Discussion Space Shuttle in Retrospect

[T.Neo]

The umbilical ET tank mostly showed its ugly face on the ground with launch scrubs, and it seemed like every launch near the end of STS (Aside from STS-135 it seems which was a near flawless and dramatic launch) there was some issue or another with the umbilical connections.

Are you sure that the umbilical connection you are talking about is not the GUCP (Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate)?

I have not really payed much attention to that, but I've read "GUCP" several times... but not about the ET-Orbiter umbilicals. I may be wrong.

My thought on bigger crews is bigger is better, as is the flexibility that you can actually do it. A 8-10 crew probably would have been a nice thing to have in the later days of the shuttle, Shuttle only could fit a max of 7 for a normal mission. I always look at if there is ever a time when we have a lunar surface base, being able to shuttle large crews to and fro would not be such a bad thing. It certainly would limit the other things that could be done with the vehicle, relegating it to pure shuttle and not the psuedo-space station that the STS orbiter actually was, this big floating base in space.

STS carried 8 once, and I believe it could carry 10-11 at the very most. Maybe crew size was limited because of other restrictions... but I think the ISS would have been pretty crowded with 20 visiting Shuttle astronauts.

I think mass is more important than people. Without enough hardware for those people to use, they're less useful. That's why 'sacrificing' payload capability for passenger capability does not really make more sense than retaining the possibility to reconfigure for higher crew complements.

Shipping 20 astronauts to the moon at one time would allow a nice crew rotation (assuming the surface base itself can sustain a nice big contigent at a time as well), and also send some support along with it. Meaning, have a CDR and PLT go along that will not stay on the moon, some other mission specialists that will assist with the craft and any other duties such as unloading cargo or specially trained for an EVA repair, or what have you, then also have the large crew rotation, all at the same time.

A 20 person lunar base sounds like a really nice sci-fi goal, but the reality is different. There are other limitations- real lunar base proposals I've seen, have maybe a 3rd to a 5th the crew size that you are describing.

I have stated before I think the Shuttle based ISS construction was a very good idea. The concept of module and the crew to install it being launched on the same vehicle is just very appealing to me. But the same sort of thing or the moon, be it ground base or lunar orbital station? then it no longer makes sense to me, so that is one reason I would not be sadden to see a hypothetical Shuttle MkII lack that very large payload bay.

I still do not see the need to launch the crew with the payload. I really don't. Maybe it is useful in some situations, especially when some specific factors are at play, but one shouldn't limit oneself to that paradigm alone, just because it is the only one that has been executed in history.

A 8-ton shuttle would still be pretty useful... the early shuttle proposals (such as Faget's DC-3) had payload capability in the 6-8 ton range, which was pretty small compared to STS.

But everything else that went with the payload bay I do like, the robotic arm, the OBSS, the docking port and airlock (if there is one thing that gets me to shake my head is why so many add-ons insist on a retractable nose cone to reveal a docking port.)

Those are all context sensitive. Soyuz and Apollo do not need a payload bay for their docking ports, and their mission did not require an RMS or a TPS-survey boom. The ISS has an airlock, and Soyuz and Shenzhou can use their orbital modules for the same purpose.

Yes, I know: only STS could have all of those things on one vehicle. But there's another problem with STS; it's ability to do several different things together, hobbled its ability to do one single thing well.

Maybe more modularity and less reliance on some of the preconcieved notions that drove STS, would help. Why not be able to configure a spaceplane for cargo only, or crew and cargo, or pure crew/crew + work platforms?

Yes... I know it would likely reek structural havoc and other problems. But how much payload mass could be saved, if the crew cabin on the STS Orbiter was removed?

 

[Cras]

The STS could carry a crew of up to around 14 I think, but that is only in the STS-4xx rescue scenarios. For an actual mission, the max was 7, except for that one exception when 8 flew, that you mentioned.

I admit, the massive 20 crew lunar station is more in line with my fantastical view of what should be done, and is not at all based in reality. But I still would hope that at the very least, the next step would build on the ISS and so in terms of crew size bigger than the six man expeditions currenty used.

The idea of modularity is very appealing. That would probably be the true next step for a re-usable space craft, that being the ability to change what it can be and what it can do so it could fly a wide array of missions.

And the ability to have it fly with no one on board would indeed be a plus.

 

[Pipcard]

http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2011/04/jscs-shuttle-ii-1988.html

Shuttle II 1988

I don't think it got very far, maybe Phase 0, but interesting reading regardless.

EDIT: The above page makes reference to a NASA Langley Research Center Shuttle II proposal as well, here is a site that talks about it.

http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld051.htm

Add-on material!

 

[Urwumpe]

The STS could carry a crew of up to around 14 I think, but that is only in the STS-4xx rescue scenarios. For an actual mission, the max was 7, except for that one exception when 8 flew, that you mentioned.

11 is the maximum there. You have commander, pilot and two mission specialists on on the rescue vessel as absolute minimum. You could fly the shuttle with just pilot and commander, but if you have EVA, you need at least two in the Shuttle and always two outside.

---------- Post added at 11:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

Add-on material!

Yeah, could be fun using the SSU components for making it fly, but the study ended too early to have any meaningful data about it, we would be starting at 0.5, but still close to zero.