George L. von Pragenau Shuttle patents

publiusr said:
Here is an alternate shuttle stack approach
https://www.wired.com/2013/09/building-a-better-stronger-safer-space-shuttle-1982/
Click to expand...

Having a patent doesn't mean the idea is feasible.

publiusr said:
If the External Tank held kerosene and HTP, it would need no foam. Trying to imagine and orbiter with 3 modified F-1s
Click to expand...
Can't just mix and match items you like. Rockets are not Legos.
a. 3 F-1s have too much thrust for the orbiter
b. Can't just change the oxidizer to HTP and say "modified" F-1. You don't know if it can work.
c. Can't just change the propellants and keep the same vehicle configuration.
d. To provide the same Impulse as LH2 and LOX, the ET would have completely different tank sizes and would likely not be similar to the existing one, meaning it would not fit the MLP or pad and be the wrong length for the SRBs
 
publiusr said:
Here is an alternate shuttle stack approach
https://www.wired.com/2013/09/building-a-better-stronger-safer-space-shuttle-1982/
If the External Tank held kerosene and HTP, it would need no foam. Trying to imagine and orbiter with 3 modified F-1s

Strap-on agnostic…
Click to expand...

The F1's are huge,they wouldn't fit the Orbiter I don't think. Neither were the F1's capable of using HTP as an oxidizer they needed LOX and RP1.

An idea was floated in the BIS journal for replacing the SRB's with LRB's using HTP/kerosene (https://www.researchgate.net/public..._liquid_rocket_boosters_for_the_space_shuttle) but it was never seriously considered.

IIRC there was some official study work done on using F1A's for a possible LRB design, (I may be misremembering but I think one used the 'catamaran' flyback booster design) but they still used LOX/RP1 and the Orbiter always used LH2/LOX.

There's a reason it's called "Rocket Science" after all :)

Randy
 
Pyrios was another SRB replacement...but Dynetics got told "no" more times than Gary Hudson.

The goal would be to not have any ice/foam...and for the ET to be simpler.

Beal was to use HTP/kerosene but that might be an issue as it was to be fiber...and that would an issue with the peroxide.

Yes this would all take some major engineering...but getting rid of cryogenics might be worth it.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Pyrios was another SRB...but Dynetics got told "no" more times than Gary Hudson.
Click to expand...

Er, Pyrios was an LRB (Liquid Rocket Booster) :)

publiusr said:
The goal would be to not have any ice/foam...and for the ET to be simpler.
Click to expand...

As long as your using Liquid Hydrogen for main engines, (and SLS does) you're going to need insulation and have an ice problem. SLS just put the heat shield out of harms way :)

publiusr said:
Beal was to use HTP/kerosene but that might be an issue as it was to be fiber...and that would an issue with the peroxide.
Click to expand...

Beal was also using a cheap and expendable ablative engine and CF tanks have been tested with HTP with no issues. (Need a liner IIRC but that's pretty straight forward)

publiusr said:
Yes this would all take some major engineering...but getting rid of cryogenics might be worth it.
Click to expand...

Not really, there's the soft cryogenics like LOX and Methane but hydrogen (a "hard" cryo due to its low temperature) is the top performing fuel and if you want to squeeze all the performance out of your propellant you can it's going to be used. We're pretty good with using LH2 by this point and frankly it's likely to be used in the future where performance counts. HTP can be made from water but kerosene is hard to do ISRU for :)

I actually prefer H2O2 and kerosene for a recoverable booster but I'm weird that way :)
You really need a lighter hydrocarbon for your upper stage(s) though

Randy
 
I fixed it to SRB replacement...I just don't want to bother with foam or ice. An orbiter without Starship type tankage could take more abuse, yes?

Just keep the tankage outside of the airframe.
 
publiusr said:
I fixed it to SRB replacement...I just don't want to bother with foam or ice. An orbiter without Starship type tankage could take more abuse, yes?

Just keep the tankage outside of the airframe.
Click to expand...
No need for winged vehicles.
Cryogens will always have ice.
 
publiusr said:
Pyrios was another SRB replacement...but Dynetics got told "no" more times than Gary Hudson.
Click to expand...
a. They were never told no.
b. If there were to be an SRB replacement, no guarantee that Pyrios or Dynetics would involved
c. Dynetics could have built a test vehicle if they wanted to.. But no, they just wanted to get a larger chunk of the Marshall welfare handouts.
 
publiusr said:
Beal was to use HTP/kerosene but that might be an issue as it was to be fiber...and that would an issue with the peroxide.

Yes this would all take some major engineering...but getting rid of cryogenics might be worth it.
Click to expand...

Beal's was pressure fed and had helium/nitrogen tanks that were a quarter to a third of the length of each stage. It wasn't really workable.

No, it isn't worth it.
 
publiusr said:
I fixed it to SRB replacement...I just don't want to bother with foam or ice. An orbiter without Starship type tankage could take more abuse, yes?

Just keep the tankage outside of the airframe.
Click to expand...

Starship has plenty of ice on the outside during launch so I'm not sure what you mean by "type tanks"? And Starship has tanks inside the airframe as well?

Randy
 
With shuttle, the ET is outside the airframe...so the orbiter is all business.

While some may mock my infatuation with Buran, the new official Space Force painting looks a lot like a Buran-inspired Shuttle II as I envision it:

https://www.space.com/space-force-painting-plane-intercepting-satellite
Not that the art means anything except to serve as eye candy, of course.

Back to the topic at hand.

Having strap-ons beneath the ET is a look I have not seen before...which makes me wonder if a wing shaped attachment to hold RS-25 equivalents could fly back say---with a kerosene tank...leaving a simpler orbiter and LOX tank for wet workshops.

There is a new aluminum nozzle tested at what Byeman calls the "welfare department"--and today's phys.org has a story called "Team creates 3D-printed aluminum alloy with unprecedented fatigue resistance." So perhaps a Shuttle replacement may yet happen.

Kudos to Byeman for taking up for shuttle (on NSF?) when a poster there called shuttle "stupid."
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
So perhaps a Shuttle replacement may yet happen.
Click to expand...
NASA is never going to build another shuttle or another launch vehicle for that matter. NASA will be out of the launch vehicle business after SLS.
No commercial entity is going to build a shuttle, it won't make money. Anything that launches into space and lands on a runway will be small spacecraft like the X-37 or Dreamchaser. It won't be a shuttle type launch vehicle (rockets pushing a large orbiter with cargo bay) again.

The shuttle was jack of all trades but master of none.

Still don't understand it. Making money will enable space exploration and not government funding. No more Apollo, Shuttle or ISS large programs. SLS/Orion will be the last. NASA will be a buyer of services vs a supplier.

NASA now buys:
Cargo delivery to ISS
Crew delivery to ISS
Spacecraft delivery to orbit
Spacecraft processing facilities.
Lunar lander services
It soon will buy volume on a commerical space station. There will be no ISS2
Also, it soon will be buying data from spacecraft and instruments vs building them itself.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom