentially useful capability of the original Shuttle and Buran, but as you also don't specify a requirement to be able to return payload to Earth, this seems acceptable. Energia II would be incapable of this as it would mean having its nose section extended and exposing non-TPS sections, as well as significantly altering its CG.

Love it, would rater do an powered landing for the boosters, Spacex style, Russia has no issues building pads downrange

Core might return bulky but lightweight cargo in front hold.

[shynung]

The Russians already figured out how to meet all your specified requirements, and likely a reasonable fraction beyond in payload, they just never made it because 60-ton payloads are not launched on the regular enough for such a large vehicle to be worth it.

The "Energia II" / "Uragan" / "Buran-T":

http://www.buran.fr/documentation/img/uragan4m.jpg

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_750_750/p/5/005/0b4/116/3aca59d.jpg

http://www.espacial.org/images/gif/gk175_mov1.gif

That thing is beautiful.

That said, official sources stated that the original Energiya rocket (minus Buran spaceplane) can carry about 100 tons to LEO. Not really sure how much the Energiya II would carry, but it couldn't be very far off. Though, I'm not sure if a couple shipping containers could fit into the payload fairing; no idea about the fairing dimensions.

Edited May 15, 2015 by shynung

[Iskierka]

Payload is likely mildly reduced - note only three core stage engines rather than four - but likely to more than reach the 60 ton target specified.

As for intermodal containers - likely not in raw dimensions, but then alternatives that have been suggested like an expanded Falcon Heavy also fail this requirement. The Falcon 9 core is barely larger diameter than an intermodal container. In terms of volume the Energia II could certainly take the equivalent, but not in raw dimensions.

And powered landing boosters would be quite undesirable for this vehicle. To give some quick numbers, the landing legs + fins of F9R are quoted at two tonnes, an estimated 10% of the stage empty mass. Taking airliner and cargo aircraft as reference, we find that even with very long, high-efficiency wings and very durable landing gear, they're likely to be less than 10% each, so you could make F9 a flyback booster for under 4 tonnes - possibly around two with high-strength delta wings and optimised landing gear. Only on top of this, even for a barge landing F9R has to reserve 30 tonnes of around 300 to make its powered landing. This means that the boosters are each 32 tonnes heavier at "burnout" and have 10% less fuel to burn up until this point, whereas a flyback booster is only 4 tonnes heavier and sacrifices no fuel. Considerably higher performance. The disadvantage, and why SpaceX have not pursued this method, is the development cost, as you now need a dual-mode booster rather than simply reverse what the booster would normally do.

The Russians decided that the flyback booster was worthwhile, should they ever pursue the technology - although in the end they didn't due to not seeing usefulness in this payload class and reusing such a launcher. That said, they did continue to develop the idea on a smaller scale, and they have the proposed Baikal booster available for any future Russian launch vehicles that are on a more sensible scale. SpaceX were unable to pursue this technology path due to the way US funding works, requiring them to get something working fast and simply - although this did help them get working models faster, as they can test the technology very easily and quickly.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Iskierka

[cryogen]

We should rebalance the problem, and make this into a KSP challenge.

Here's an idea, what about a spaceplane/rocket hybrid? Put wings and a heat shield around a single engine, so that it becomes an unmanned return-to-launchpad spaceplane. Stack a disposable propellant tank on top of that, and stack your payload on top of the propellant tank, under a standard rocket fairing. And that's your upper stage. Because the spaceplane doesn't have to contain either a cargo bay, passenger bay, or a propellant tank, it can be much smaller than the shuttle. The main tradeoff is that it can no longer return things from orbit. But for a launch-vehicle, this suffices.

Put that on top of a flyback first-stage booster, and that's a 100% engine-reuse rocket, with excellent payload fractions.

Has anyone designed something like this before?

