How would you improve the Shuttle design?

[KASASpace]

Its 22m³. The "m" stands for meters

Well it would be an RL-10, so as to say it would produce more than double the thrust as well. So, one Pod underneath the vertical stabilizer, then fuel tanks on the sides. Still smaller than both combined. But thanks, anyways. I forgot it was meters.

[KASASpace]

That's just the thing... It's not human nature to explore, at least not amongst the majority of humanity. Yeah, there's a few that do those things, all all important racial yeast... but very few.

The Shuttle was growing even before the USAF got involved - because if it didn't grow, it didn't have a mission since the space station had been cancelled. That's one of the big reasons why the program became so expensive and NASA sought USAF participation in the first place. And that's a huge conceptual error that runs through this thread, you can't improve the design until you know what you're improving it *for*. First, you define the missions, then you define the capabilities needed to carry out those missions, then and only then can you specify the requirements your vehicle will need to meet.

Well, the USAF made the wings bigger and actually made THE WHOLE THING BIGGER. They wanted to get to polar orbits from the Cape, for Kerbol's sake! That adds quite a considerable amount of D-v. Plus, humans wouldn't be where we were today if we didn't explore. Columbus accidentally discovered the New World. And he had to explore for that. If it weren't for him, perhaps this forum might not exist at all.

And the USAF wanted bigger wings and cargo space. So, there you have it. But they backed down, leaving NASA with a vry big, heavy, expensive vehicle, that was the only thing they got.

[KASASpace]

I have yet another suggestion. Instead of using a space plane for anything, I would use a normal rocket. Cancel the shuttle. Build a cheaper better faster vehicle and use it heavily. Man-rate the Atlas V, use it for getting capsules into space, then use paragilders on the decent capsule for cross-range, and can land using skids. Similar to original Gemini goal of getting a paraglider on it.

[KASASpace]

Moar struts?

If only NASA thought of it...............

[KASASpace]

Sure, but they only needed to land on a runway because the damn thing had wings. A capsule can re-enter and splashdown or land anywhere.

Well, the desing of the shuttle called for capability to return some pretty heavy cargo. I wouldn't want that "precious" stuff to land in Siberia or the Ocean. Then it would take months of work just to get the cargo back to the home country. Not effective for time, and not to mention the craft itself. SO thus crossr-range popped up, which also allowed for less accurate landings to be chosen, thus, longer return windows. There you go, wings explained.

[Nuke]

i would add a gatling gun

[KASASpace]

Hmm, liquid propane...............

is interestingly very good in a fuel tank that has little insulation. So semi-balloon tanks, to be light, and then use liquid propane, cheaper, faster, better. LH2 all the way is inefficient at its best, so, better to make it a hydrocarbon.

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

I never really understood why anyone would take a plane into space. Except for the coolness factor.

Now if I really wanted a return vehicle that can land on a runway I'd do things differently. I do not understand why the wing and control surfaces are exposed during the entire trip. Why not design extendable control surfaces similar to variable swept wing designs such as the F14? The actual surfaces would be hidden inside the main fuselage during launch and reentry and only get exposed for the atmospheric glide and landing.

Oh, and I wouldnt put people on it unless it had at least rudimentary take off go around functionality and a parachute driven crew escape system.

[Lexif]

Now if I really wanted a return vehicle that can land on a runway I'd do things differently. I do not understand why the wing and control surfaces are exposed during the entire trip. Why not design extendable control surfaces similar to variable swept wing designs such as the F14? The actual surfaces would be hidden inside the main fuselage during launch and reentry and only get exposed for the atmospheric glide and landing.

I guess they did the math and found out that the mechanism to move the wings would be so heavy that it eats up all the benefits. Also, safety considerations might have been important in the design decision. What if the wings fail to extend after the ascend?

[TimMartland]

Moar boosters.

[crazyewok]

Me? I wouldnt have wasted money on the death trap to beguin with.

I would of sunk my money into project orion when i had the chance.

[Moar Boosters]

I never really understood why anyone would take a plane into space. Except for the coolness factor.

Now if I really wanted a return vehicle that can land on a runway I'd do things differently. I do not understand why the wing and control surfaces are exposed during the entire trip. Why not design extendable control surfaces similar to variable swept wing designs such as the F14? The actual surfaces would be hidden inside the main fuselage during launch and reentry and only get exposed for the atmospheric glide and landing.

Oh, and I wouldnt put people on it unless it had at least rudimentary take off go around functionality and a parachute driven crew escape system.

I was wondering the other day whether it might be viable to build a re-entry craft that used rotor blades to slow down. Something that looks like the Rotary Rocket, except launches on top of a normal rocket and only uses the rotors for descent.

