What if VentureStar had succeeded?

[_Augustus_]

What if NASA had kept funding VentureStar despite the LH2 tank crack and it actually flew? What would the US space program be like now?

[Kryten]

By the time the cracks were found venturestar was already in massive trouble with the engines and with general weight issues. Even if we assume they all go away, it's very unlikely NASA would be able to reach the flight rate necessary to catch up with expendable vehicle prices. We'd have another shuttle, basically...

[_Augustus_]

8 minutes ago, Kryten said:

By the time the cracks were found venturestar was already in massive trouble with the engines and with general weight issues. Even if we assume they all go away, it's very unlikely NASA would be able to reach the flight rate necessary to catch up with expendable vehicle prices. We'd have another shuttle, basically...

Maybe not. What if if flew, and then they retired the STS right after Columbia and immediately switched to VentureStar by launching from Edwards and Vandenburg, then converted LC-39 to launchpads for the original SLS, Magnum?

[Nibb31]

VentureStar was never funded. X-33 was.

I think that DC-X had more potential, but NASA didn't want it because it wasn't invented here. Interestingly, many Lockheed-Martin folks who worked on DC-X are now at Blue Origin.

[fredinno]

16 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

Maybe not. What if if flew, and then they retired the STS right after Columbia and immediately switched to VentureStar by launching from Edwards and Vandenburg, then converted LC-39 to launchpads for the original SLS, Magnum?

There would be no money for SLS-      Shuttle-C, maybe, but asymmetric configs like that can be a pain in the ass.

Probably though- since there are no Launchpads at Edwards anyways, it would launch from Vandeberg SLC-1 (an expanded version of it), and from Merrit Island LC-39A and B. (As NASA already owns them)

 

Also, ISS needed Shuttle to launch, so it would still have ended only slightly earlier than it did in our timeline.

Therefore, most likely, it would be LC-37A (which NASA also owns) and/or LC-39B used for VentureStar. ISS construction could use LC-39A at a rate of 4 missions per year- though STS-400 would be very difficult this way.

VentureStar would be used to launch all NASA payloads, most ISS crew rotations/cargo flights, along with commercial payloads, and also eventually replaces Titan IV once certified.

LC-39A would later support Shuttle-C, but payloads would have to be built internationally- there's no money left behind, probably.

[_Augustus_]

4 hours ago, fredinno said:

There would be no money for SLS-      Shuttle-C, maybe, but asymmetric configs like that can be a pain in the ass.

Probably though- since there are no Launchpads at Edwards anyways, it would launch from Vandeberg SLC-1 (an expanded version of it), and from Merrit Island LC-39A and B. (As NASA already owns them)

 

Also, ISS needed Shuttle to launch, so it would still have ended only slightly earlier than it did in our timeline.

Therefore, most likely, it would be LC-37A (which NASA also owns) and/or LC-39B used for VentureStar. ISS construction could use LC-39A at a rate of 4 missions per year- though STS-400 would be very difficult this way.

VentureStar would be used to launch all NASA payloads, most ISS crew rotations/cargo flights, along with commercial payloads, and also eventually replaces Titan IV once certified.

LC-39A would later support Shuttle-C, but payloads would have to be built internationally- there's no money left behind, probably.

I meant this Pre-Bush rocket:

 

And why would the Shuttle not be retired much sooner? VentureStar could carry bigger payloads for much lower prices. And there would also be money for Magnum as VentureStar would only cost a tiny amount to re-furbish, fuel, and launch.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, _Augustus_ said:

I meant this Pre-Bush rocket:

 

And why would the Shuttle not be retired much sooner? VentureStar could carry bigger payloads for much lower prices. And there would also be money for Magnum as VentureStar would only cost a tiny amount to re-furbish, fuel, and launch.

No, Magnus is much more costly to develop than SLS (or NLS-1 in the VentureStar era) or Shuttle-C. Reusability matters little if you fly only a few times a year (which would be the fate of such a vehicle, most likely.)

I didn't really come with a scedule for VentureStar development and first flight on the last post, but I'm going to go with an optimistic schedule- X-33 would be completed by 2004, and VentureStar, by 2011- a development of somewhat more than a decade- similar to Shuttle development schedule (which was also about, if not less, innovative at the time of its development). However, ISS construction means that NASA would need to juggle both at the same time- most likely this would mean all flagship missions (including JWST) and New Frontiers Missions would be put on hold, with all other robotic planetary exploration programs cancelled to make the scedule. They might also have to make some deal with the DOD for extra money, (for example, in exchage for free future flights).

 

Concequently, the Shuttle would not retire until the time of retirement in our timeline. SLC-1W, LC-39B and LC-37A would be held aside for VentureStar, while LC-39A and SLC-1E would begin modifications after Shuttle retirement, or just be left empty for a possible future expansion of operations once VentureStar needs those payloads (possibly following a nationalisation of the launch industry, with Vulcan also being made as a backup in case things don't go as planned).

 

Despite its goals, I really doubt NASA would be able to meet them- sure, the Shuttle would have made it easier to make VentureStar cheaper, (like using fewer large heat sheild tiles, rather than several smaller ones) but even then, reusability isn't really as easy as it seems. I would be happy if the thing broke Falcon 9 prices, especially since NASA is less efficient than SpaceX in terms of operations due to political pork. 

 

After 2011, there would be a gap in crewed launch capability, that is, until the X-38 CRV is completed a few years after VentureStar (or some other vehicle), and the thing is modified for Atlas V (and later, Vulcan), as VentureStar is unmanned, and is less safe for a crew to abort from a cargo bay. Robotic missions would be resumed, DOD would replace Delta IV with VentureStar, a slightly smaller modernised Interim Upper Stage would be built to launch on the rocket for GEO payloads. Later, a Xenon-based reusable space Tug would be made, refuled by VentureStar (which can only carry 20T, compared to the Shuttle's 27T to LEO), replacing the IUS (except for deep space payloads, where IUS would act as an additional boost stage. This is because any other fuel would be inhertly risky to put on an expensive vehicle's cargo bay, especially during an abort (look up Shuttle-Centaur) due to flammability. LC-39A would also be modified to support the Ion tugs, along with LC-1E. All this would take to 2018.

 

By this time, Shuttle-C is pretty much dead in the water, along with other Shuttle-derived vehicles, due to the time since Shuttle infrastructure was destroyed. Instead, Vulcan-ACES-Heavy, carrying Fifty Tons to LEO, (Vulcan, which launches from SLC-3E, LC-40 (no SpaceX in this timeline), and LC-41, would be used.) This would launch the Orion CV and the fuel needed to get to Low Lunar Orbit in 2 launches. The landers for moon missions, and/or Lunar Space Station components would be launched from the Xenon-Tug (due to Van Allen radiation concerns). This would first take place by 2026, assuming it is an international endevour, with JAXA, CSA, ESA and ISRO also on board (with possible commercial contributions).

 

Of course, another concern by 2018 would be replacing the ISS. An 10-man Space Station Freedom contracted out to commercial partners to construct from inflatables (with possible contributions from international partners to increase its size) would be made from VentureStar launches- in my timeline, this would also take to 2024 for the first construction flights, and completion by 2027. This would make sure the manned US presence in space is not comprimised, while increasing its capability. Hopefully, it would also be a platform for Commercial Satellite repairs and Space Tourism.

[fredinno]

Is my alternate history on the previous comment reasonable?

[_Augustus_]

16 hours ago, fredinno said:

No, Magnus is much more costly to develop than SLS (or NLS-1 in the VentureStar era) or Shuttle-C. Reusability matters little if you fly only a few times a year (which would be the fate of such a vehicle, most likely.)

I didn't really come with a scedule for VentureStar development and first flight on the last post, but I'm going to go with an optimistic schedule- X-33 would be completed by 2004, and VentureStar, by 2011- a development of somewhat more than a decade- similar to Shuttle development schedule (which was also about, if not less, innovative at the time of its development). However, ISS construction means that NASA would need to juggle both at the same time- most likely this would mean all flagship missions (including JWST) and New Frontiers Missions would be put on hold, with all other robotic planetary exploration programs cancelled to make the scedule. They might also have to make some deal with the DOD for extra money, (for example, in exchage for free future flights).

