Ways to fix the space shuttle

I didn't come up with all of these on my own (namely #1, #2) but here goes...

1.) Forget having an external fuel (ET) tank. The shuttle engines only produce 29% of the thrust for launch anyway. The SRB (Solid Rocket Boosters) produce the other 71 percent. Add another one of those and the system weighs less (at least 300,000 pounds less from my calculations), produces a little bit more power(1.5 times 71% or 106.5%), you don't have the foam problem because of different fuels that don't require insulation (not cold liquid H2 and O2, but solid fuel) and every piece of the system is reusable ET was the only part not, SRB have parachutes and fall in ocean).

2.) Put foam insulation on the inside of ET so it is less likely to fall (less air resistance), less likely to be quickly accelerated because of contact with outside air vs. relatively stationary inside air (less potential damage) and is not going to damage the shuttle, but only possible the ET. Downsides are that the foam could then damage the ET and cause an explosion by damaging both the H2 and O2 tanks or it could hinder ET fuel to shuttle causing either it crashing or not getting to its required orbit. A double skin (making system heavier) could address these problems. Also, this idea could not even work at all if it doesn't prevent ice build up like the foam on the outside did.

3.)Redesign fuel tank so that at least 10 minutes before launch, you turbo pump O2 and H2 into tanks. The O2 and H2 tanks then are not cold for as long and that prevents ice build up and no insulating foam is needed. There are tanks at the launch site that holds them. This is entirely possible, as all the fuel is siphoned to the engines in 9 minutes in a regular launch as ET is separated at the point. Problems with this is that you might crack the tanks by to rapidly and uneven change of temperature. If need be, extend filling to longer or pre cool or I guess you could pre-chill the O2 an H2 tanks.

4.) Go along as is. If you get dinged up by foam, don't return (wait on ISS) and get back on down by a different shuttle that is ready as a precaution to a certain degree. Ways to detect problems have been improved (sensors). From my calculations, being on the shuttle on average at any given moment is 3,000 times more dangerous than 'accidental' death at any given moment on Earth (car crashes, chain saw mistakes etc.). In other words, the Deaths per man-hours on the shuttle is 3,000 times what 'accidental' deaths per man hours in the U.S. is. Given that the U.S. is probably relatively safe, and given that this is space travel, is that a reasonable risk? Also, this is taking into account from the beginning up until now, and the Shuttle is more safe now than it was on its average flight in the past IMO.

5.) Launch a emergency crew recovery vehicle (ECRV, not sure if I made that up) in various orbits that make one always accessible to the crew. It can seat 7 people and is an Apollo style ablative shielded reentry vehicle. The shuttle docks if there is a problem, and the crew returns home leaving it in space. Measures then can be taken to recover/repair it when it is safe, technical issues have been worked out, and the technology is available. You can leave it up there and say "1 down, 3 more to go. Heck, now have two habitable space stations and also an ISS space ferry". You can also just always keep one in the cargo bay or when you are heavy lifting to ISS, have one stationed there and use the room. This would be economical as it would get the Shuttle back and also complete a needed program that had a spacecraft onboard ISS for transport.

6.) Replace foam with a skin (well, just cover it completely) of coils (like those in a toaster/light bulb) that is extremely close to the outside wall and that heats it. Ice doesn't build up as you might be able to get it to above freezing and you don't need foam. Other variations on the theme of heating the outside better is you could use ground based lasers or heaters (doesn't increase ET weight) or you could launch in a low humidity high temperature area. That ladder could cause problems though. I think launch facilities for the Space shuttle are Vandenberg and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and that is it. You would probably have to build another site as you still want to be able to recover the SRB (nice if the land in an ocean) and that might be best or only practical out of country (hotter climate, less populated areas to avoid for safety so you can also do polar and equatorial launches from the same place unlike now). Out of country would increase assembly costs, but it would be in the name of safety. Maybe we could convert a used up offshore oil platform. ship transport would be an efficient transport for the shuttle equipment.


