Design a shuttle (1970s)

[phongn]

For whatever reason, YOU are in charge of designing the Space Shuttle program for NASA in the 1970s. Perhaps the economy went a bit better or we didn't get directly involved in Vietnam, but there will be funding for five operational shuttles plus one or two static test articles.

To make things a bit interesting, the USAF's DynaSoar project is alive and well, along with the MOL program. NASA has Apollo and Skylab, but both organizations are competing for a piece of the pie. Now it's up to you to specify how the new shuttle will work out - with on caveat: no capsules. You may also seek to work with the USAF on this for extra funding, but they might impose some requirements (like, say, heavy lift, polar launch and they might fight you on titanium usage).

One idea might be an orbiter with titanium structure (as opposed to the current aluminum one) attached to a Saturn IB. Thermal protection will not be via ceramic tile if at all possible.

[Master of Cards]

Ground to orbit cable

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Ground to orbit cable

This is the 1970s we're talking about here. The materials science of the day wouldn't have been even remotely up to the challenge of building a space elevator like that. For that matter, the technology to create a cable strong enough to hoist something as big as an into orbit still doesn't exist, even now in 2006! The highest cable that's been achieved so far has been a mile, roughly, and the robotic lifters that are supposed to be able to climb the cable cannot complete more than the first few hundred meters.

[Patrick Degan]

Well... a titanium-shelled orbiter means a vehicle of only a limited number of missions —far more so than the present shuttle. But by opting for a smaller design which could be more easily mass-produced (relatively speaking, that is), a crew-carrier which could accomodate five persons to be used in conjunction with unmanned heavy-lift launchers to service orbiting MOL platforms would make for a feasible programme.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well... a titanium-shelled orbiter means a vehicle of only a limited number of missions —far more so than the present shuttle.

But then, the present shuttles where also suppose to fly a mission every two weeks, something which they of course have never even come close too. So a limited lifetime might not end up mattering unless this different design is a whole lot easier to operate and maintain.

[Uraniun235]

Unless there's some magic way to meet the wild promises of launch frequency that the Shuttle first evoked, one of the first things I'm doing is ditching the Air Force so that we don't blow a lot of money on features that were never fully utilized and serve to add a lot of weight, like being able to land at the launch site after a single orbit.

In my opinion, the Shuttle as an all-in-one spacecraft is simply infeasible. It's going to be too expensive and you're not going to be able to make the turnaround time needed to make it more economical than disposable rocket boosters. I think the best way to mitigate the damage is to relegate it to a crew transporter for a space station whose major components will be lifted into orbit by heavy-lift rockets.

[Big Phil]

Do we have to stick with a shuttle concept? I'd prefer a continuation of Apollo myself.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Keep
It
Simple
Stupid.

The Original shuttle concept was so full of Bells and Whistles, designed to be the beginning and end of space exploration that it failed to deliver on almost every part.

Contrast that with the Russians Proton Rockets. Cheap, simple, using 1960's tech. It can launch payloads into orbits easily and reliably.

What I would really do is split the rolls of the shuttle up. Want something to get payloads into orbit? Build a Single use Rocket with a very heavy lift system for large payloads.

Want to get people into orbit for science? Design a small compact space station like Mir. Want to add more Science and experiments? Build a new modual and add it on. Want to get rid of something because its too old? Jettison an old potentially unsafe modual.

Want to repair something in orbit like the Hubble? Shuttle light. Design a small space plane, minimum crew with a utilitarian robotic arm. You can keep it small and simple but gear it toward a very specific purpose to keep other issues from bogging it down.

Now if having three separate things seems too complicated, consider the advantage of having each one specifically designed and suited for its purpose rather then making some Jack-of-All-trades spaceship that can't fully do what you want.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Do we have to stick with a shuttle concept? I'd prefer a continuation of Apollo myself.

Heh, the OP said, explicitly, "no capsules." And Apollo still does exist in this scenario. You're just trying to build a competing transport.

But you could vastly reduce the development and operational costs of the shuttle by staying with something that could be mounted on a Saturn 1B, rather than eating up mass by sticking on internal engines fueled by an external tank.

Really, you could develop a delta-wing crew transport vehicle with maybe a small payload bay to house the occasional science module, and perhaps a robotic arm to assist in conducting service work for something like Skylab or to deploy and retrieve a small, temporary free-flying module. We might also mount a camera onto the end of this robotic arm to survey this cut-down shuttle.

There would be no big, fuel-hungry engines to power the thing into orbit with, beyond what would be required to maneuver in orbit. One might say "get rid of the arm and the service bay!" But this project will have Dynasoar as competition, and the project is still alive and well, then there will be Dynasoar variants that could retrieve satellites, ferry crew, conduct orbital reconnaissance, and scientific research. We'll want to develop a bigger vehicle that can do those things, but not one as big as the SSTS in our timeline.

But, if we don't want to go through the hassle of competing with Dynasoar, then the shuttle we'll be proposing would be a cargo shuttle that only carries two or three astronauts, and is devoted entirely to lifting heavy things. The end result will vaguely resemble the shuttle we have now. Another option, which could be considered to save costs, we could have a reusable delta-wing crew module attached to a large cargo-carrying service module. The crew and service module together will go into orbit, be maneuvered to wherever they need to go. Then we return the crew module to Earth and junk the cargo module.

[Uraniun235]

Want to get people into orbit for science? Design a small compact space station like Mir.

Or Skylab.

...damn, now I'm wondering what would have happened if Skylab hadn't prematurely burned up.

[phongn]

...damn, now I'm wondering what would have happened if Skylab hadn't prematurely burned up.

Pity NASA didn't have a backup plan ready to go when the STS was delayed. I saw some proposals for an automated reboost module but none really made it past the drawing board.

[Patrick Degan]

The Original shuttle concept was so full of Bells and Whistles, designed to be the beginning and end of space exploration that it failed to deliver on almost every part.

Um, not quite. The original shuttle concept was for a small three-man vehicle which could carry up tools, dock with a space station, and serve as a platform for EVA repair tasks —essentially a space pickup truck. But when the Nixon administration decided to ditch Apollo, which also meant eliminating the Saturn boosters, NASA shifted into full sales-BS mode while bloating out the pickup truck into a big white elephant intended to do everything cheaply and quickly and failing to achieve either promise of the sales-pitch. Hence, where we are today.