How would you improve the Shuttle design?

[Kryten]

Even if you reduce the cost of an orbital launch to $1000 per pound, new markets won't emerge over night because there simply isn't much to do in space, except science.

This, very much. But there's another factor; spaceflight costs involve a heck of a lot more than launch. Satellite operators operate (very roughly) on the 'rule of fifths'; a fifth of the budget for the satellite bus, a fifth for the rocket, a fifth for ground systems, a fifth for the payload, and the rest for various systems work (e.g. integration). If you somehow reduce launch costs to nothing at all, you've introduced the world to the clearly revolutionary potential of four-fifths current cost spaceflight.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

If you can launch more cheaply and reguarly then you can get away with a cheap, shoddy satellite. These will fail more often and create greater demand for launches, and satelites (thus decreasing the cost of busses etc.). I suspect if you get the cost of the launch vehicle down, the prices of other elements of the system will follow suite.

Edit: This certainly works the other way round; Delta IV and Atlas V can't compete in the commercial satellite market. This is largely due to them being designed to practically guarentee a succesful launch, this makes for a very expensive rocket but when you're dealing with a $2 billion DOD payload an extra $100 million seems reasonable.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Fuzzy Dunlop

[Fractal_UK]

A reusable SSTO spaceplane would cost billions to design, build, and maintain (even if it was technologically feasible) and simply wouldn't be competitive against cheap disposable launchers, or even cheaper reusable multi-stage launchers, even if you doubled or tripled the demand for orbital launches. What brings the cost down isn't reusability, it's demand. It will still be a while before a reusable spaceplane becomes cheaper than mass-produced disposable launchers.

I don't even know where to start with this. You're right that a spaceplane would be reasonably expensive to design but, by the same token, rocket designs don't just pop out of the ground either. Designing a new launch system is going to be relatively expensive whatever launch mechanism it uses.

What makes space launch costs expensive, however, is related to number of launches in a couple of ways, by far the largest of which is manufacturing rocket components. There are costs related to actually operating each individiual launch but these are miniscule in comparison to the cost of manufacturing huge single-use spacecraft. It is frankly absurd to suggest that building and maintaining a reusable spaceplane would make it as expensive to operate as a disposable launch vehicle - indeed this is analoguous to suggesting that it would be somehow cost effective to use aeroplanes or cars once before disposing of them. The fact that a rocket is used less often is a factor but unless you're never going to use your new spaceplane more than 3 or 4 times, you're going to make a cost saving. If it spends most of its time in the hangar, that is still far more efficient than it spending all of its time being constructed before launch.

Current average number of satellite launches per year is presently over 120 and increasing. The first operator of a reusable SSTO would have the opportunity to corner a significant percentage of this market thus it would not be unreasonable to imagine a fleet of 6-10 SSTO spaceplanes all performing hundreds of launches over a relatively modest 15 year lifetime meaning that each launch vehicle could still be profitable at a cost of $billions per unit. Of course, such a cost is unlikely, given that a plane-like launch is far more efficient in atmosphere than a rocket launch meaning that payload fraction would be vastly increased so the vehicle would end up being substantially smaller than other comparable launch vehicles - another point in favour of this design.

As an example, the Skylon launch vehicle has a projected unit cost of £190 million, which is only marginally more than that of an Ariane 5 but is designed for use more than 200 times. It's simply crazy to suggest that we wouldn't see a massive fall in the cost of payload delivery from such a system.

[DerekL1963]

If you can launch more cheaply and reguarly then you can get away with a cheap, shoddy satellite.

Sadly, this isn't even remotely the case. Even with on demand lauches and birds ready to go - losing a GSO commsat can cost from millions to tens of millions a day, and it takes a week or more to get there and several weeks to commission the bird. Even if launches were free and available on twenty four hours notice, absent magic transporter technology there's still going to be pressure to have reliability as high as possible.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Sadly, this isn't even remotely the case. Even with on demand lauches and birds ready to go - losing a GSO commsat can cost from millions to tens of millions a day, and it takes a week or more to get there and several weeks to commission the bird. Even if launches were free and available on twenty four hours notice, absent magic transporter technology there's still going to be pressure to have reliability as high as possible.

Yeah, obviously it isn't going to be suitable for all situations, but while GSO commsats are a juicy target they don't make up all, or even a majority, of the satellitemarket (of June's 7 launches only 1 will be to GSO).

