Tweet
Shuttle-C was a cargo-only version of the space shuttle launch system NASA worked on from 1984 to 1995. It would keep the tank and solid boosters but replace the orbiter with a huge canister with a set if shuttle SSME engines at its rear. The purpose was to be a launcher for 80-120 mT payloads, including the orbital assembly of lunar and large Mars and other beyond Earth orbit spacecraft at the ISS.
Makes great sense, right? Well, of course it was canceled after 11 years of development. Go figure.
The recent cancellation of the Constellation program by Obama, which included the Ares V heavy launcher, and the turning over of manned launches to commercial entities left three major holes in the US space effort: a gap of 3-4 years between when the shuttle retires and when commercial manned spacecraft come on line, no heavy lifter and a ton of post-shuttle layoffs at both NASA (the shuttle teams) and the contractors that supported the shuttle teams that would have cost billions but would produce not one iota of hardware.
This caused a lot of infighting; commercial vs. shuttle teams etc. that distracted from the efforts to get the program back on track. There was also the specter of the US depending solely on Russia for our rides to the ISS at $50+ million per seat. Many in Congress, on both sides, cringed at even the thought of that prospect.
Now it seems a compromise has been reached, or at least the framework for one. The salient features being discussed are as follows;
1. the revival of Shuttle-C as NASA's new heavy lift cargo rocket. It's the cheapest and quickest way to get a massively heavy lift launcher into service and uses mostly parts already made and proven for the shuttle. Foam shedding during launch isn't an issue as the cargo pod would be a disposable aluminum can and therefore not have the tiles so easily damaged on the orbiter.
Shuttle-C would be the heaviest lift launcher in the world by far, and have the potential to grow even larger. Think in terms of a Saturn V or or more.
2. NASA fully supports the development of commercial manned spacecraft; Dragon, Orion Lite (a stripped down, cheaper but commercial version of the Constellation spacecraft), the Dream Chaser spaceplane and possibly a manned version of Orbitals Cygnus cargo ship (but this would require major design changes.) Why so many? Redundancy. No more halting the entire manned program if one spacecraft type has to be grounded.
3. the shuttle keeps flying until the commercial manned spacecraft are ready, but at a lower rate - 2 missions per year instead of 3-4. This also keeps the production line for the main tanks and solid rockets going until the final Shuttle-C cargo pod design is ready.
4. a design effort starts for a real, full time spaceship built in space for use beyond Earth orbit. I say name the first one Enterprise.
5. there is also a lot of talk about developing a space reactor of 10-15 mWe to power a plasma rocket (ex: VASIMR, which NASA is already committed to), both to be used for high speed deep space missions - manned and unmanned. This could be an international effort as Hitachi has some very interesting low-maintenance reactor designs that could run for 30-100 years without refueling.
This could all be announced at an upcoming conference at the Kennedy Space Center in a few weeks. Shuttle-C looks to be a lock, as does the shuttle extension. Here's what Shuttle-C looks like;
Makes great sense, right? Well, of course it was canceled after 11 years of development. Go figure.
The recent cancellation of the Constellation program by Obama, which included the Ares V heavy launcher, and the turning over of manned launches to commercial entities left three major holes in the US space effort: a gap of 3-4 years between when the shuttle retires and when commercial manned spacecraft come on line, no heavy lifter and a ton of post-shuttle layoffs at both NASA (the shuttle teams) and the contractors that supported the shuttle teams that would have cost billions but would produce not one iota of hardware.
This caused a lot of infighting; commercial vs. shuttle teams etc. that distracted from the efforts to get the program back on track. There was also the specter of the US depending solely on Russia for our rides to the ISS at $50+ million per seat. Many in Congress, on both sides, cringed at even the thought of that prospect.
Now it seems a compromise has been reached, or at least the framework for one. The salient features being discussed are as follows;
1. the revival of Shuttle-C as NASA's new heavy lift cargo rocket. It's the cheapest and quickest way to get a massively heavy lift launcher into service and uses mostly parts already made and proven for the shuttle. Foam shedding during launch isn't an issue as the cargo pod would be a disposable aluminum can and therefore not have the tiles so easily damaged on the orbiter.
Shuttle-C would be the heaviest lift launcher in the world by far, and have the potential to grow even larger. Think in terms of a Saturn V or or more.
2. NASA fully supports the development of commercial manned spacecraft; Dragon, Orion Lite (a stripped down, cheaper but commercial version of the Constellation spacecraft), the Dream Chaser spaceplane and possibly a manned version of Orbitals Cygnus cargo ship (but this would require major design changes.) Why so many? Redundancy. No more halting the entire manned program if one spacecraft type has to be grounded.
3. the shuttle keeps flying until the commercial manned spacecraft are ready, but at a lower rate - 2 missions per year instead of 3-4. This also keeps the production line for the main tanks and solid rockets going until the final Shuttle-C cargo pod design is ready.
4. a design effort starts for a real, full time spaceship built in space for use beyond Earth orbit. I say name the first one Enterprise.
5. there is also a lot of talk about developing a space reactor of 10-15 mWe to power a plasma rocket (ex: VASIMR, which NASA is already committed to), both to be used for high speed deep space missions - manned and unmanned. This could be an international effort as Hitachi has some very interesting low-maintenance reactor designs that could run for 30-100 years without refueling.
This could all be announced at an upcoming conference at the Kennedy Space Center in a few weeks. Shuttle-C looks to be a lock, as does the shuttle extension. Here's what Shuttle-C looks like;
Comment