[Borklund]

Following the deaths of 14 astronauts and several commissions, the emphatic conclusion is that mixing significant cargo payloads with human passengers in a piloted system is not a recipe for success. If you do away with the crew part of the Space Shuttle, you're left with an unnecessarily complicated, heavy and risky way to launch cargo to orbit. Why lug around 60 tonnes of "Space Shuttle V2" to get 20 tonnes of usable payload to orbit? The smarter solution is to build a safe and fully or partially reusable "normal" launch vehicle. The Space Shuttle proved that reuse of a large winged spaceplane is anything but cheap.

[shynung]

Following the deaths of 14 astronauts and several commissions, the emphatic conclusion is that mixing significant cargo payloads with human passengers in a piloted system is not a recipe for success. If you do away with the crew part of the Space Shuttle, you're left with an unnecessarily complicated, heavy and risky way to launch cargo to orbit. Why lug around 60 tonnes of "Space Shuttle V2" to get 20 tonnes of usable payload to orbit? The smarter solution is to build a safe and fully or partially reusable "normal" launch vehicle. The Space Shuttle proved that reuse of a large winged spaceplane is anything but cheap.

While I agree with what you put forward, I think it was somewhat unrelated. The 60-ton mark is meant to be the planned usable payload, not the vehicle itself. Winged landing vehicle with cargo return capability is optional. Crew is also optional; it's meant to fly unmanned just as well as it would fly with people onboard.

All it needs to do is to somehow bring 60 tons of usable payload into a low Earth orbit, preferably to places such the ISS, and do so while making sure 80% of its dry unloaded mass returns back to Earth in a reusable form.

I'm actually thinking that either the Energiya-II/Uragan, or SpaceX's conceptual Mars Colonial Transporter rocket in a triple-core crossfeed configuration would do the job. On top of those, sits either a reusable cargo bay or a disposable payload holding truss covered by fairings, on top of which sits a Dragon V2-esque crew cabin with hypergolic engines for parachute-assisted propulsive landing that doubles as LES. If using a reusable cargo bay, it reenters separately from the crew cabin, then either glides to a runway via paragliders or lands propulsively with parachute assist.

All in all, it would probably resemble the old Space Shuttle as much as a pencil resembles a pen.

Edited May 17, 2015 by shynung

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

LOX LH2 flyback booster, Hypergolic upper stage, and optional NTR 3rd stage,ought to do it.Also,an MCT capsule for crew.Why does everyone turn their backs on spaceplanes? Look at the old space shuttle concepts for inspiration.

[wizzlebippi]

On ‎5‎/‎17‎/‎2015 at 10:30 AM, Borklund said:

Following the deaths of 14 astronauts and several commissions, the emphatic conclusion is that mixing significant cargo payloads with human passengers in a piloted system is not a recipe for success. If you do away with the crew part of the Space Shuttle, you're left with an unnecessarily complicated, heavy and risky way to launch cargo to orbit. Why lug around 60 tonnes of "Space Shuttle V2" to get 20 tonnes of usable payload to orbit? The smarter solution is to build a safe and fully or partially reusable "normal" launch vehicle. The Space Shuttle proved that reuse of a large winged spaceplane is anything but cheap.

I disagree.  The space shuttle was a bloated design with numerous compromises to satisfy the "needs" of all parties involved including capturing and landing with a broken satellite.  14 astronauts died because NASA accepted the lack of disaster as success instead of trying to fix obvious issues like foam shedding and exhaust blowby.  Sure, if all you want to do is drag a satellite to orbit, a space shuttle like vehicle is overkill.  If we are ever to establish a permanent presence in space, we will need a reusable craft capable of carrying both astronauts and cargo.

[Temstar]

Buzz Aldrin advocates for this winged booster design:http://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/rocket_science/starbooster/

 

The core won't be reusable but the boosters will be.

Yours truly was inspired by the Energia II design and came up with this in KSP:

Recovery of engineless ET is probably not very viable in real life. My vehicle in KSP is SSTO mainly because KSP can't deal with vehicle recovery in the atmosphere. Those StarBoosters seems to separate while they are still suborbital.

[fredinno]

Here's my proposal:

 

This is a modified version of the Saturn-Shuttle concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle

 

NOTE: The version shown uses J-2S engines, but have been changed back to SSMEs for the increased thrust!

