Space Shuttle Concepts

Byeman said:
Shuttle put reuse on the wrong portion of the vehicle.
Click to expand...
It did make some sense at the time - Crewed spacecrafts aren't cheap, Apollo CSM were quite expensive, and most importantly their production cost scaled the worst out of all the Saturn hardware at higher production rate.

Nasa wanted a high flight rate crewed spacecraft, with this goal, it was, based on their own experience, cheaper to focus on reusing the "Orbiter" than the "Booster"

It's also likely a fully reusable VTHL shuttle wouldn't have done any miracle, better, yes, not SpaceX better, this required better technologies, different goals, and different organisations, and different funding source.
 
TheKutKu said:
It did make some sense at the time - Crewed spacecrafts aren't cheap, Apollo CSM were quite expensive, and most importantly their production cost scaled the worst out of all the Saturn hardware at higher production rate.

Nasa wanted a high flight rate crewed spacecraft, with this goal, it was, based on their own experience, cheaper to focus on reusing the "Orbiter" than the "Booster"

It's also likely a fully reusable VTHL shuttle wouldn't have done any miracle, better, yes, not SpaceX better, this required better technologies, different goals, and different organisations, and different funding source.
Click to expand...
Not really. NASA wanted a high flight rate launch vehicle. It thought crew needed to operate it. Crew was not need for most of the shuttle missions. That was the fallacy.

See my thread on alternative Shuttle
 
Byeman said:
Not really. NASA wanted a high flight rate launch vehicle. It thought crew needed to operate it. Crew was not need for most of the shuttle missions. That was the fallacy.

See my thread on alternative Shuttle
Click to expand...

To be fair, the NASA Astronaut Corps pushed a crew on every flight as a requirement. There were a lot of assumptions that the Shuttle design was based on that should have been more heavily questioned.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
To be fair, the NASA Astronaut Corps pushed a crew on every flight as a requirement. There were a lot of assumptions that the Shuttle design was based on that should have been more heavily questioned.

Randy
Click to expand...
not in the beginning
 
Byeman said:
Not really. NASA wanted a high flight rate launch vehicle. It thought crew needed to operate it. Crew was not need for most of the shuttle missions. That was the fallacy.
Click to expand...
Ironically, the Buran orbiter carbon copy proved that on its one and only flight.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 6996763098_2a11165a23_o.jpg
    6996763098_2a11165a23_o.jpg
    338.1 KB · Views: 15
  • 7142849839_9331f3ae0c_o.jpg
    7142849839_9331f3ae0c_o.jpg
    262 KB · Views: 14
  • 7142899073_0c62ee28d0_o.jpg
    7142899073_0c62ee28d0_o.jpg
    401.6 KB · Views: 14
@RAP : thanks for that link. It is a bit of a hodgepodge of Shuttle artwork, from 1969 to the late 1970's. Fully reusable or not, space tug, SBSP 1977 (Space Based Solar Power, O'Neill and Peter Glaser).

There are also some Triamese stuff, including Triamese elements as boosters clustered around an expendable rocket core (the irony being that partially expendable system would work better than Triamese itself).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom