Space Shuttle Concepts

“Space Shuttle” is a moniker best used to describe those orbiters with more limited on-board propellants.

Columbia and Buran were space shuttles, earlier TSTO concepts where the orbiter had more cryogenics are perhaps best called something else? Even if that was what we thought shuttles would be early on.

Barycenter inside the diameter of the larger of two bodies—a planet with a big moon. Barycenter outside? A double planet. That kind of thing.

The general idea of a shuttle is a spaceplane on a big skid tank.
 
That is what shuttle should have been of course—but STS is what the public knows…the graph about the “whittling of the space shuttle” should be in every textbook…that and showing a full STS stack next to Falcon:

“What we thought reusability looked like”
“What it actually turned out to be.”
 
Meanwhile, getting rid of the capital letters in the thread's title would be a good start... :)
 
Graham1973 said:
Found that report I mentioned earlier on the NTRS, I've attached a diagram showing the impact zone to this post. The document does not cover the planned layout of the facility.

Space Shuttle Launch & Recovery Site Review Board (April 10, 1972)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890068689_1989068689.pdf
Click to expand...

spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com

Where to Launch and Land the Space Shuttle? (1971-1972)

The story of spaceflight told through missions and programs that did not happen - that is, the great majority of them.
spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com

Document attached. From David Portree blog entry and the document date, seems like the post 1972 final report. Within the span of a year (April 1971 to April 1972) the Space Shuttle had turned from fully reusable TSTO into partially expendable concept. This de facto impacted (lame pun assumed) conclusions of the board.
 

Attachments

  • 19890068689_1989068689.pdf
    3 MB · Views: 6
Archibald said:
Document attached. From David Portree blog entry
Click to expand...
"No Shortage of Dreams" is a great blog. Well worth looking at.
Blog author is not spouting hyperbole, :)
"If you think you’re pretty knowledgeable about the history of space exploration, then this blog will make you think again. It will also send you down one of those Internet 'rabbit holes' that spits you out, several hours later, with a newfound appreciation for a subject and a disquieting sense of disbelief about what time it is. (You have been warned.)
Click to expand...
 
publiusr said:
“Space Shuttle” is a moniker best used to describe those orbiters with more limited on-board propellants.

Columbia and Buran were space shuttles, earlier TSTO concepts where the orbiter had more cryogenics are perhaps best called something else? Even if that was what we thought shuttles would be early on.

Barycenter inside the diameter of the larger of two bodies—a planet with a big moon. Barycenter outside? A double planet. That kind of thing.

The general idea of a shuttle is a spaceplane on a big skid tank.
Click to expand...
Wrong. A "space shuttle*" was to deliver goods and crew to and from orbit as a launch vehicle mi.e shuttling. It has nothing to do with onboard propellants.
Columbia was "The Space Shuttle". Buran was a partial copy of the Space Shuttle
Barycenter is meaningless here.

X-37 and Dreamchaser are not space shuttles, they are not launch vehicles.


*Hence "The Space Shuttle"
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
The term shuttle implies full reusablity, and *not* a throwaway drop tank. Don't fall for congressional feelgood euphemistic NASA speak...
Click to expand...
No, Space shuttle was a specific vehicle and program. Any thing else is an RLV or partial RLV.
The name was used early in the program.

Archibald said:
The thread title is hopeless... "Reusable Launch Vehicle concepts" would be better.

Space Shuttle is strictly 1968 (August 10, Mueller speech) - 1972 (January 5 : Nixon greenlight the project).
Click to expand...
See it was named before the final design was decided, which was the TAOS (Thrust Assisted Orbiter Shuttle).
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
No, Space shuttle was a specific vehicle and program. Any thing else is an RLV or partial RLV.
The name was used early in the program.


See it was named before the final design was decided, which was the TAOS (Thrust Assisted Orbiter Shuttle).
Click to expand...

By Heiss, Morgenstern, and the Mathematica Institute. And their (balky) economic case. Then again, nobody had ever atempted a RLV thorough economic case before...
 
If a modern STS type Shuttle were to uses Musk's Raptor engines, what might that look like?

No hydrogen woes or popcorning... maybe a Saturn Shuttle atop SuperHeavy? Something to get rid of solids...if Starship itself is delayed, perhaps this could be a fall-back option.
 
publiusr said:
If a modern STS type Shuttle were to uses Musk's Raptor engines, what might that look like?

No hydrogen woes or popcorning... maybe a Saturn Shuttle atop SuperHeavy? Something to get rid of solids...if Starship itself is delayed, perhaps this could be a fall-back option.
Click to expand...
Form follows function - Musk is betting his own(?) money on the VTVL approach that he deems best, so at this particular point in time it is not anymore a competition of pet designs (even tough I will readily admit I still have a certain ivory tower theoretical VTHL TSTO favorite), so whatever substantial payload capability (note though that for a true orbital economy this would have to include both up and down payload capacity, be it humans or any other precious cargo) on which RLV on a commercial scale works best in the shortest time will most likely win.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
If a modern STS type Shuttle were to uses Musk's Raptor engines, what might that look like?
Click to expand...
The same. Just smaller ET. The same fiscal constrains would be in place.\
publiusr said:
No hydrogen woes or popcorning...
Click to expand...

That would be wrong. The tank would still require insulation to prevent ice buildup.

publiusr said:
maybe a Saturn Shuttle atop SuperHeavy? Something to get rid of solids...if Starship itself is delayed, perhaps this could be a fall-back option.
Click to expand...
No. Jeesh. Stop. When are you going to learn. Musk is all in on Starship. He is not going to half @$$ it and work with SLS.
Starship is not going to be delayed years that it would take to develop a new orbiter.
And the "Saturn Shuttle" is still going to need an ET. So, it is not reusable.

SuperHeavy and Starship are a match and don't fly without each other.
 
martinbayer said:
Form follows function - Musk is betting his own(?) money on the VTVL approach that he deems best, so at this particular point in time it is not anymore a competition of pet designs (even tough I will readily admit I still have a certain ivory tower theoretical VTHL TSTO favorite), so whatever substantial payload capability (note though that for a true orbital economy this would have to include both up and down payload capacity, be it humans or any other precious cargo) on which RLV on a commercial scale works best in the shortest time will most likely win.
Click to expand...

Not "his" money at all, it's public money, (NASA, some DoD) and private investment money.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Not "his" money at all, it's public money, (NASA, some DoD) and private investment money.

Randy
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for the correction, Sir - and this is meant completely sincerely and entirely unironically. I have to admit I fell for the Elon Musk persona projection rather than doing a reality check - shame on me.
 
Lunar version is being built at the same place, it’s really one single, coherent program, with mars in sight, makes no sense to separate it.

According to musk 5 billions had been spent by the end of last year, with current cost at 2 billion a year (With no signs of slowing down) , HLS‘S 2.9 billion contracts would last to the end of 2026 (according to the current official plan) , at which point the program would have cost $11 bn+, so HLS funding would be what, 20-30% of the total cost?

It is clear however that, thanks to starlink, SpaceX has self-funding capabilities rivalling NASA’s human exploration program
 
January 10, 1972 - five days after Nixon officially endorsed the Shuttle as NASA next big project, and accordingly funded it.

By this point the Shuttle already had a) ground-started SSMEs and b) the related enormous external tank. What was still undefined was the booster(s). The - fateful - decision to go first SRB (solid fuel) was taken by NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher on Mach 15, 1972. Rockwell got the orbiter contract on July 15, 1972.
 
TheKutKu said:
Lunar version is being built at the same place, it’s really one single, coherent program, with mars in sight, makes no sense to separate it.
Click to expand...
Not really. There is Starship and there is the HLS. It isn't "one single, coherent program". Starship can exist without HLS. Mars can be done without HLS. HLS is an offshoot from Starship, it will be a different configuration.
 
TheKutKu said:
According to musk 5 billions had been spent by the end of last year, with current cost at 2 billion a year (With no signs of slowing down) , HLS‘S 2.9 billion contracts would last to the end of 2026 (according to the current official plan) , at which point the program would have cost $11 bn+, so HLS funding would be what, 20-30% of the total cost?
Click to expand...
No, less than 20-30% because NASA monies are paying for "non" Starship items like landing rockets, lunar environments, the use of a lander, etc.
 