 

The Saturn-Shuttle was a concept to launch the Space Shuttle on a modified Saturn V. For this version, I modified the original design (which had a payload capacity of 60.5 T to LEO) to instead use a 6.5m diameter external tank (the same diameter as the S-IVB, reducing costs for new infrastructure) and slightly shorter, to be only slightly longer than the Shuttle itself. The top of the tank would contain a payload fairing for higher-risk or oversize payloads, like space station modules, or Shuttle-Centaur missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_%28rocket_stage%29#Shuttle-Centaur.

 

Meanwhile, the S-IC would be kept, but with 3-4 F-1A engines instead of 5 for the reduced mass of the upper stages. The center engine would do the reentry and landing burns, before the S-IC propulsively lands on a barge for reuse. This would make use of the extra S-IC performance to reduce the costs of this system (instead of using the hard-to-reuse SRBs). Larger fins may be added to increase this launch system's stability.

 

Lastly, it can also launch unmanned- as the development money for the SRBs and 8m diameter External Tank is instead of modifying the Shuttle to be unmanned. Ejection seats and pressure suits would always be worn during manned missions. A preliminary launch payload capacity and first launch date of 30T to LEO and 1982-1983.

 

A heavy-lift version could be made by first dumping S-IC reusability, then removing the Shuttle, instead placing the now air-started SSMEs on the side of the rocket, where the Shuttle was. The payload would be carried in the 6.5 meter diameter fairing, which can be increased to 8 meters if necessary, and would target a payload capacity of 90T to LEO, possibly increasing to 95T with the Centaur-Shuttle upper stage. A larger upper stage, and another F-1A engine added to the core stage, would increase the payload to 130T to LEO.

 

How much would thus reduce launch and development costs of the Space Shuttle? Would it work?

Edited February 7, 2016 by fredinno

[fredinno]

On 5/12/2015 at 0:05 PM, shynung said:

Suppose that in the near-future, a space launch service agency/corporation wants to construct a high-capacity semi-(or fully)reusable space launch system, with the following design requirements:

-60 tons to LEO payload.

-Staging permitted.

-No more than 20% of hardware by mass is discarded in each mission. 80% must be recovered.

-Any discarded hardware must be of low value (spent SRBs, empty fuel tanks sans engine, fairings).

-Capable of precision landing. Either runways or landing pads are acceptable. Maximum reentry G-loads capped at 4G.

-Cargo bay large enough for 2 standard 40-foot intermodal containers.

-Crew optional. LES required, ejects only the crew cabin.

-Propellant primarily LH2/kerosene-LOX, other (hypergolic/exotic fuels, nuclear) propulsion systems acceptable above 100km.

-Price-per-kilogram must be comparable to currently-available launch vehicles.

-Post-landing maintenance costs must be cheaper than building costs for a single unit.

A single vehicle is expected to launch 4-5 mission per year (about one launch every 3 months), and to last at least 20 flights (4 year's worth of use).

How would such a vehicle look like? How would it fly? How would its typical mission proceed?

P.S. I request that we avoid discussing the economic consequences of such a vehicle operating, and focus our attention about the vehicle. Thank y

"-No more than 20% of hardware by mass is discarded in each mission. 80% must be recovered."

Wet, or dry mass? That's pretty important, since that is the difference of getting away with a external tank or not.

 

"-60 tons to LEO payload."

WAY too high. Nobody needs that capacity. The max should be 30T to LEO.

 

"-Propellant primarily LH2/kerosene-LOX, other (hypergolic/exotic fuels, nuclear) propulsion systems acceptable above 100km."

Not even CH4?

 

The Shuttle-Saturn thing I gave you guys would work, but adding an eject-able crew cabin that could land in water via chutes would likely lower payload capacity to 23T, about as much as Shuttle OTL.

[fredinno]

On 5/12/2015 at 1:20 PM, adsii1970 said:

playing around with gravity fields

"Murph!"

"MURPH!"

[fredinno]

On 5/12/2015 at 0:20 PM, Rakaydos said:

Assuming you mean no more than 20% discarded... lets start with a falcon heavy-inspired base.

