How would you improve the Shuttle design?

[Epic DaVinci]

Lets say you were given the task of designing the next Shuttle system, what improvements or changes would you make to the tried and tested current / retired setup?

Here are my suggestions.

1. Get rid of the re-entry heat shield tiles. Instead of using tiles, I would build up the protective coating layer by layer as one piece, so there is no chance of any tiles falling off mid flight
   
2. Balance the weight a bit better, Some of the Orbiters thrust is deflected away from vertical to counter act the unbalanced weight distribution, to me this is wasted energy, so I would try and balance the weight a bit better to overcome this.
   
3. A more Aerodynamic Orbiter. I would smooth out some of the lines of the Orbiter craft, yes I know it is very aerodynamic as it is now, but with the latest CFD programs and modern know how, I could get the drag levels down a bit ( I think )
   
4. 
   

What are your thoughts?

[drakesdoom]

How about to balance weight better just rip off the top of an Saturn V and make a reusable lifting body with an internal cargo bay and orbital thrusters that would replace the the Apollo vehicle. For reference the Shuttle Orbiter weighed 240,000 lb fully loaded while the Saturn V could put 260,000 lb in LEO. Also the engines on the orbiter could be downgraded if all they had to do was maneuver in space allowing for more capacity. The traditional crew at the top launch would also preserve an escape tower option. This is before considerations of improved Saturn V performance, the option to launch with a less powerful Saturn variant for light loads, or with plenty of capacity to spare the possibility of a fly back lower stage or at least a semi powered soft water landing for recovery.

Nasa was considering a Saturn Launched shuttle but still strapped to the side, I think the side mount concept is needlessly complicating.

[DerekL1963]

Lets say you were given the task of designing the next Shuttle system, what improvements or changes would you make to the tried and tested current / retired setup?

1. Get rid of the re-entry heat shield tiles. Instead of using tiles, I would build up the protective coating layer by layer as one piece, so there is no chance of any tiles falling off mid flight
   

That doesn't sound very maintainable. You'd have to replace the whole coating in one go, keeping your orbiter offline for an extended period (assuming it's built up on the airframe). If it's built up separately, how are you going to handle and install it properly? (Without excess weight and/or risk of flexing and cracking the coating.) Not to mention this solution doesn't prevent damage from foam.

How about to balance weight better just rip off the top of an Saturn V and make a reusable lifting body with an internal cargo bay and orbital thrusters that would replace the the Apollo vehicle.

This is just an oversized Dyna-Soar, which had significant problems with it's launcher. Since the lifting body is aerodynamic and thus produces lift, it tends to pitch the launcher. This means you need either huge fins on your first stage or you have to continuously gimbal your engines to counteract that pitch... either solution robs you of considerable performance. That this produces huge stresses on the launcher body, and that you'll have a narrow margin between balancing the forces just right and tearing the stack apart can be taken as a given I suspect. (Thus Shuttle at least pushed all it's parts together.)

[henrik908]

More Explosions!!!

[nhnifong]

Lighter

Half as long

Only one engine burning hydrogen and oxygen, with an open-cycle turbopump.

Modern one-piece shielding.

Rides up centered on top of a traditional rocket.

[Kryten]

Rides up centered on top of a traditional rocket.

What's the point in going for a shuttle at all if you're throwing engines away anyway?

[DerekL1963]

What's the point in going for a shuttle at all if you're throwing engines away anyway?

You're not going start with nothing and get fully reusable in one fell swoop, even trying to do so was NASA's fundamental error in the Shuttle, the one from which every other compromise stems. It's going to be expensive, and it's going to take many generations.... but start small, and grow from there.

[Nibb31]

You're not going start with nothing and get fully reusable in one fell swoop, even trying to do so was NASA's fundamental error in the Shuttle, the one from which every other compromise stems. It's going to be expensive, and it's going to take many generations.... but start small, and grow from there.

Yes, but why do you want to do reusable if reusable doesn't make any sense?