Byeman said:
Apollo SPS.
Click to expand...
Thanks, quite a leap from that to a pressure fed booster, in every way.
Byeman said:
Not really. There is Starship and there is the HLS. It isn't "one single, coherent program". Starship can exist without HLS. Mars can be done without HLS. HLS is an offshoot from Starship, it will be a different configuration.
Click to expand...
Moon has been part of SpaceX's and Musk's Mars plan, just watch his pre-Artemis presentations, the vast majority of technologies developed for HLS will be useful, more or less directly, for Mars too.
 
TheKutKu said:
Moon has been part of SpaceX's and Musk's Mars plan, just watch his pre-Artemis presentations, the vast majority of technologies developed for HLS will be useful, more or less directly, for Mars too.
Click to expand...

I hate to be ""that guy" (happens far to often for my tastes actually :) ) but actually other than some off the cuff general remarks early on, (back when Musk was also saying they would be using the Falcon 9 upper stage as a Starship test vehicle) Musk was/is specifically sceptical and dismissive of the Moon as a goal or a destination. He changed tune a bit when HLS came along but as soon as they got the contract award it was basically "Ya, whatever. On to Mars!".

Musk has said that developing a "Lunar" version, (specifically the few "Artemis" versions which will very different from the "Starship" he envisions) will be a specialized and essentially "one-off" version since it will have no real capability beyond landing on the Moon.
Really this is understandable with Musk's overall "plan" (ie: fixation) for Mars.

It's essentially "Mars Direct" privatized and super-sized (and not IMHO in a good way) which is why he needs a super-heavy lift vehicle to get the job done. He's got the same dislike for on-orbit infrastructure and support, (hence his dismissal of orbital propellant depots even though that's essentially what his "Orbital Tanker Starship" will be) that characterized Mars Direct which he is a fan of. But he's not willing to entertain any idea of moving from his "planned" goals and is focused solely on Mars. He throws out "hints" of other uses but he doesn't really support them unless he thinks he can generate some interest by dropping hints.

Early on there were hints that there would be things like space tugs and dedicated orbit-to-orbit transports but like using the Falcon 9 for testing it was quickly dropped. He's not really "wrong" either given his focus. Using Starship for Lunar missions IS actually wasteful and over complicated, especially with NASA's limited goals and missions. (Specifically issues with Congressional support/funding which drive what NASA can actually plan, let alone actually do)
Something to keep in mind that while lander 'reuse' is a "nice to have" it's not a requirement and by mutual agreement SpaceX is supposed to aim their "Lunar Starships" as expendable.
(This has modified somewhat recently with Blue Origin noting their lander is supposed to be reusable, SpaceX is still only planning on building a few "HLS" models and not reusing them. IIRC NASA in fact won't actually "own" the HLS Starships, SpaceX will. Maybe I got that wrong though)

Byeman said:
It is 80-90% SpaceX money. DOD has very little (just studies) and NASA's is for the lunar lander version.
Click to expand...

It's 80-90% investor money yes but the NASA money (and support) has been the main driver for that investment. Part of the reason Starship was delayed was a lack of ability to fund the "development program".

TheKutKu said:
It is clear however that, thanks to starlink, SpaceX has self-funding capabilities rivalling NASA’s human exploration program
Click to expand...

Err... No? Starlink is at this point still a money sink for SpaceX. Part of the reason we're seeing development of "Starlink V2.0" equipment on the latest test flight is as Musk said he needs that (and he needs it soon) to make a profit on Starlink. Starship's money is not flowing from SpaceX or Musk, (though I'll note he's diverted a lot of money from Tesla to prop up SpaceX) but from continuous rounds of investor capital that isn't as steady as it was because of a perceived "lack of progress". Valuation inflation has been a thing for SpaceX for a while now and the gravy train is slowing down due to perceived (I'd argue actual)n issues with Starship and Starlink.