That said, I think you're under-estimating how much reducing launch costs by an order of magnitude could change the game. For example, GSO launches might move to an on-orbit spare model (like some MEO communication constellations already do). The minimum life expectancy of each satellite could be reduced.

Still launch cost reductions probably have the biggest effect on things in LEO, because they mean there is a great pressure to start making things reusable. For the most extreme example imagine SKYLON with a 10 tonne telescope in it's belly. What you have there is a spy satellite that can be in a completely different orbit every week.

[DerekL1963]

Yeah, obviously it isn't going to be suitable for all situations, but while GSO commsats are a juicy target they don't make up all, or even a majority, of the satellitemarket (of June's 7 launches only 1 will be to GSO).

They're just one example out of many. When things must work where there aren't maintenance techs handy and they must work or cost their owners big bucks (and/or reputation), there's pressure to make them as reliable as possible.

That said, I think you're under-estimating how much reducing launch costs by an order of magnitude could change the game. For example, GSO launches might move to an on-orbit spare model (like some MEO communication constellations already do). The minimum life expectancy of each satellite could be reduced.

Actually, that's exactly what they won't do. First off, on orbit the spares are susceptible to damage from debris and radiation, as well as the normal degradation of their solar cells. Nobody with any sense leaves their spares out in the weather. Second off, GSO is *crowded* - there's barely room for the existing birds, let alone any on orbit spares.

Still launch cost reductions probably have the biggest effect on things in LEO, because they mean there is a great pressure to start making things reusable. For the most extreme example imagine SKYLON with a 10 tonne telescope in it's belly. What you have there is a spy satellite that can be in a completely different orbit every week.

Very few birds (if any) have any need to recovered and repositioned so regularly. So, besides SKYLON being mostly fictional, that's not an extreme example... that's a strawman.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Very few birds (if any) have any need to recovered and repositioned so regularly. So, besides SKYLON being mostly fictional, that's not an extreme example... that's a strawman.

Well there aren't any reusable SSTO's in existence at the moment, so any debate on their benefits must involve an as yet unrealised proposal, SKYLON seems as good (much better really) as any.

In fact the only reusable spacecraft currently operational is the X-37, which is presumably a reusable spy satellite, "SPYLON" is merely the logical extension of this concept.

Incidently the most reused space equipment is likely to be the telescopes from the Soviet Zenit spy satellite programme, which they were launching twice a month more or less untill their economy collapsed (well after they became able to download images from space). There is clearly great value in being able to put a bird into any desired position at very short notice and at low cost.

Also, that isn't exactly a strawman. A strawman is where you falsely represent a position such that it is easier to attack.

[Kryten]

X-37 is almost certainly intended as a testbed; stick some instruments on you want to use on the next satellite, give them a space soak and see how they do. There's no real need or desire for re-usable spy satellites, especially with the kind of resolution of instruments that could physically fit in the X-37. You already have a strategy to put a satellite in any position you want in a short period of time; waiting. That's the whole point of having multiple polar-orbiting sats, after all.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Kryten

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

X-37 is almost certainly intended as a testbed; stick some instruments on you want to use on the next satellite, give them a space soak and see how they do. There's no real need or desire for re-usable spy satellites, especially with the kind of resolution of instruments that could physically fit in the X-37. You already have a strategy to put a satellite in any position you want in a short period of time; waiting. That's the whole point of having multiple polar-orbiting sats, after all.

Well it's classified, so it's somewhat pointless speculating. That said, the first two missions do seem to have an observation role, repeatedly changing into different orbits, all of which had reguarly repeating ground tracks.

Polar-orbiting sats have the fairly major disadvantage that once you spot them you can have several days warning before they overfly a specific area. Makes it hard to catch someone with their pants down. That's probably why the Soviet's supplimented their polar spy satellites with several hundred Zenits.

[DerekL1963]

That said, the first two missions do seem to have an observation role, repeatedly changing into different orbits, all of which had reguarly repeating ground tracks.

>.<

All orbits have repeating ground tracks. Some very specialized orbits have specific patterns, but all orbits repeat. (Run a MapSat or a Kethane Scanner here in KSP and see for yourself.)

[Kryten]

Zenits stopped being launched immediately after the soviets demonstrated digital return at high enough resolution. The only reason they were launched that frequently was the limited amount of film onboard, and quite limited orbital lifespans. I simply don't see how X-37 could carry a camera with military useful resolution, especially as the current definition of military useful apparently requires KH-11s the size of space station modules.

