Is The Shuttle Fatally Flawed
Prague - Mar 3, 2003
After the recent loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia, Americans and Israelis are mourning the tragic deaths of the seven-crew members. This is a tragedy not only for them but also for all of us, because the brave astronauts sacrificed their lives for the progress of all mankind.
The inquiry into Columbia's loss is still far away from its final conclusion, but many questions have arisen about the safety of all Space Shuttle launch systems. Even if the cause of the fatal accident is found directly in the Shuttle spacecraft itself, the real root of its problem could be in the basic design philosophy of its launch system.
This design has a primary influence on safety and effectiveness. The aim of this article is to discuss the main problems with the Shuttle system's design in terms of crew safety and cost efficiency, and also to consider whether it could have been possible to choose another way at the time of system design.
Shuttle Launch Systems Problems In Terms Of Safety:
Shuttle launch system problems in terms of cost and mass efficiency: The first question is, why was such a flawed design approach - one that compromised the safety of the crew- chosen during the early stages of development?
There are several reasons:
Therefore the Shuttle could have been designed for transport of astronauts and small payloads only (this is usually the case anyway) and be much smaller and much more economical.
- An extreme example of such an economical system is the Russian MASK Spaceplane, the draft project of which was finished in 1988. This Space vehicle was based on the An-225 Mriya carrier aircraft, the largest in the world, and a reusable MAKS Orbiter with two RD-701 tripropellant engines.
It was expected that MAKS could reduce the cost of transport to earth orbit by a factor of ten, but development resources have not available found in Russia since 1990.
Could another configuration have been chosen at the time of Shuttle basic design?
Assuming that the required LEO payload of the system is the same (app.100,000 kg), it is clear that the total lift-off mass of any system designed at that time would be approximately the same as that of the Shuttle system - 2,300,000 kg - and total required thrust during launch would also be approximately the same. Did the US have at that time any other options besides the SSME and SRB engines?
The combine liftoff thrust of two SRB + three SSME is 3050.000 kgf. This represents approximately the thrust of four LOX/ KEROSENE F1 engines used before for the SATURN 5 moon rocket. The F1 engine was very reliable and powerful - 789.000 kgf of thrust, but of course, its specific impulse was not high (vac/sl: 304/265s) and its Chamber Pressure low (70 bar).
For comparison, SRB has only 269/237s - while on the other hand the SSME has 455/363s. Nevertheless, it is necessary also to calculate the major disadvantage of SRB - very high empty mass in comparison with the mass of F1 + its empty fuel tanks, not mention the very negative environmental impact of SRB engines.
It is possible to imagine such competitive design some 30 years ago: During many years of Space Shuttle system development, specific impulse of the F1 engine has been improved to the level of the Russian RD171 engine (337/309s), to be reusable and its thrust has been increased by 10%.
This means that four boosters with F1 engines can be used during lift-off instead of two SRB boosters and three SSME Shuttle engines. After the boosters burn out, the central core with one F1 engine is ignited to carry the Shuttle in an on-axis position into orbit.
The following design is now being used: a small platform carrying the Shuttle is situated on a relatively short central core, which is surrounded by a cluster of four boosters.
The Shuttle is of the same operational capacity but without SSME engines - consequently with lower empty mass and higher payload - making it similar to the Russian BURAN.
The Shuttle is equipped with a powerful rescue system designed to fire off the crew cabin in any emergency situation during launch. The four main boosters are recovered and reused, like SRB boosters. Only the core engine and its tank are expendable. Recovery of boosters by parachute could be even easier than SRB because of its much lower empty mass
Conclusion: The use of LH2 as fuel has brought about an inevitable system configuration that in many aspects has compromised crew safety. If LOX/kerosene fuel is used in boosters and also in central core carrying on an axis-situated Shuttle, for the price of one expendable F1 engine, all very serious safety compromises (see points 1-5) could have been removed and crew safety multiplied many times.
The development and operational expenses could have been substantially reduced, the system very easily adapted for launch of unmanned payloads. Much cheaper, much easier in handling and much more environmentally friendly (during lift-off) storable fuel could have been used.
It is really very hard to understand, why such a good and powerful engine as the F1, developed for billions of US$ during the moon race was discarded after only three years of use. Was it only because the F1 was developed under Werner von Braun leadership and American engineers wanted to prove that they were able to develop something better? It is now a very serious question which engine is better.
Similar Shuttle System in Soviet Union: It is interesting to compare the development of a similar system in Soviet Union. Soviet engineers at the end of the nineteen-eighties had developed a very good reusable LOX/kerosene engine- the RD171 (better than F1), and also boosters with this engine, much more efficient than the SRB.
They had a very good Space Shuttle, the BURAN, without main engines installed - safer for the crew. No single tile was lost during its maiden flight. They could easily have designed the centre core with the same engine RD171 and put the BURAN in an on-axis position at the top of the system.
This configuration was seriously considered. But in a dubious effort enforced by the political sphere to have "technological parity" with the US in the development and use of LOX/LH2 engines, Russian technicians instead developed a central core of ENERGIA with LOX/LH2 engines similar to SSME.
Consequently, it was necessary to use a huge, high fuel tank like the US, and it was technically impossible to place BURAN above it in the on-axis position. The only option was to place BURAN in the same lateral position as the US Shuttle.
Such a position without main engines installed in BURAN worsened mass efficiency to the level of the US Shuttle system, even though much more efficient boosters were used. Moreover, the LOX/LH2 engines were expendable at this stage of development.
The result was a system with almost the same disadvantages as the US Space Shuttle system. Those problems were also factors in the eventual abandonment of all ENERGIA-BURAN projects.
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express
Shuttle Investigation Gathers Pace
San Francisco - Feb 27, 2003
Evidence continues to accumulate that NASA's engineers become alarmingly sloppy about the possible danger posed by detached fragments of the external tank's insulation hitting the Shuttle's tiles -- in the same way that they got sloppy about the threat posed by O-ring erosion due to cold weather before Challenger.
Why We Fly
Scottsdale - Feb 26, 2003
Post-Columbia punditry has formed up into two camps: mystically pro-human and reductionistically pro-robot. Before the isolated sparring turns into a general melee, we should look up from our conflicting means to examine the question of ends. If any of us are to be effective, in water-cooler conversation, op-ed high-noon showdowns or Congressional testimony, we'll need a good firm grip on our own answer to the root question: why do we want to go to space?, asks John Carter McKnight.
Lost In LEO
San Francisco - Feb 23, 2003
The International Space Station writes Bruce Moomaw is a $90 billion dead-end expenditure without any justification -- unless you count all the expensive pork, carefully distributed by NASA among politically strategic states, that has been a critical motivating force for Congressional and White House support the three decades since the triumph of Apollo.
Columbia Lost, But Not A Nation
Boulder - Feb 24, 2003
The sad and sudden demise of the space shuttle Columbia and her crew on the frontier of space on February 1st provided a sharp reminder of the risks of spaceflight, writes Alan Stern.
Can Do versus Do it Yourself
Costa Mesa - Feb 19, 2003
It is an unfortunate fact that the best retrospection comes at times of great distress or tragedy. The entire space community, as well as the world body who understands the risks and price of exploration feels the loss of Columbia. However, it is imperative that we in the space community begin to examine ourselves first and foremost and to ask the tough questions before others writes David Barnhart.