Space shuttle

[Austin Prefect]

If a Space shuttle Mk2 had been designed, using the same basic design and 80s technology but with modifications in the light of experience, how improved could it really have been?

Heat protection was obviously the big problem and there doesn't seem to be any way of solving that.

Might liquid fuelled boosters have been an option?

What about a better escape system for the crew? Though there would be few scenarios where it could have helped.

Or could a smaller less ambitious system be more practical?

[sherman]

Mk2 will be designed when we need a lorry to build the moon base.
Most likely with reuseable boosters.
A way to eject might be considered but it wouldnt be much use if you eject going at 5000mph.

[hidetheelephants]

It would need an escape system like Apollo, a rocket thing that yoinks the crew compartment to safety when a RUD happens.

[Austin Prefect]

hidetheelephants said:

It would need an escape system like Apollo, a rocket thing that yoinks the crew compartment to safety when a RUD happens.

Would that have helped with a Challenger situation?

Stephen Baxter's novel Titan includes a fictional shuttle disaster and actually comes up with what seems a technically plausible scenario where the 'open the hatch and parachute out' scheme could actually work. But the disaster clearly waiting to happen was always burning up on re entry and no realistic escape system could help with that.

[Arrivalist]

Austin Prefect said:

hidetheelephants said:

It would need an escape system like Apollo, a rocket thing that yoinks the crew compartment to safety when a RUD happens.

Would that have helped with a Challenger situation?

Stephen Baxter's novel Titan includes a fictional shuttle disaster and actually comes up with what seems a technically plausible scenario where the 'open the hatch and parachute out' scheme could actually work. But the disaster clearly waiting to happen was always burning up on re entry and no realistic escape system could help with that.

Didn t early plans for the shuttle include an escape system but it was rejected because too expensive/complex/impractical?

[Beati Dogu]

Escape pods have their own problems. The B1A bomber originally had one. In 1984, one of the prototype B1A’s got into difficulties during a test flight. Unfortunately the escape capsule malfunctioned and the 4 crew were killed. It was deleted with the B1B operational aircraft and replaced with individual ejection seats for the crew.

They had ejector seats for the two pilots on Columbia’s first couple of flights. These were deleted after a while and the blow off roof panels were removed and not included on further shuttles. They wouldn’t have given the crew much of an escape window anyway.

[Meltphace 6]

Interesting topic! I think it would look very different if you were still after a craft that can land on a runway. I think you d put the shuttle on top of a rocket stage to give you a fully reusable system these days.

But why do we need a shuttle now? The USAF needed it, and the project would have been cancelled without that need. Before they engineered the shuttle, the runway landing aspect seemed so important to the reusability because the heatshield would not be exposed to sea water, and it could be landed at the launch site. But as is well known, the shuttle required a lot of work to re-fly and they replaced most of the heatshield after each flight anyway.

With the benefit of hindsight, I don t think a shuttle-type thing would be pursued again until there is a huge breakthrough in heatshield technology. And even then, the payload of the shuttle to LEO was about 1/6 of the Saturn V. If Starship is completely proven out, it will also have about 6x the payload with the reusability nut cracked. I don t see the requirement for it.

Unpopular opinion (maybe) but they were right to retire it when they did.

Sorry, wrote that and realised you said 80s tech! Doh. Well above is my take on it today

The mk2 in the 80s answer is quite easy though. Heatshield tech not good enough so it doesn’t happen!

Edited by Meltphace 6 on Friday 16th January 22:09

[hidetheelephants]

Meltphace 6 said:

The USAF needed it, and the project would have been cancelled without that need.

Wasn't it that NASA conceived a much smaller and more affordable 'shuttle' but the air force wanted it to be bigger to carry secret things?

[Hill92]

Isn't this what Dream Chaser effectively is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser

[Simpo Two]

Beati Dogu said:

Escape pods have their own problems. The B1A bomber originally had one.

And some others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_crew_capsule

[Austin Prefect]

Obviously getting the extra fuel into orbit would be impractical. But if you wanted to slow a spacecraft down before re entry to the point where re entry heat wasn't a major issue, how slow would you have to go? At normal aeronautical altitudes things get tricky over 2000MPH but presumably you could hit the mesosphere considerably faster than that.

[V8LM]

hidetheelephants said:

Meltphace 6 said:

The USAF needed it, and the project would have been cancelled without that need.

Wasn't it that NASA conceived a much smaller and more affordable 'shuttle' but the air force wanted it to be bigger to carry secret things?

I read it* was 60 feet long for the DOD/USAF and their spy satellites, and 15 feet wide for NASA for the ISS.

ETA: *The cargo bay.

Edited by V8LM on Saturday 17th January 08:41

[Eric Mc]

There has been a long and extensive Space Shuttle thread running for a number of years. Most of the questions being asked on this new thread have been covered already in that earlier thread.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

I'd highly recommend a read through it.