Any other possible methods that I missed? Any critique on these methods that makes them unlikely to work? Which one is best in cost? safety? What are the further technical details of implementation beyond if it could work? How much would each measure cost (one time vs. long term) and how long will each take?

This post is dedicated lovingly to the Shuttle Program nay-sayers. I see a new shuttle (upgraded) but very similar to the current one (to save design costs) as a possible way to get to the Moon, but that is for some other time. So, I definitely believe the program is worth it as well as the ISS. Reusable space vehicles and space stations are the future for space travel. So, we always have to be experimenting with this stuff if NASA/ESA is to do anything. How much airplane versions were built to get as good at building and designing them as we are now? How much flights? How many disasters and crashes? That is what space travel is going to take.

You missed the main one...

Take large sledge hammer, beat shuttles to death put them in museums and build the CEV!


Problem solved!

Mic

Originally posted by MickeyDee
You missed the main one...

Take large sledge hammer, beat shuttles to death put them in museums and build the CEV!


Problem solved!

Mic

Yes, build a superior space craft.

The only reason to fix the space Shuttle is to restore it as an artifact to be housed at the Smithsonian Space Museum. It's time that a new vehicle was built. The Space Shuttle has served it's time and is but a stepping stone towards our mastery of space travel. The Space Shuttle utilized 1960s technology. It was so obsolete that the astronauts carry a number of laptops to handle the numerous calculations and intricately timed maneuvers that are required. There is only one thing that I ask....the next ship should not have those damned ceramic tiles. They have been a hassle ever since the very first flight.

You could change the name of it - that would give it another 10 years of service. or paint job.!!!
Its a retro looking craft so some era matching colours would be nice - Orange or Brown - Hot Pink?

Scrap it and move on... We can't keep sending up the best of the best in old hardware.

I think the sooner the likes of SS1 and the likes can deliver astronauts to LEO / ISS the sooner all the money can go into better use.

Sending payload can be done using rockets / Deltas for now etc

I think there is much American pride helping the shuttles liftoff.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by one_small_step]

No matter what you do to a Corvair; it will never be an Impala.

My fear is that the new space craft will be as overdesigned and loaded with superfluous add ons as the shuttle.

When the shuttle was designed, NASA had lots of money and by God they spent it to the detriment of the safety and functionality of the spacecraft.

Ever drive an Edsel? Automatic shifter buttons in the middle of the steering wheel. That's what I mean by overdesigned.

Restoring the space shuddle is like restoring a pinto.

well nasa could automate them and stick to sending people up via the Russians.

Yes I agree, a new design should be put into production. The Space Shuttle always looked to much like a school bus with wings anyway....

Right.

When you look at how the US handles aircraft lifes, its like you expect us to believe we would do the same with our space vehicles?

To me our space program is a perfect where there is smoke there is fire cleche.

A few years ago, I think 2001, Nick of Janes Defense Weekly went on a U.S. quest to find UFO answers. It became a two hour documentory special.

Besides having meetings with Lockheed Martin's President and Chief Engineer - Bushman, as well as the head U.S. General in charge of black and grey craft technology money distribution (on Doc).

Nick also had a meeting with a high ranking Congressman dealing with NASA funding. Who told him he and his commitee cut down the NASA budget 'cause they were still using rocket technology and not the advanced Black technology available only to and through the black budget.

Now that was 2001 and I can produce the names of the Pentagon and Congress people for the asking.

However, my point here is there is advanced technology available since 2000 that would make the shuttle obsolete and it was not made available due to being a black secret then and maybe now.

Dallas

Originally posted by kilendrial
I didn't come up with all of these on my own (namely #1, #2) but here goes...

Like some of you have said...they should use the one they have in Area 51...

Why dont they use that ship that they've created from the reversed engineered 1947's crashed UFO left over...