[drakesdoom]

On the GSO topic, I used to interface with these satellites by dish. There are already on orbit spares up there, maybe not for the whole life of the satellite but it's replacement is in place well before it is scheduled to fail or be decommissioned. GSO is indeed crowded however only the Longitude is rented and even in any given segment you can fit in several satellites. Parking orbits are generally slightly further in or out. The main reason for distance is not collision but frequency overlap. Depending on the band used you might need 5 degrees or more clearance either side from anyone else using that frequency for a good clean signal.

[drewbdoo2]

In the perfect world, where there are infinite resources and an even MORE infinite amount of money, I just wouldn't use the Space Shuttle. It's sort of like recycling... If we didn't need to conserve our resources than we WOULDN'T CONSERVE OUR RESOURCES. Why reuse everything when you can just manufacture a completely NEW rocket?

The whole point of the Space Shuttle was to have a reusable launch vehicle, and they did manage to reuse ALMOST everything during the Space Shuttle days, reusing 2/3 of the Launch Vehicle. Wikipedia states: "Each Space Shuttle is a reusable launch system that is composed of three main assemblies: the reusable Orbiter Vehicle (OV), the expendable external tank (ET), and the two reusable solid rocket boosters (SRBs)" That kind of reusability, wasting only 2/3 of the Launch Vehicle is what kept NASA launching the Space Shuttle on 135 missions. And with a 98.5% success rate, the Space Shuttle not only showed its reusability, but also its reliability.

But this isn't a perfect world. This is a world where we have to reuse as much as we can to conserve resources and the bills in the bank. Sadly, the Space Shuttle Program had to come to an end at some point with all the jerks in DC arguing over the budget. Luckily, it opened up the door for Orion, and Dragon. Now, my hope lies with SpaceX's Dragon to become the next vehicle to carry American Astronauts to the Space Station, instead of hitching a ride with the Russians. Private firms such as SpaceX, Orbital Sciences and Boeing are building the future of spacecraft. These new commercial firms are creating new jobs at home and keeping the U.S as the world leader in space. With SpaceX (hopefully) handling transport to LEO and to the ISS in the near future, NASA can take care of Orion, and get us back to the Moon and beyond.

Edited May 22, 2013 by drewbdoo2

[Rune]

In the perfect world, where there are infinite resources and an even MORE infinite amount of money, I just wouldn't use the Space Shuttle. It's sort of like recycling... If we didn't need to conserve our resources than we WOULDN'T CONSERVE OUR RESOURCES. Why reuse everything when you can just manufacture a completely NEW rocket?

The whole point of the Space Shuttle was to have a reusable launch vehicle, and they did manage to reuse ALMOST everything during the Space Shuttle days, reusing 2/3 of the Launch Vehicle. Wikipedia states: "Each Space Shuttle is a reusable launch system that is composed of three main assemblies: the reusable Orbiter Vehicle (OV), the expendable external tank (ET), and the two reusable solid rocket boosters (SRBs)" That kind of reusability, wasting only 2/3 of the Launch Vehicle is what kept NASA launching the Space Shuttle on 135 missions. And with a 98.5% success rate, the Space Shuttle not only showed its reusability, but also its reliability.

But this isn't a perfect world. This is a world where we have to reuse as much as we can to conserve resources and the bills in the bank. Sadly, the Space Shuttle Program had to come to an end at some point with all the jerks in DC arguing over the budget. Luckily, it opened up the door for Orion, and Dragon. Now, my hope lies with SpaceX's Dragon to become the next vehicle to carry American Astronauts to the Space Station, instead of hitching a ride with the Russians. Private firms such as SpaceX, Orbital Sciences and Boeing are building the future of spacecraft. These new commercial firms are creating new jobs at home and keeping the U.S as the world leader in space. With SpaceX (hopefully) handling transport to LEO and to the ISS in the near future, NASA can take care of Orion, and get us back to the Moon and beyond.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you sound like a propaganda piece. I've heard very similar phrases from US politicians, and it is a shame they manage to sell the lie to anyone. The shuttle wasn't reusable, it was refurbishable. The only reason it flew 135 flights is a lot of engineers lived off it (and Boeing/Lockheed as mother companies). And 98.5% success is nothing to write home about, those are horrible numbers Soyuz can improve upon, both in percentage, in absolute number of deaths, in total number of transported people, and in cost to do so, per flight and total.

And I'm cool the US is not trying to repeat their mistake and have gone the sensible, capsule way. But they are making other mistakes, forced by a myopic Congress.

Rune. SLS, I'm looking at you.

[Nibb31]

Reusing material doesn't save you any money when the bulk of the cost in spaceflight is highly skilled engineering manpower. If you want to save money, you need to reduce the engineering costs. One way of doing that is by mass producing expendable boosters.

[Fractal_UK]

Reusing material doesn't save you any money when the bulk of the cost in spaceflight is highly skilled engineering manpower. If you want to save money, you need to reduce the engineering costs. One way of doing that is by mass producing expendable boosters.

I'm somewhat amused by the thought of a world that operates under the rules you seem to be ascribing to it, the possibilities for expendable bridges, trains and aircraft are really quite stunning - afterall, apparently, maintaining and designing functional and reusable ones to begin with clearly cost more than just mass producing them!

We are where we are with rocket redesign because the current method is the only way of doing it. It appears that, using purely chemical rockets, damn innefficient not-very useable rockets are superior to designs similar to the spaceshuttle with the caveat being that significant cost savings can be likely still be made by retrieving and reusing detached stages - hence SpaceX investigating such technology.

Ultimately however, using solely conventional chemical rockets is not a productive endeavour. A conventional chemical rocket has abysmal specific impulse, once you start introducing engines with reasonable TWR and high I_sp the case for using chemical rockets and non-reusable launch vehicles vanishes - most of these designs are still more expensive to manufacture initially but offer huge cost savings if reused many times.

Almost every contribution you have made to this thread relies on an unstated assumption that launch vehicles will continue to use conventional chemical rockets when there is no logical reason to believe that this will continue to be a model indefinitely, some possible successor technologies have already been demonstrated and there are plenty more plausible designs as well and the advantages to using them are overwhelming. The moment this happens, almost all of your conclusions become invalid.

[DerekL1963]

And 98.5% success is nothing to write home about, those are horrible numbers Soyuz can improve upon, both in percentage, in absolute number of deaths, in total number of transported people, and in cost to do so, per flight and total.

Currently Soyuz's success rate is something like 98.9, with two fatal flights out of 90 odd. (Not reflected in those statistics is the large number of non fatal incidents and non fatal but serious accidents Soyuz has suffered over the years.) Absolute deaths is a metric only of interest to ghouls, more people died on the Shuttle because more people flew on the Shuttle. The last time I saw the math done was in 2005, but the numbers aren't that different today - the Shuttle carried 679 people to Soyuz's 222. (Soyuz hasn't flown enough in the interim to make up the lack.)

The cost per person... it's not at all clear Soyuz is cheaper, because it's tricky to apportion the cost of a Shuttle flight because of the vast amount of cargo it carried as well. On top of that, we don't actually know what a Soyuz seat costs, only what the Russians charge. Which brings up a factor most people don't think about - Soyuz can only carry one actual passenger to the Shuttle's three to five. Another factor in comparing Shuttle to Soyuz that most people forget is that you also have to replace the cargo carried... and when you tot up the notional cost of the Soyuz (even being generous and counting the crew as passengers) and the numbers of cargo launches required, things that aren't the Shuttle don't look like such a bargain anymore. (I can't find those figures offhand.) Or to put it another way, you get what you pay for. A Ford Focus is much cheaper than a Ford F150, but it's a hell of a lot less capable too.

Just to be clear, I'm no particular fan of the Shuttle, I just prefer to work from facts and reality.

[Nibb31]

Almost every contribution you have made to this thread relies on an unstated assumption that launch vehicles will continue to use conventional chemical rockets when there is no logical reason to believe that this will continue to be a model indefinitely, some possible successor technologies have already been demonstrated and there are plenty more plausible designs as well and the advantages to using them are overwhelming. The moment this happens, almost all of your conclusions become invalid.

True, but based on the technology that is available to us now, chemical rockets are still the only way we can get to orbit. The question was "how would you improve the shuttle design", implying with current technology, not "what science fiction spacecraft will replace the shuttle design in 50 years". Skylon, scramjets and dilithium warp drives are not available yet, and might never turn out to be practical. We don't know, so we can't rely on them today.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[Rune]

Currently Soyuz's success rate is something like 98.9, with two fatal flights out of 90 odd. (Not reflected in those statistics is the large number of non fatal incidents and non fatal but serious accidents Soyuz has suffered over the years.) Absolute deaths is a metric only of interest to ghouls, more people died on the Shuttle because more people flew on the Shuttle. The last time I saw the math done was in 2005, but the numbers aren't that different today - the Shuttle carried 679 people to Soyuz's 222. (Soyuz hasn't flown enough in the interim to make up the lack.)