Liquid fuel boosters that return to launchpad, a center core that ejects the engines with an inflatable heatshield for midair recovery downrange, and a NERVA upper stage designed to be refueled and reused for orbital construction projects and interplanetary tugs. Payload pod is designed with propulsive landing as primary, with parachute backup.

Midair recovery is kind of risky- it really doesn't pan out a lot of the time, and you could waste your money of failed captures. Granted, Propulsive landings have bad histories of screwing up too, but...

On 5/12/2015 at 1:25 PM, shynung said:

It doesn't have to be shaped like the STS Shuttle; the booster can return to Earth separately, a la Falcon 9 Reusable. The crew pod can use Dragon V2 capsules, the cargo can use disposable fairings and mounting struts. All it has to do is to return 80% of its non-propellant mass in a reusable form.

I'm thinking an Energiya-based rocket with propulsive-landing/folding-winged gliding side boosters, a center core that ejects the center engine for retrieval, side-mounted cargo rack with a disposable fairing, and a Dragon V2-style crew pod bolted to the top of the cargo rack, with a disposable inline external tank covering the heat shield between the pod and the rack. The pod's landing/LES engine acts as OMS with fuel fed from external tank. After cargo is deployed/detached, the pod does a retroburn using fuel left in the tank, then discards the tank, exposing the heat shield. At final approach, pod engine fires again using internal fuel for propulsive landing.

Engine pods normally don't have any fuel in them...

On 5/12/2015 at 1:27 PM, Rakaydos said:

So to recap:

Liquid fuel boosters with fuel crossfeed, return to launch pad vertically

Center core with engines intended to survive reetry for reuse. (mid-air retrieval)

Upper Stage is a high efficency dual mode NERVA specifically designed to be repurposed as a reactor or transfer engine, on a different vehical.

Payload return capsule (if any) uses parachute assisted propulsive landing

Abort mode on the payload pod uses the propulsive landing engines to break free of the fairing and escape to saftey.

NERVA is a bad idea. People really need to stop trying to think that it will happen any time soon- unless public opinion changes, it's not getting off the ground. But if you did, you MUST make sure it's recovered- it would cost an enormous amount of money. But even then, NERVAs would be a nightmare to refurbish.

So just no. Don't bother- just add an extra stage or more fuel tanks.

 

On 5/13/2015 at 9:48 AM, Rakaydos said:

...or just catch it before it reaches the water. Seriously, this is a plan sponsored by ula of all people- its easy, simple, and conservitive, requiring very little engineering effort.

SpaceX's plan works better for the boosters, getting 100% recovsry, but core stage recovrry with spacex cuts deep into mass to orbit. The ULA plan recovers 90% of the costs without the mass penalty for the core stage- or the extra mass of wings for yhe booster and horizontal bracing to land on its s ide.

Actually, it's more like 55% of total costs- the 90% number is propulsion cost. http://i.stack.imgur.com/aY2w2.jpg

That is from ULA's own numbers. If you can recover the avionics too with the engine, you could get to 65% in costs recovered.

On 5/13/2015 at 9:59 AM, billbobjebkirk said:

For something like the falcon heavy, you could add reusability to a rocket the size of the Saturn M03 from Eyes Turned Skywards:

EDIT: Although, I do have to point out that 60 tonnes to orbit is a very odd size, as no rocket has ever been built to fit the 35-70 tonnes to orbit size range.

Except you know, SLS Block I.

[fredinno]

On 5/14/2015 at 0:24 AM, Teutooni said:

Considering the constraints outlined in the op, I'd say it would require some rather exotic fuels like MSMH to be able to lift heavy payloads reusably. As I understand it reusability cuts into payload fraction and would make large payloads prohibitively costly. Given STP metastable metallic hydrogen SSTOs with incredible payload fractions would be possible. 1500 second Isp with similar thrust to RP-1/LOX, yes please!

We haven't even made Metallic hydrogen yet! Red Oxygen would be more reasonable, at least we have made that stuff before!