The simple shape would make heat-shielding easier.....it's just like a big soyuz or apollo capsule. It could use ablative shielding that's replaced each time, or an easier-to-maintain configuration of ceramic panels. The rotors could fold away or at least have protective fairings, and due to the simple design, it'd be much easier to blueprint to squeeze a spacecraft into, rather than something that has to be the shape of a viable plane or glider.

[Nibb31]

Me? I wouldnt have wasted money on the death trap to beguin with.

I would of sunk my money into project orion when i had the chance.

And you call the Shuttle a death trap??

[crazyewok]

And you call the Shuttle a death trap??

Can you think of a better way to not only lift huge payloads, including saftey feature that you could never put on current chem rockets into orbit but also travel huge distances at great speed while doing it in a relativly "cheap" and resuable way that opens space up to human expansion in way not thought possible all useing CURRENT tecnology?

[CaptRobau]

What does everyone think about the Chrylser SERV, a design in the race for the Space Shuttle contract?

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

[Nibb31]

Can you think of a better way to not only lift huge payloads, including saftey feature that you could never put on current chem rockets into orbit but also travel huge distances at great speed while doing it in a relativly "cheap" and resuable way that opens space up to human expansion in way not thought possible all useing CURRENT tecnology?

Yeah, lots of better ways. Cheaper, safer, and less destructive.

Orion was never developed to a level when safety features were studied. It was nothing more than a conceptual study, with no hard R&D, and it was abandoned because those studies found that it simply wasn't practical. At a technology readiness level of 2 or 3 at most, it certainly doesn't qualify as "CURRENT" technology.

[crazyewok]

Yeah, lots of better ways. Cheaper, safer, and less destructive.

Ok list them?

And destructive? Err you dont launch it over a city! Problem solved!

Orion was never developed to a level when safety features were studied.

Seeing as weight was not a issue Im sure further studies could have been done. When you dont have to worry about shaving off every gram alot could have been done with a little thought.

It was nothing more than a conceptual study, with no hard R&D,

WRONG!

Lots of R&D was done. Tests were piggy backed onto militart tests that were going on to test structual integirity and a whole line of research was dont into finding small, "clean" mass produceable nukes, which apprently was succefull as most of the data is still highly classifed. Also a small model was tested useing conventinal explosives. Face it, the idea could have worked.

and it was abandoned because those studies found that it simply wasn't practical.

No it was abandoned for 2 reasons. 1) The nuclear test ban treaty forbade nuclear detonations in the atmosphere (which is is when the project was cancelled and the official reason). 2) A lesser known fact but the USAF hjacked the the plan and came up with a idea of a orbital "battleship" and when proposed to kennedy he freaked out and started cancelling the funding and most likey is a reason a amemdment was put in the NTBT.

Fact is the maths checked out and all the research into structual integrity worked out and all the reserach into finding a appropriate nuke checked out. Even the safety problems of fallout were mostly resolved. It was only canned because of politics.

[Nibb31]

WRONG!

Lots of R&D was done. Tests were piggy backed onto militart tests that were going on to test structual integirity and a whole line of research was dont into finding small, "clean" mass produceable nukes, which apprently was succefull as most of the data is still highly classifed. Also a small model was tested useing conventinal explosives. Face it, the idea could have worked.

Citation needed.

You need to provide evidence of this. But how could you if it's "still highly classified"?

The best I can find is the infamous "manhole cover" story, also known as the Thunderwell Story, which has been debunked here:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html

No it was abandoned for 2 reasons. 1) The nuclear test ban treaty forbade nuclear detonations in the atmosphere (which is is when the project was cancelled and the official reason). 2) A lesser known fact but the USAF hjacked the the plan and came up with a idea of a orbital "battleship" and when proposed to kennedy he freaked out and started cancelling the funding and most likey is a reason a amemdment was put in the NTBT.

Sounds like conspiracy bull**** to me. Evidence required.

Fact is the maths checked out and all the research into structual integrity worked out and all the reserach into finding a appropriate nuke checked out. Even the safety problems of fallout were mostly resolved. It was only canned because of politics.

Source please?

As I said in another post:

Orion was a crazy idea from an era when cars, planes, nukes, buildings, bridges, just seemed to get bigger and more powerful every year. Nothing could stop progress. Humanity had entered the atomic age. Nobody thought that there would be a practical or economical limit to the size of rocket launchers or to what nuclear power could do for us.

This was a time when very serious engineers thought that it would be a good idea to dig artificial lakes or strip mines with nukes. It was a time when US Army generals proposed blowing up the Moon with nukes just as show of power to the commies. It was also a time when experts thought that a woman's place was in the kitchen, that blacks should have the back seat on the bus, that smoking was healthy, or that jello could be served in a salad.

