SLS Shuttle

[Comrade Jenkens]

Random though but I'm just wondering if the SLS could be modified to attach a shuttle onto the side? If the upper stages are removed it is essentially a shuttle tank and booster but with some engines on the underside which would work in a similar way to how Buran did.

I know its not really practical though nor would it have any use.

[R0cketC0der]

So a space shuttle with additional engines under the external fuel tank? What would be the point of that?

[Soda Popinski]

Isn't a lot of the SLS based on shuttle technology?

[astropapi1]

So a space shuttle with additional engines under the external fuel tank? What would be the point of that?

Ever heard of Buran?

[spoiler=]

[ScallopPotato]

You could put a Titan Spaceplane on the side of it xD

[R0cketC0der]

Ever heard of Buran?

[spoiler=]http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault/Buran%20scans/Buran_stack_side_view.jpg

I'm aware of Buran, but it's a totally different concept which was designed for use with the Energia from the beginning. Buran itself had no main engines which fired at launch, only its equivalent of the OMS. However the shuttle was designed with both the main engines and the OMS in the orbiter and only the fuel tank and boosters not on the orbiter. Buran was more of a payload, while the shuttle was part of the actual launch vehicle itself.

The only real differences to the shuttle I see on this concept would be a larger fuel tank with one more engine, larger boosters, letting the engines burn up instead of recovering them and even more structural forces and asymmetric thrust than the space shuttle already had. Needing to build completely new engines would result in higher launch cost(they already needed to be rebuilt partially, but the cost for that was still a lot less than building completely new ones). I don't see how this would get around the problems of the space shuttle program. Also the only advantage over the SLS that I see would be the ability to return something from orbit, but that ability of the space shuttle was rarely used.

[Dkmdlb]

... And why would we want to repeat the mistakes of building a huge airplane to go into space to deliver payloads to ISS and do other near-earth stuff?

[montyben101]

... And why would we want to repeat the mistakes of building a huge airplane to go into space to deliver payloads to ISS and do other near-earth stuff?

Mistakes? The shuttle did tons of experiments in space which no other craft like it could do while staying cheap(ish) It also deployed probes to Venus and Jupiter. I know in the end it cost a lot to run but it did do lots of good in terms of science

[jwenting]

Mistakes? The shuttle did tons of experiments in space which no other craft like it could do while staying cheap(ish) It also deployed probes to Venus and Jupiter. I know in the end it cost a lot to run but it did do lots of good in terms of science

yes, mistake. Not the concept, but the implementation. And given the nature of NASA and the US government, that mistake is inevitable given that contracts are awarded not to who creates the best product or the best value for money but according to which company promises to deliver the most voters or campaign donations.

[montyben101]

Hmm I do see what you mean, The shuttle could have had smaller wings which would mean bigger payloads (theoretically) but the US air force wanted it to do something with polar orbits (cant exactly remember) but then never really used it or took advantage of the bigger wings.

[Capt. Hunt]

to be precise, the USAF wanted to be able to use it to service spy satellites, which are in a polar orbit, but yeah, they never really used it for that, and after Challenger NASA said it was too risky.

[R0cketC0der]

Hmm I do see what you mean, The shuttle could have had smaller wings which would mean bigger payloads (theoretically) but the US air force wanted it to do something with polar orbits (cant exactly remember) but then never really used it or took advantage of the bigger wings.

The thing with polar orbits they wanted to do was to launch into polar orbit, deploy a satellite and then deorbiting it before it even completed a single orbit. Due to the fact that the earth rotates during that time, the space shuttle needed a lot more cross-range capability than used for an equatorial return or a polar return after multiple orbits. The reason they wanted this is that they feared that the shuttle would become a target of ASAT weapons and the shuttle is much easier to spot than the payloads it would deploy on this kind of missions.

[Comrade Jenkens]

The idea behind the shuttle was sound but too many things kept being added into the design until it was just inefficient and poor at everything.

Also how did Buran stay balanced if its own engines weren't used for the accent?

Edited May 14, 2014 by Comrade Jenkens

[Albert VDS]

Put shuttle or something similar in the thread title or post and it becomes "the shuttle was a mistake" debate.

Mistake or not, it's not what the OP wanted to achieve with this thread.

It's just a simple question: Can you modify an SLS so that a space shuttle could be slapped on it's side?

I think it would be possible, but would require far more money than a simple modification.

[Javster]

They should have stuck two shuttles on one fuel tank and booster array

[softweir]

Put shuttle or something similar in the thread title or post and it becomes "the shuttle was a mistake" debate.

Mistake or not, it's not what the OP wanted to achieve with this thread.

It's just a simple question: Can you modify an SLS so that a space shuttle could be slapped on it's side?

I think it would be possible, but would require far more money than a simple modification.

As you imply, it would increase the cost of the first stage considerably. To slap a shuttle on the side they would have to redesign the structure of the first stage so they could add the attachment points and prevent the whole thing bending like a banana when they loaded it. If they DID do that redesign, it would add a lot of extra weight to the first stage. This would make it less useful for non-shuttle launches.

Yes, the Russians did this with Buran and Energia, but we have no idea how much extra it cost them to upgrade the Energia launcher to facilitate Buran launches, nor do we know how much extra the Energia first stage weighed as a result.

(Of course, this sort of thing is so easy in KSP - just slap on a few struts and you're good to go! )

I think NASA are right to try and keep SLS as simple as possible. Make it make it do *one* main task, *good* at that task - and avoid the extra cost and dilution of primary capability that comes from making it over-flexible.

However - there's nothing that stops them mounting a small-enough spaceplane on top. But that wasn't what you were asking!

[Horn Brain]

Idea: Can we just sticky post a "Space Shuttle Opinion Thread" so that people can just be redirected when they get off topic?

[Comrade Jenkens]

As you imply, it would increase the cost of the first stage considerably. To slap a shuttle on the side they would have to redesign the structure of the first stage so they could add the attachment points and prevent the whole thing bending like a banana when they loaded it. If they DID do that redesign, it would add a lot of extra weight to the first stage. This would make it less useful for non-shuttle launches.

You do realise that the first stage of the SLS is simply a modified shuttle external tank? The whole thing is simply a rearranged shuttle.

[softweir]

That's true, I wasn't aware of that until now.

Umm....

[Dodgey]

When you say modified could you elaborate please? I'm just a bit confused on the specifics.

[SargeRho]

They took an EFT, stuck 4 engines under it, then took shuttle SRBs, stuck an extra segment on top for extra powah, bolted them on the sides just like they did with the STS, and stuck a 2nd stage on top of the modified EFT. This is oversimplifying it of course, but you get the idea?

[Dodgey]

Ah I see. Thanks for the clarification.

[softweir]

They took an EFT, stuck 4 engines under it, then took shuttle SRBs, stuck an extra segment on top for extra powah, bolted them on the sides just like they did with the STS, and stuck a 2nd stage on top of the modified EFT. This is oversimplifying it of course, but you get the idea?

That was the original plan. However, they decided to skip that stage and go for a version with an extended EFT - and, of course "stuck 4 engines under it" and "stuck a second stage on top" leaves out all the redesigning they had to do so the stage could take those new forces.

[Reddragon]

I actually sent a Shuttle to low kerbin orbit this way. Similar to Buran, except I had to fire the shuttle's engines as well for balance. It was still difficult.

[Nibb31]

The whole point of a space shuttle is to bring back the SSMEs, which are the most expensive piece of the kit. If you are putting the engines on the core, then it simply doesn't make sense to have a reusable spacecraft.

The Russians figured this out when Buran flew, which is why it was cancelled so early. It was simply too expensive to throw away the engines for each flight. The only reason they built Buran was because of American propaganda. They were afraid of the capabilities that it didn't have, but they needed to build one for themselves to find that out.

The whole space shuttle paradigm simply doesn't make much sense at all. It was a great technological achievement and it was pretty, but it was a fundamentally flawed concept.