Scott Manley Space Shuttle What-Ifs video

[Weaver]

Good video here from Scott Manley about some of the alternative Space Shuttle schemes that were proposed but never built:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi7wtXcaFws

[PR19_Kit]

Good link H, some fascinating modelling ideas there.. 

[Hobbes]

This is the paper he used as a reference.

[PR19_Kit]

Thanks Harro, even more info. 

I rather like the idea of the 'Stretched Shuttle', and it's pretty modellable too. 

It even has longer wings! 

[Weaver]

The funny thing is, I was reading Rowland White's Into The Black, all about the early days of the Space Shuttle, a while back, and it occured to me to combine liquid-fuelled boosters, which could be switched off in the event of an abort, with either a stretched-cabin shuttle or one with a shorter cargo bay+longer cabin, so that six crew could sit in ejection seats all on the upper deck. I dismissed the stretched shuttle as too much change and went for the shorter-bay/longer-cabin/screw-the-DoD option. Looks like that might5 have been hasty: good job I never started the model and have a surfeit of shuttle kits...

[PR19_Kit]

Would liquid fuelled boosters be as recoverable as the solid version's casings, or would it have been too dangerous to search them out and haul them back ashore?

[Weaver]

Would liquid fuelled boosters be as recoverable as the solid version's casings, or would it have been too dangerous to search them out and haul them back ashore?

Don't know, because the only detailed information I have is from the 2012 proposal by Dynetics to use liquid-fuelled boosters on the SLS, and those boosters aren't going to be recovered, whether solid or liquid.

I don't see why it should be particularly dangerous to recover them: they'd burn all their fuel on the way up and they could be designed to vent any unexpended LOX on the way down, leaving the tanks full of nice, safe helium at close to atmospheric pressure.

The main issue would be whether the amount of refurbishment neccessary on F-1 engines that have been in salt water would be viable. They're complicated to clean up, but then they're complicated and expensive to build so...

[Hobbes]

The SRBs were easy to recover because they used thick steel casings (8 mm IIRC). A liquid booster can be made much lighter, which helps performance but makes it easier to damage on splashdown. You also get vulnerable engine parts (instead of having just a nozzle on the SRB).

This is why SpaceX took the trouble of learning how to do propulsive landings with their first stages.

[martinbayer]

There were concepts for winged reusable liquid flyback boosters for the Shuttle, see for example https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980231024.pdf and https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980237254.pdf.

Martin

[PR19_Kit]

Fascinating ideas there, I'm surprised they didn't try it, if only once.

[Weaver]

There were concepts for winged reusable liquid flyback boosters for the Shuttle, see for example https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980231024.pdf and https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980237254.pdf.

Martin

Oh, nice one! Dowloaded that for further reference...