 

Concequently, the Shuttle would not retire until the time of retirement in our timeline. SLC-1W, LC-39B and LC-37A would be held aside for VentureStar, while LC-39A and SLC-1E would begin modifications after Shuttle retirement, or just be left empty for a possible future expansion of operations once VentureStar needs those payloads (possibly following a nationalisation of the launch industry, with Vulcan also being made as a backup in case things don't go as planned).

 

Despite its goals, I really doubt NASA would be able to meet them- sure, the Shuttle would have made it easier to make VentureStar cheaper, (like using fewer large heat sheild tiles, rather than several smaller ones) but even then, reusability isn't really as easy as it seems. I would be happy if the thing broke Falcon 9 prices, especially since NASA is less efficient than SpaceX in terms of operations due to political pork. 

 

After 2011, there would be a gap in crewed launch capability, that is, until the X-38 CRV is completed a few years after VentureStar (or some other vehicle), and the thing is modified for Atlas V (and later, Vulcan), as VentureStar is unmanned, and is less safe for a crew to abort from a cargo bay. Robotic missions would be resumed, DOD would replace Delta IV with VentureStar, a slightly smaller modernised Interim Upper Stage would be built to launch on the rocket for GEO payloads. Later, a Xenon-based reusable space Tug would be made, refuled by VentureStar (which can only carry 20T, compared to the Shuttle's 27T to LEO), replacing the IUS (except for deep space payloads, where IUS would act as an additional boost stage. This is because any other fuel would be inhertly risky to put on an expensive vehicle's cargo bay, especially during an abort (look up Shuttle-Centaur) due to flammability. LC-39A would also be modified to support the Ion tugs, along with LC-1E. All this would take to 2018.

 

By this time, Shuttle-C is pretty much dead in the water, along with other Shuttle-derived vehicles, due to the time since Shuttle infrastructure was destroyed. Instead, Vulcan-ACES-Heavy, carrying Fifty Tons to LEO, (Vulcan, which launches from SLC-3E, LC-40 (no SpaceX in this timeline), and LC-41, would be used.) This would launch the Orion CV and the fuel needed to get to Low Lunar Orbit in 2 launches. The landers for moon missions, and/or Lunar Space Station components would be launched from the Xenon-Tug (due to Van Allen radiation concerns). This would first take place by 2026, assuming it is an international endevour, with JAXA, CSA, ESA and ISRO also on board (with possible commercial contributions).

 

Of course, another concern by 2018 would be replacing the ISS. An 10-man Space Station Freedom contracted out to commercial partners to construct from inflatables (with possible contributions from international partners to increase its size) would be made from VentureStar launches- in my timeline, this would also take to 2024 for the first construction flights, and completion by 2027. This would make sure the manned US presence in space is not comprimised, while increasing its capability. Hopefully, it would also be a platform for Commercial Satellite repairs and Space Tourism.

Actually, drop the Magnum. What if they had used DIRECT for crew missions and super-heavy launches?

Also what if ATK had proposed Liberty earlier and it was seriously considered? Would Excalibur Almaz end up flying?

[Frozen_Heart]

I think VentureStar sounded much better than the shuttle, but it would still have needed so much refurbishment. At least it didn't have the SRBs or the throw away fuel tank.

I'm not convinced it could have worked with the tech back then though.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, _Augustus_ said:

Actually, drop the Magnum. What if they had used DIRECT for crew missions and super-heavy launches?

Also what if ATK had proposed Liberty earlier and it was seriously considered? Would Excalibur Almaz end up flying?

Maybe, but it would have to be developed alongside the Venturestar for the "Shuttle Derived" element to prove useful, delaying both, and making both vulnerable to cutbacks. 

In a perfect world with lots of NASA money, yes, it would be great to pursue both reusable LV and deep space exploration, but this is not a perfect world.

1 hour ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I think VentureStar sounded much better than the shuttle, but it would still have needed so much refurbishment. At least it didn't have the SRBs or the throw away fuel tank.

I'm not convinced it could have worked with the tech back then though.

No, it wouldn't have, it really was too innovative for its own  good at the time (and today, in many ways).