People root for the shuttle concept because it has wings and it looks cool. People want Buck Rogers and Star Wars, but those are fiction. It's a spacecraft, not an airplane. A spacecraft should be designed for spaceflight, not to look cool.

Here is my take:

It doesn't make sense to launch cargo with crew on the same vehicle. That whole idea was a bad concept, so scrap the whole thing and start over.

If you insist on having wings, you could go with a small shuttle on an inline launcher, like Hermes, Kliper or Dream Chaser, but the whole shuttle idea doesn't really make much sense. It's silly to put wings, wheels, hydraulic systems on a space craft just for the last 10 minutes of flight. All that mass has no use in space and just forces you to use a larger launcher than necessary. It's wasteful and just makes everything more complicated.

For crewed launches, I would stick to the capsule design, because it is the most efficient. If you really want to make it reusable, give it some sort of soft land landing capability with an airbag or retro-rockets. If it's reusable, then add as much of the service module as you can to the reusable section.

And in the end, you end up with something like Dragon Rider...

Edited May 19, 2013 by Nibb31

[Holo]

More Explosions!!!

Explosions are the last thing you want with a space shuttle.

[Rune]

Develop a hydrocarbon first stage engine, that for starters. Use it to build a reusable first stage, and save actual money by trying to reuse the big part of the rocket that doesn't have to endure reentry and where weight increases are less felt. Don't get fixated on second stage reusability, but it would be a nice plus. Put the shuttle on top to avoid accidents like Challenger and Columbia, and give it its own tank to finish orbital insertion and engines capable of doing an abort. About three stages to orbit, reusing at least two, so easy on mass ratios to get that reusable hardware in.

The first stage engines could go to die at the second stage with nozzle extensions at the end of their service lives. The empty fuel tanks and smaller engines on the orbiter would give it a better ballistic coefficient and thus a higher, longer reentry with less requirements on the TPS. I would probably pick something very storable for the engines, like hypergolics, and make provisions to refuel and/or transfer fuel to other crafts. Also solar panels for long flights. Main fuel for first and second stage would be either kerosene or methane, I think, whatever comes out cheaper.

And most important of all, I would make it only to ferry crews and a limited amount of pressurized cargo. Big cargoes and satellites would go up in the same rocket, only with a disposable fairing and a reusable upper stage that can manage rendezvouses. That is a very important thing.

Oh, and the "first and second stages" terminology I use might be misleading. I'd look at parallel staging them and doing some crossfeeding magic like in Falcon Heavy.

Rune. It was called STS, and as a system it consisted of a lot more than the orbiter, but everyone focused on the wings.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Rune

[llamatoes]

Explosions are the last thing you want with a space shuttle.

As much as I hate to say it, and Henrik was a bit too flippant about it, Burning up on re-entry would still be one awesome way to go out.

I will probably end up going out grey with a tube shoved up my nose.

Or I will end up being stabbed when I end up going to peckham

[nhnifong]

Yes, but why do you want to do reusable if reusable doesn't make any sense?

If you insist on having wings, you could go with a small shuttle on an inline launcher, like Hermes, Kliper or Dream Chaser, but the whole shuttle idea doesn't really make much sense. It's silly to put wings, wheels, hydraulic systems on a space craft just for the last 10 minutes of flight. All that mass has no use in space and just forces you to use a larger launcher than necessary. It's wasteful and just makes everything more complicated.

Well, let's try for a design that has wings to assist in the ascent. something like Space Ship Two or an Anteres rocket. Rides up to 50 km on a plane, then takes off with rocket propulsion and achieves orbit. do the wings help at any point during the ascent?

[NASAFanboy]

Throw away the shuttle, and stick with using Skylab-like stations and lunar outposts. That craft got us stuck in LEO for 50 years...I bet the people who say the moon-landings are fake are having a field day now.

[ZingidyZongxxx]

I'm no rocket scientist, so I honestly have no idea how this would be accomplished, but what we really need is a fully reusable, horizontal liftoff spacecraft. Launches would be easier and safer, as well as cheaper and more efficient.