 

On 5/14/2015 at 7:43 AM, QuesoExplosivo said:

When I saw the thread title, I thought it was talking about putting a V2 missile inside the Space Shuttle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket

V-2 can actually fit inside Shuttle, with room to spare for cargo .

On 5/15/2015 at 6:08 AM, shynung said:

That thing is beautiful.

That said, official sources stated that the original Energiya rocket (minus Buran spaceplane) can carry about 100 tons to LEO. Not really sure how much the Energiya II would carry, but it couldn't be very far off. Though, I'm not sure if a couple shipping containers could fit into the payload fairing; no idea about the fairing dimensions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia

It can only do that if the Energia has an upper stage, which is basically cheating.

On 5/17/2015 at 5:57 PM, cryogen said:

We should rebalance the problem, and make this into a KSP challenge.

Here's an idea, what about a spaceplane/rocket hybrid? Put wings and a heat shield around a single engine, so that it becomes an unmanned return-to-launchpad spaceplane. Stack a disposable propellant tank on top of that, and stack your payload on top of the propellant tank, under a standard rocket fairing. And that's your upper stage. Because the spaceplane doesn't have to contain either a cargo bay, passenger bay, or a propellant tank, it can be much smaller than the shuttle. The main tradeoff is that it can no longer return things from orbit. But for a launch-vehicle, this suffices.

Put that on top of a flyback first-stage booster, and that's a 100% engine-reuse rocket, with excellent payload fractions.

Has anyone designed something like this before?

I don;t think an engine has the right dimensions for it...

10 hours ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

LOX LH2 flyback booster, Hypergolic upper stage, and optional NTR 3rd stage,ought to do it.Also,an MCT capsule for crew.Why does everyone turn their backs on spaceplanes? Look at the old space shuttle concepts for inspiration.

Because Spaceplanes need a lot of R&D to work.

[shynung]

17 hours ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

LOX LH2 flyback booster, Hypergolic upper stage, and optional NTR 3rd stage,ought to do it.Also,an MCT capsule for crew.Why does everyone turn their backs on spaceplanes? Look at the old space shuttle concepts for inspiration.

From our experience with the old Space Shuttles, spaceplanes are costly to use. The maintenance costs alone are comparable to building a new dumb booster from scratch with a similar delta-V capacity, mostly because of the heatshield tiles.

That said, this concept could work. The question changes to how big we'd have to make it.

11 hours ago, Temstar said:

Buzz Aldrin advocates for this winged booster design:http://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/rocket_science/starbooster/

 

The core won't be reusable but the boosters will be.

Yours truly was inspired by the Energia II design and came up with this in KSP:

Recovery of engineless ET is probably not very viable in real life. My vehicle in KSP is SSTO mainly because KSP can't deal with vehicle recovery in the atmosphere. Those StarBoosters seems to separate while they are still suborbital.

Seemed similar to the Russian Baikal flyback boosters planned for the Angara rockets.

So yeah, that could work. Probably.

7 hours ago, fredinno said:

Here's my proposal:

 

This is a modified version of the Saturn-Shuttle concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle

 

NOTE: The version shown uses J-2S engines, but have been changed back to SSMEs for the increased thrust!

 

The Saturn-Shuttle was a concept to launch the Space Shuttle on a modified Saturn V. For this version, I modified the original design (which had a payload capacity of 60.5 T to LEO) to instead use a 6.5m diameter external tank (the same diameter as the S-IVB, reducing costs for new infrastructure) and slightly shorter, to be only slightly longer than the Shuttle itself. The top of the tank would contain a payload fairing for higher-risk or oversize payloads, like space station modules, or Shuttle-Centaur missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_%28rocket_stage%29#Shuttle-Centaur.

 

Meanwhile, the S-IC would be kept, but with 3-4 F-1A engines instead of 5 for the reduced mass of the upper stages. The center engine would do the reentry and landing burns, before the S-IC propulsively lands on a barge for reuse. This would make use of the extra S-IC performance to reduce the costs of this system (instead of using the hard-to-reuse SRBs). Larger fins may be added to increase this launch system's stability.

 

Lastly, it can also launch unmanned- as the development money for the SRBs and 8m diameter External Tank is instead of modifying the Shuttle to be unmanned. Ejection seats and pressure suits would always be worn during manned missions. A preliminary launch payload capacity and first launch date of 30T to LEO and 1982-1983.

 

A heavy-lift version could be made by first dumping S-IC reusability, then removing the Shuttle, instead placing the now air-started SSMEs on the side of the rocket, where the Shuttle was. The payload would be carried in the 6.5 meter diameter fairing, which can be increased to 8 meters if necessary, and would target a payload capacity of 90T to LEO, possibly increasing to 95T with the Centaur-Shuttle upper stage. A larger upper stage, and another F-1A engine added to the core stage, would increase the payload to 130T to LEO.

 

How much would thus reduce launch and development costs of the Space Shuttle? Would it work?

This is probably one of the cheaper approaches: reuse old tech. We still have the designs, we just have to recreate the tooling to make them. Still a lot of work there, but it's got a decent headstart compared to all-new designs.

7 hours ago, fredinno said:

"-No more than 20% of hardware by mass is discarded in each mission. 80% must be recovered."

Wet, or dry mass? That's pretty important, since that is the difference of getting away with a external tank or not.

 

"-60 tons to LEO payload."

WAY too high. Nobody needs that capacity. The max should be 30T to LEO.

 

"-Propellant primarily LH2/kerosene-LOX, other (hypergolic/exotic fuels, nuclear) propulsion systems acceptable above 100km."

Not even CH4?

 

The Shuttle-Saturn thing I gave you guys would work, but adding an eject-able crew cabin that could land in water via chutes would likely lower payload capacity to 23T, about as much as Shuttle OTL.

-Dry mass, of course. No point in bringing back fuel.

-This was a thought-experiment hypothetical booster. Nobody needs 60 tons now, but I imagine there is a time in the future where space exploration is advanced enough that a 60-ton booster would be necessary. It is by no means a short-term objective.

-I think CH4 is okay. LH2/LOX was primarily because of performance of the propellant mix; CH4 was close to, albeit better than, RP-1 fuel

6 hours ago, fredinno said:

It can only do that if the Energia has an upper stage, which is basically cheating.

Not exactly a problem. Mishmash rockets are fine.

Edited February 7, 2016 by shynung

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

Why does everyone give up on spaceplanes?Also, i say no external tanks, remember the space shuttle? 

My design:BIG first stage,lands with wings.,LOX LH2.Or scramjet/SABRE spaceplane.Hybrid boosters, air snatch.Upper stage, hypergolic, falcon style landing.Big payload shroud, or lifting-body spaceplane for crew and cargo return, or huge Dragon V3 capsule.Ejection capsules for shuttle, studies show that an ejection seat wouldn't work.

What about SERV/MURP without payload bay?

[shynung]

11 minutes ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

Why does everyone give up on spaceplanes?Also, i say no external tanks, remember the space shuttle? 

My design:BIG first stage,lands with wings.,LOX LH2.Or scramjet/SABRE spaceplane.Hybrid boosters, air snatch.Upper stage, hypergolic, falcon style landing.Big payload shroud, or lifting-body spaceplane for crew and cargo return, or huge Dragon V3 capsule.Ejection capsules for shuttle, studies show that an ejection seat wouldn't work.

What about SERV/MURP without payload bay?

Speaceplanes are hard. Even without an external tank, the Space Shuttle Orbiter was a maintenance nightmare.

Also, you mentioned hybrid boosters. Did you mean solid+liquid fuel booster (e.g. Al/LOX), or was it something else?

SERV was somewhat interesting. 57 tons to LEO with a disposable fairing and an 'Extended Nosecone' (basically a long spike projected ahead of the vehicle), and capable of SSTO. Though, I doubt the feasibility of this vehicle - like Skylon, there's a lot of new technology (for that era, at least) that has to work perfectly all at once. Also, it doesn't look very aerodynamic.