The cost per person... it's not at all clear Soyuz is cheaper, because it's tricky to apportion the cost of a Shuttle flight because of the vast amount of cargo it carried as well. On top of that, we don't actually know what a Soyuz seat costs, only what the Russians charge. Which brings up a factor most people don't think about - Soyuz can only carry one actual passenger to the Shuttle's three to five. Another factor in comparing Shuttle to Soyuz that most people forget is that you also have to replace the cargo carried... and when you tot up the notional cost of the Soyuz (even being generous and counting the crew as passengers) and the numbers of cargo launches required, things that aren't the Shuttle don't look like such a bargain anymore. (I can't find those figures offhand.) Or to put it another way, you get what you pay for. A Ford Focus is much cheaper than a Ford F150, but it's a hell of a lot less capable too.

Just to be clear, I'm no particular fan of the Shuttle, I just prefer to work from facts and reality.

And that is a reasonable reply that further clarifies the point. Well written, sir.

But conceding the facts that are undisputable (i.e: the shuttle can do things no other vehicle that has flown can), I will still maintain that those capabilities come at great expense and are either of little use or capable of being done another way (so it's not worth it). After all, for what a shuttle launch really cost (500-1,500 million depending on who you ask and how you measure), you can do a lot of stuff. As to the specific Soyuz numbers... well, there's this problem with Soyuz, which one you pick? Are we counting the differences in launchers, model, etc? And Progress? What about the satellite launches by the same family of boosters, do those count as Soyuz payloads? What I think should be obvious is that the russians have never sold a seat to NASA cheaper than it costs them, and that the soyuz family has been refined to become the safest, best understood human rated vehicle in history. But in the end specific comparisons are not only difficult, but probably inconclusive and unproductive, because you are bound to pick a biased yardstick.

But yeah, to sort of sum it up, I think there is a better way to anything the Shuttle did, or could in theory do. Capsules for passengers (because even old Soyuz can beat the shuttle at that, and I also believe you can do much better than that), tugs for cargo. Specialized tugs for orbital repair and resupply without getting humans in danger and increasing cost. Even, thinking on the future for when you have the basic stuff covered economically, it might be nice to have reusable upper stages to move the other stuff around, standardized station modules to establish systems of depots. Habs to endure the travel between them, and the landers and surface systems when we eventually get somewhere. A complete toolbox, in other words, instead of a swiss army knife. It would undoubtedly end up being cheaper for the results whatever you are after, IMO, and every piece is useful on its own. Not to mention each can be developed without "taking a decade out" on manned spaceflight, or without having your whole budget for manned spaceflight revolving around a single item, proudly self-declared "the most complex piece of machinery of all times". Which in my opinion should be an insult to any engineer, not a compliment.

Rune. So in the end I guess to follow your analogy, I would buy the vehicle I needed, and that would not be a 4x4 to go get groceries to the market next block.

[Fractal_UK]

True, but based on the technology that is available to us now, chemical rockets are still the only way we can get to orbit. The question was "how would you improve the shuttle design", implying with current technology, not "what science fiction spacecraft will replace the shuttle design in 50 years". Skylon, scramjets and dilithium warp drives are not available yet, and might never turn out to be practical. We don't know, so we can't rely on them today.

Indeed, the discussion is one of design. Any new technology remains on the drawing board until someone decides to pick it up and use it in their design. While Skylon may not be available yet, the SABRE engine itself has shown some really promising results so lets do the work and try to move from having demonstrated a practical engine design to actually producing a practical spacecraft. This avenue certainly looks like the most promising one, even though scramjets are a more mature technology, if you can call them such and certainly more than dilithium warp drives (don't you know those things don't work in atmosphere?! ).

For today, this discussion is irrelevant because there is no shuttle and we only have chemical rockets available to us. If we're going to discuss a hypothetical next generation shuttle, we might as well consider craft that could plausibly be designed, not launched, today.

[GJames]

In my opinion the Skylon looks very promising, and it could realistically be completing test flights by 2025 at the latest. A lot of the technology needed to launch it does already exist, and Reaction Engines are making new breakthroughs that solve many of the problems that they were faced with.

Of course, I may be totally bias because I'm British, and the idea of a British spaceplane leading the world in commercial launches just sounds so damn epic to me.

[drewbdoo2]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you sound like a propaganda piece. I've heard very similar phrases from US politicians, and it is a shame they manage to sell the lie to anyone. The shuttle wasn't reusable, it was refurbishable. The only reason it flew 135 flights is a lot of engineers lived off it (and Boeing/Lockheed as mother companies). And 98.5% success is nothing to write home about, those are horrible numbers Soyuz can improve upon, both in percentage, in absolute number of deaths, in total number of transported people, and in cost to do so, per flight and total.

Sorry, but when I read this, I sort of did take it the wrong way. I borrowed some lines from a Middle School Speech, which is where I bet you get this "propaganda" feeling. Do you mind telling me what made you feel like there was propaganda? I absolutely DON'T agree with the majority of politicians when it comes to the NASA budget. What "lie" do you think I'm selling when I say that the future of spacecraft lies with commercial companies? Charles Bolden agrees with me on that.

[DerekL1963]

But conceding the facts that are undisputable (i.e: the shuttle can do things no other vehicle that has flown can), I will still maintain that those capabilities come at great expense and are either of little use or capable of being done another way (so it's not worth it). After all, for what a shuttle launch really cost (500-1,500 million depending on who you ask and how you measure), you can do a lot of stuff.

Actually, a shuttle launch costs around $125-$150 million dollars - that's what it cost to add a new flight to the manifest (going from four flights in one year to five for example). The balance (what gives those $500-$1,500 million figures) comes from the fixed costs per annum or amortizing the total program cost to date over the number of flights. As the fixed costs and development costs are already sunk (I.E. already spent regardless of the number of launches), it's not completely kosher to saddle a new flight with them.

As to the specific Soyuz numbers... well, there's this problem with Soyuz, which one you pick? Are we counting the differences in launchers, model, etc? And Progress? What about the satellite launches by the same family of boosters, do those count as Soyuz payloads?

Exactly. I was just using the most common version - which is to lump all variants of Soyuz (the manned capsule) together and quietly set aside the one booster failure.

What I think should be obvious is that the russians have never sold a seat to NASA cheaper than it costs them, and that the soyuz family has been refined to become the safest, best understood human rated vehicle in history. But in the end specific comparisons are not only difficult, but probably inconclusive and unproductive, because you are bound to pick a biased yardstick.

Except... both of the things you claim are obvious, are neither. We have no idea what a seat costs the Russians, period. And subsidized seats aren't exactly unheard of. (We provided them on the Shuttle.) Russian era accounting is no clearer than that of the Soviet era and they show no interest in clarifying the situation. As to the second, the current mark of Soyuz is not only largely new (and thus cannot be said to be "best understood" at the systems level), it also hasn't flown sufficient times to make any accurate statement as to it's safety. (Though I will note in passing, it's landed off-target due to failure of it's main computer on something like roughly one third of it's flights to date.)

But yeah, to sort of sum it up, I think there is a better way to anything the Shuttle did, or could in theory do. Capsules for passengers (because even old Soyuz can beat the shuttle at that, and I also believe you can do much better than that), tugs for cargo.

At current prices it's not entirely clear that this is any cheaper, not at current safety rates is it clear that it's any safer or reliable. (Mostly due to the fact that you now require many more launches but haven't reduced their cost or added any nines to the reliability of the individual launchers and payloads.)

[Galacticruler]

1. folding wings

2. Make it ride centered on the top of a rocket( or piggy back only flights)

3. replace orbital engines with air-breathers and temporary retractable H/O fuel engines.

4. static docking node, no retractable CBMs.

5. stretch to 50% longer length to accommodate more powerful boosters or more fuel. Or both.

6. Change heat tiles material with Aerogel(keep external heat coating)

7. thinner wings

8. remove the vertical control surf.

9. reduce cost by use of less rare materials and reduction of used materials.

10. re-use any wastes from assembly

11. make the cockpit section gyroscopic(stays on the horizon[Think of the Star Wars B-Wing])

12. Make the cockpit section jettison capable, to make for fast escapes

13. line the entire thing with lead(optional)

[whatisthisidonteven]

Try to make it not ridiculously expensive and useless.