It was a totally crazy period, with crazy ideas everywhere. Bringing back Orion as a space propulsion system would be just as idiotic as bringing back the Ford Nucleon or mind control weapons. Orion was just another of those wacky ideas from the 1950's that we laugh about today. Just like many other stupid ideas that people have had, it was killed and buried decades ago, for some very good reasons.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Nibb31

[Kerbin Dallas Multipass]

I like the Jello salad/project Orion comparison.

It's deep.

[crazyewok]

Citation needed.

Sounds like conspiracy bull**** to me. Evidence required.

Erm the Nuclear test ban treaty WAS why the project was cancelled that is a fact. Thats the main reason given. The USAF aproach to the presidant I heard in a documentry which I think was in the BBC documentry and from a interview with Freeman Dyson himself, I say I think as I heard a few.

As for the classified stuff? Well some of the gennral ideas and projects orion was piggbacked on were declassified but the details arnt and are still locked up.

I am still waiting for a detailed explanation on why it wont work. With maths and evidence?

Im also waiting for your list of better ways to get stuff into orbit cheaply and safely ?

Edited December 22, 2013 by crazyewok

[SFJackBauer]

Im also waiting for your list of better ways to get stuff into orbit cheaply and safely ?

Pardon the intromission, but what stuff has a so urgent need to get into orbit? I see lots of people thinking of massive 100 or 200t lifters, but to lift what? In other words, what needs an Orion-class lifter that can't be done better with the current and next generation chemical rockets?

[Tiberion]

Erm the Nuclear test ban treaty WAS why the project was cancelled that is a fact. Thats the main reason given. The USAF aproach to the presidant I heard in a documentry which I think was in the BBC documentry and from a interview with Freeman Dyson himself, I say I think as I heard a few.

As for the classified stuff? Well some of the gennral ideas and projects orion was piggbacked on were declassified but the details arnt and are still locked up.

I am still waiting for a detailed explanation on why it wont work. With maths and evidence?

Im also waiting for your list of better ways to get stuff into orbit cheaply and safely ?

Right now, traditional chemical rockets are the only game in town, with the only realistic near-future competition being Skylon-style spaceplanes which augment chemical rocketry with atmospheric lift.

Here's most of the other possibilities in the less-near future (or from the past;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch

Less payload, way cheaper, but mostly theoretical.

All safer than nuclear pulse propulsion, though. And since nuclear fuel is decidedly rarer than fossil fuels, more sustainable than NPP too.

I get that you think Orion was cool, but it'll never happen. I am confident in saying that for anyone old enough to read this, you won't live to see chemical rockets supplanted as the main/only method of leaving Earth.

[crazyewok]

Pardon the intromission, but what stuff has a so urgent need to get into orbit? I see lots of people thinking of massive 100 or 200t lifters, but to lift what? In other words, what needs an Orion-class lifter that can't be done better with the current and next generation chemical rockets?

The ability to take it economical for minning and other explotation of the solar system resources? Earth population is growing and our resources are growing thiner. Either we give up our way of life or we head out there. I for one prefer the 2nd option. Either way Id rather the human race start now than wait until things really do get uncomfortable.

[Stargate525]

I get that you think Orion was cool, but it'll never happen. I am confident in saying that for anyone old enough to read this, you won't live to see chemical rockets supplanted as the main/only method of leaving Earth.

That's pretty bold, considering that my grandfather lived to see air travel go from propeller-driven aircraft that could barely make the atlantic to jet engines which can manage half the globe, from single-line telephones to on-demand streaming, and from best-guess medicine to the pacemaker that kept him alive the last three years of his life.

I am cautiously optimistic about a space elevator before 2090, and don't see any reason we couldn't build a person-sized LHC for a base launch.

[Tiberion]

That's pretty bold, considering that my grandfather lived to see air travel go from propeller-driven aircraft that could barely make the atlantic to jet engines which can manage half the globe, from single-line telephones to on-demand streaming, and from best-guess medicine to the pacemaker that kept him alive the last three years of his life.

I am cautiously optimistic about a space elevator before 2090, and don't see any reason we couldn't build a person-sized LHC for a base launch.

Oh, I know that technology can change overnight. Being a tech guy, I've seen computers eat their elders within 18 months for a decade or more (and its slowing down.)

But The Laws of Physics are King, and we are its subjects. There are limits to what we can do, and short of an amazing, unforeseen discovery by our particle physicists out there, we have a pretty solid grasp on how things work now.

So while we went from prop planes to the Jet age in 30 years or so, its been 50+ since we really mastered Rocketry, and we're all still using the same propulsion tech. New computers, new construction materials, more efficient designs, but its still setting fuel on fire and going up.

IF we keep advancing in nano-materials and energy storage we might be at the beginning of an age of space elevators, magneto-pulse propulsion and such things by 2090. But they would not have supplanted rocketry. And I would be 121 years old.

I'm not saying we're at the end of our technological rope by any means. But we need to learn to climb better to get much farther.