Like I said, I don't know how to design this, but it would still be a huge help to the space program.

[nhnifong]

I got a friend who thinks moon landings are fake. He is an all around conspiracy theorist though. Sad thing is that he was once a computer science student at CMU. Then he got into pot, shrooms, LSD, DMT, and other stuff I have not heard of. He basically melted his brain and how he's afraid of everything and couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag.

[Kryten]

Throw away the shuttle, and stick with using Skylab-like stations and lunar outposts. That craft got us stuck in LEO for 50 years...I bet the people who say the moon-landings are fake are having a field day now.

What would be the point of having a lunar outpost?

[Canopus]

I would do it similar to this:

Liquid kerosene boosters and a proper escape system. The main engines aren't mounted on the orbiter and thus make it possible to use the Launcher for other payloads.

[nhnifong]

10 internet points says they never finish that launcher.

[Canopus]

10 internet points says they never finish that launcher.

Its not an actual proposed launcher just an excellent mod for Orbiter.

[DerekL1963]

Yes, but why do you want to do reusable if reusable doesn't make any sense?

OK, name *one* mode of transport other than space travel where we routinely throw away all the expensive bits. (I won't hold my breath.) Heck, name *one* where we routinely throw away any hardware after a single use.

It doesn't make sense to launch cargo with crew on the same vehicle. That whole idea was a bad concept, so scrap the whole thing and start over.

Apples and.. well, imagine the thing most unlike apples and compare them. Why? Because that's an (very weak and utterly unsupported) argument (well, more of an assumption treated as a fact really) against launching cargo and crew on the same vehicle. That's not an argument against reuseability.

There's also the consideration that, depending of the cargo, there is a modest benefit in having the assembly crew or operators arrive on orbit with the cargo. (I.E. specialized ISS installations.) If you can get launcher reliability up, there's a huge benefit in the reduction of programmatic risk by dramatically reducing the number of required launches. (These together are also part of why NASA went with LOR rather than EOR.)

The empty fuel tanks and smaller engines on the orbiter would give it a better ballistic coefficient and thus a higher, longer reentry with less requirements on the TPS.

That also makes the vehicle *much* more susceptible to cross winds (both ballistic winds high up in the atmosphere and ordinary wind down at the runway) and makes landing... somewhat 'sporty'. That's one of the big reasons NASA went with the "flying brick" (I.E. a small dense orbiter) rather than the Faget orbiter - it just punched through.

[NASAFanboy]

What would be the point of having a lunar outpost?

Research for manned Mars missions, and for excursions to planetary destinations in deep-space. Atleast it is better than being stuck in LEO, because, guess what? We live on the earth! If you are one of those people who still believe in the "Lets fix Earth! **** Space!", you can slide back to your cave. I'd rather not argue.

What was the point of the shuttle? The good thing was that it was re-usable, but yet, it's re-usability cost more than two Soyuz rockets. Minus the ET. It's payload bay was also smaller than the Saturn V.

[nhnifong]

Its not an actual proposed launcher just an excellent mod for Orbiter.

It is an actual proposed launcher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

[Kryten]

Research for manned Mars missions, and for excursions to planetary destinations in deep-space.

What's the point of doing those? Robots can explore far cheaper, and frequently better.

[nhnifong]

What's the point of doing those? Robots can explore far cheaper, and frequently better.

At present I think manned exploration would afford much better analysis. especially because the crew could bring samples into a pressurized laboratory with more equipment inside the lander and examine everything with their great vision and experience. they could smell the rocks and tell all kinds of things with senses and general awareness that a robot won't have for a very long time. the qualitative aspects of the information would be different from what robots give us, and it would complement robotically discovered info nicely. Finally, we humans would be able to identify strongly with an astronauts story of her experience on another world, and that I think is closer to what we want out of space exploration anyways.

[Kryten]

Robotic sample return would still be far cheaper than sending humans anywhere.