Shuttle-C

[G'th]

 

Neat little video I found on how Shuttle-C operates in orbit. 

Personally I still don't like Shuttle-C (pretty pointless to develop when you can just use a conventional vehicle) , but it is still neat. 

[Wjolcz]

Just put it on top instead of the side.

Oh.

That's Starship.

[tater]

49 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

Just put it on top instead of the side.

Oh.

That's Starship.

That was supposed to be SLS. The trick was mandating the lift mass.

(their numbers on the right don't seem to match. Lower left it's 104t to LEO.

Normal numbers seemed more like 70 and 90t to LEO.

[benzman]

how old is that video? Quite old I would say.

 

[Retro Starship]

On 11/17/2019 at 4:08 PM, G'th said:

Neat little video I found on how Shuttle-C operates in orbit. 

Personally I still don't like Shuttle-C (pretty pointless to develop when you can just use a conventional vehicle) , but it is still neat. 

Wow that was pretty cool! Yea it seemed a bit in the late 80's. Did not know about that. The shuttle by itself seemed to help us most all that time afterwards. True about being pretty pointless, the pair of main engines were never recovered so we lost more than what the shuttle gave back really. Very cool presentation tho, thanks for sharing!

Edited November 19, 2019 by Saturn5tony
Video was made in 1989 -- NASA-TM-109355

[magnemoe]

On 11/17/2019 at 10:08 PM, G'th said:

Neat little video I found on how Shuttle-C operates in orbit. 

Personally I still don't like Shuttle-C (pretty pointless to develop when you can just use a conventional vehicle) , but it is still neat. 

Shuttle C would be pretty nice then they was building ISS. If they made an run of cheaper single use main engines even if a bit worse it might make sense as an heavy launch platform. 

[farmerben]

This brings back memories.  I was at Spacecamp in Huntsville in '89.  Shuttle C was a very big deal at that time.

 

The ISS we got ended up with has a pressurized volume of about 3 shuttle cargo bays, and a frame approximately the size of 6 shuttles.

Imagine we had all that same stuff plus 40 Shuttle C cargo bay tubes and a soldering gun.

How many SSME's fit inside a normal shuttle cargo bay?  ....Probably more than 20.  The normal shuttle is capable of landing fully loaded..  So the cost of recovering the engines basically boils down to the cost of partial disassembly at the ISS.  

The ISS could have had a shipyard, a fuel depot, and more crew for approximately the same cost.  

[Retro Starship]

7 minutes ago, farmerben said:

 The ISS could have had a shipyard, a fuel depot, and more crew for approximately the same cost.  

Yea, I bet your right @farmerben. I am sure its a trade off issue. The main Shuttle and Shuttle-C probably could have given us a heck of a lot more.

When it boils down to it, politics probably got there heads into this somehow and messed that up too.

[razark]

1 hour ago, farmerben said:

Imagine we had all that same stuff plus 40 Shuttle C cargo bay tubes and a soldering gun.

Heck, while you're at it, bring the ETs to the station as well, and you've got even more volume.

[StrandedonEarth]

The major issue with external tanks in orbit is that the foam would disintegrate, resulting in a cloud of foam particles surrounding it. More time and money to solve the problem and qualify the solution. 

[farmerben]

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

The major issue with external tanks in orbit is that the foam would disintegrate, resulting in a cloud of foam particles surrounding it. More time and money to solve the problem and qualify the solution. 

Any metal foil.  

Doubling the hull of the ET requires less than 50,000 lbs of aluminum.  That competes directly with payload.  

The surface area of the ET is 13,345 ft² .  I don't fully trust the data I have for weight of solar panels, better figures appreciated.  But I think covering the entire surface of the tank in solar panels is less than 50,000 lbs.  

But we would not put solar panels on the nose of the tank anyhow, since the nose and the rear are the best place to put docking ports.  If each ET has 2 docking ports, and shuttle C has 3 docking ports, it becomes possible to fill space with almost any geometry you like, spoked wheels along shafts etc.

You could carry all of that plus the batteries and radiators for so many solar panels and so much future breathable space, and still have less mass than the 130,000 lbs of shuttle minus engines, whose only job now is to return to Earth.  

The shuttle can land with a payload of 31,000 lbs.  So it can carry 4 SSME's back to Earth and a few extra tons of trash with space in the payload bay to spare.

[StrandedonEarth]

2 minutes ago, farmerben said:

Any metal foil.  

Doubling the hull of the ET requires less than 50,000 lbs of aluminum.  That competes directly with payload.  

The surface area of the ET is 13,345 ft² .  I don't fully trust the data I have for weight of solar panels, better figures appreciated.  But I think covering the entire surface of the tank in solar panels is less than 50,000 lbs.  

But we would not put solar panels on the nose of the tank anyhow, since the nose and the rear are the best place to put docking ports.  If each ET has 2 docking ports, and shuttle C has 3 docking ports, it becomes possible to fill space with almost any geometry you like, spoked wheels along shafts etc.

You could carry all of that plus the batteries and radiators for so many solar panels and so much future breathable space, and still have less mass than the 130,000 lbs of shuttle minus engines, whose only job now is to return to Earth.  

The shuttle can land with a payload of 31,000 lbs.  So it can carry 4 SSME's back to Earth and a few extra tons of trash with space in the payload bay to spare.

Oh, it’s certainly doable, if they wanted to spend the time and money. But it’s tricky, they have to ensure whatever they put on it doesn’t peel off and strike something vital. 

[farmerben]

35 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Oh, it’s certainly doable, if they wanted to spend the time and money. 

Unfortunately they wanted to waste time and money.  99% of the development was done by the late 80's.  The shuttle was supposed to keep going alongside shuttle C through the 90's and then NASA could build ISS by the year 2000 at which point we would have something completely different to return to the moon.