Musk has said IIRC that the next flight will NOT carry any Starlink V2.0 satellites for deployment and he said that because speculation on doing so has been bleeding over into his next funding round causing issues. (They are nowhere near ready to try deploying such satellites given the issues with each flight but "speculation" has been coming out that Musk will give the go-ahead for expendable Starship development to get the V2.0 constellation started to firm up investment)

And with that let me STOP derailing THIS thread (TheKutKu will get that one :) ) and go back to lurking :)

Randy
 
Third-party estimates are that SpacX will book $15 billion in revenue this year, with the majority of that Starlink. Given the size of their planned constellation, Starship’s success is worth many more billions of dollars than that to them.
 
Archibald said:
spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com

Where to Launch and Land the Space Shuttle? (1971-1972)

The story of spaceflight told through missions and programs that did not happen - that is, the great majority of them.
spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com

Document attached. From David Portree blog entry and the document date, seems like the post 1972 final report. Within the span of a year (April 1971 to April 1972) the Space Shuttle had turned from fully reusable TSTO into partially expendable concept. This de facto impacted (lame pun assumed) conclusions of the board.
Click to expand...
I wonder, was there much thought given to the crewing of the Fly-back booster during that period of the Shuttle’s early definition? The "NASA’s First Space Shuttle astronaut selection" (2020) book says that the Crew was largely overlooked during 69-71... and also that Buzz Aldrin worked on a committee studying the manned booster In 71

Would they have used dedicated non-NASA pilots? Or would they be part of the astronaut corps, would the corps ´, and future selections; have to be extended to accommodate for them? Would booster crew be rotated from the corps’s pilots or would there be specialisation? Was there any early work on training systems and programs for booster pilots?

Manned booster pilot is a pretty cool job, just like Spaceshiptwo pilot (arguably one of the most dangerous jobs in the world), maybe cooler than Orbital Astronaut.
STS-1 would have necessarily risked at least 4 astronauts...
 
Last edited:
Were there any studies on the dangers of RTLS aborts? Those papers moldering under dust might be useful to RLV makers where reusability requires violent maneuvers.

Winged flybacks more benign?
 
TheKutKu said:
Would they have used dedicated non-NASA pilots? Or would they be part of the astronaut corps, would the corps ´, and future selections; have to be extended to accommodate for them? Would booster crew be rotated from the corps’s pilots or would there be specialisation? Was there any early work on training systems and programs for booster pilots?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't they be NASA? No different than NASA NB-52, SCA and research pilots.

TheKutKu said:
Would booster crew be rotated from the corps’s pilots or would there be specialisation? Was there any early work on training systems and programs for booster pilots?
Click to expand...
The boosters never got off of proposal paper, hence no need to think about booster pilots
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Were there any studies on the dangers of RTLS aborts? Those papers moldering under dust might be useful to RLV makers where reusability requires violent maneuvers.
Click to expand...
Always. But no different than an ejection seat, where the alternative is sure death.
publiusr said:
Winged flybacks more benign?
Click to expand...
Define "benign". The turn around is the most stressful maneuver other than max q.
 
Benign means
light engines once, and keep them out of return airflow. Let something besides plumbing take as much abuse as possible.

Worked for shuttle.
 
publiusr said:
Benign means
light engines once, and keep them out of return airflow. Let something besides plumbing take as much abuse as possible.

Worked for shuttle.
Click to expand...
Relighting engines is not a hostile environment. Supersonic retropropulsion has been shown to be successful more that 200 times, which is more than the total flights of the Saturn, Atlas V and Delta IV families combined.

This isn't a Shuttle Orbiter. Not trying just a fairing that returned the main engines. They want to return all parts of the vehicle intact so it can be reused without major refurbishment. Just like the original two stage shuttle designs but instead of VTHL, they want to do VTVL. Which means it can be a less complex vehicle and have more uses. We don't need more rockets like SLS or shuttle. Shuttle put reuse on the wrong portion of the vehicle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Winged reuse of SuperHeavy was what I was alluding to mostly...SH doesn't do a burn so that plumbing takes the full brunt of abuse.

Starship is more than a shuttle orbiter, yes --more than just a fairing returning engines--which means it may take much more time dialing in than Falcon.

There may yet be something in old papers on shuttle variants that could prove useful on Starship. By brushing off all things shuttle means you might overlook a solution to a problem SpaceX will have to solve anew.

SuperHeavy as is looks a reliable HLLV first stage in expendable mode.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom