Idea Space: 1982

[Graham2001]

While searching the NTRS I've found something that could prove the basis for an interesting & challenging add-on.

Between about 1974 & 1982 NASA looked into using the space shuttle to dispose of certain kinds of nuclear waste by sending it into a solar orbit between the Earth & Venus.

The final proposed system (1982) involved three main spacecraft. First, an uprated space shuttle with liquid rocket boosters. Second a 'Shuttle-C' unmanned launch vehicle fitted with LRBs. Finally a two stage Solar Injection Vehicle (SIV).

The flight profile (see picture below) was this.

1. A Space Shuttle would carry the packaged Nuclear Waste into Earth orbit.

2. The Shuttle C would place the complete SIV into Earth Orbit.

3. The Space Shuttle would rendezvous with the SIV and transfer the waste package to it.

4. The first stage of the SIV would fire putting the second stage and its cargo into a transfer orbit.

5. Using Aerobraking the first stage of the SIV would rendezvous with the Space Shuttle to be returned to Earth for refurbishment

6. At the correct distance from the Earth the second stage of the SIV would fire, placing the waste into the appropriate storage orbit.

For the full details, see:

1. Analysis of Space Systems for the Space Disposal of Nuclear Waste. Follow on Study, Vol. 1: Executive Summary

2. Analysis of Space Systems for the Space Disposal of Nuclear Waste. Follow on Study, Vol. 2: Technical Report

 

[Tachyon]

one word .... challenger

 

[zerofay32]

one word .... challenger

One reason it has LRBs instead of SRBs. Also this plan was early in the development of the shuttle so my guess is when they had to use SRBs, this idea was trashed. If only they had the budget to use LRBs the whole shuttle program my have be different.

 

[garyw]

And the budget for Shuttle-C never appeared.

 

[Graham2001]

One reason it has LRBs instead of SRBs. Also this plan was early in the development of the shuttle so my guess is when they had to use SRBs, this idea was trashed. If only they had the budget to use LRBs the whole shuttle program my have be different.

The Shuttles had already been flying for two years at this point. LRBs had been on the drawing board since 1972 when they finalized the basic shuttle design.

I think the NASA viewpoint was 'get the thing flying and they'll give us more money', in which case SRBs would have been seen as temporary replacements for the LRBs they hoped to use.

Sadly the US Congress didn't see things that way and not even Challenger could persuade them to spend the money needed.

 

[movieman]

Sadly the US Congress didn't see things that way and not even Challenger could persuade them to spend the money needed.

Well, I'd say that whether LRBs would have been any safer is really still an open question; liquid engine shutdowns in flight seem far more common than SRB failures, it's just that the former may be survivable whereas the latter is almost always fatal.

 

[zerofay32]

I think that survivability is the key point. If they went with the original plan to put LRBs on the stack in the begining, then Challenger would never have happend and the program would have progressed a lot faster. Unfortunatly, with the other design flaws of the STS other accedents, like Columbia, were bound to happen.

Zeroafy32

 

[JamesG]

I think the original quip was more a reference to: "What goes up, might come down". Even today this idea would be DOA due to environmentalists and... just about anyone else with the imagination to ponder just how many things could go wrong.

Its also a horribly inefficient method. For the price of one shuttle launch, you can dig a hole deep enough into continental bedrock that it'll be secure for a billion years. You just have to find someone willing to have the hole in their back yard...

 

[Andy44]

Pay me enough and I'll gladly let you stick it in my yard.

 

[pattersoncr]

Its also a horribly inefficient method. For the price of one shuttle launch, you can dig a hole deep enough into continental bedrock that it'll be secure for a billion years. You just have to find someone willing to have the hole in their back yard...

Pay me enough and I'll gladly let you stick it in my yard.

Damned straight. This would have been the worst waste of resources I've ever come across.

 

[movieman]

I think that survivability is the key point. If they went with the original plan to put LRBs on the stack in the begining, then Challenger would never have happend and the program would have progressed a lot faster.

I'm not really convinced; supposing that one of your LRBs shut down at that point in the flight, you'd have to immediately shut down the other one at nearly your maximum dynamic pressure to avoid rapid tumbling, separate both LRBs from the ET and possibly do an RTLS... that's a better situation than having an SRB leaking hot gas that cuts through your ET, but not vastly so.

 

[Linguofreak]

I think that survivability is the key point. If they went with the original plan to put LRBs on the stack in the begining, then Challenger would never have happend and the program would have progressed a lot faster. Unfortunatly, with the other design flaws of the STS other accedents, like Columbia, were bound to happen.

Zeroafy32

The problem with Challenger was not the use of SRB's. The problem with Challenger was human error: The Shuttle was launched under conditions that were outside the design tolerances of the SRB's, and there were also corners cut in the design of the model of SRB's used (so that they quite possibly didn't even hold up to their on-paper tolerances). A liquid booster could have just as easily had corners cut in its design or been launched outside of tolerances.

The biggest problem with either solid or liquid boosters on the shuttle is that you have so few boosters spaced so far apart carrying so much of the load. I'm not familiar with the size or number of LRB's considered for the shuttle, but for two boosters, if one were to fail, the other would have to be shut down quickly or else the off-center thrust would turn the shuttle sideways to the wind, resulting in the same kind of breakup due to aerodynamic forces that destroyed Challenger. (The burn-through on the booster lead to the failure of the strut attaching it to the tank, which lead to tank breakup and off-center thrust, which lead to out of tolerance aerodynamic loads on the orbiter, leading to its destruction. Both boosters, being of sturdier construction, survived the breakup and continued burning until they were detonated by remote control by the range safety officer. If the burn through had been in any other direction, the booster might well have continued burning until booster separation. The reduced thrust would have necessitated a launch abort, but the crew and orbiter may well have survived).

 

[Graham2001]

For those of you who wish to do without LRBs...

Here is an earlier study in which one of the proposed ways of getting rid of nuclear waste was to use one shuttle fitted with SRBs. Cargo would consist of an OTV carrying the waste attached to a solid rocket.

Flight profile was:

1. Launch Shuttle.

2. Release OTV.

3. OTV fires to set up transfer orbit to 0.85 AU storage orbit.

4. OTV releases waste into the transfer orbit and fires again to set up an orbit which will rendezvous with the space shuttle.

5. Shuttle collects the OTV and returns to Earth.

6. Braking thruster fires and places the waste into the storage orbit.

See picture below for the layout of the shuttle in the 1975 waste disposal configuration.

For the details and sketches of other proposed launch vehicles including something that looks a lot like a Soyuz (5+1 SRB first/second stage) see:

Space disposal of nuclear wastes, 1975

 

[sputnik]

Well, if you read the .pdf, you'll note that the payload was armored against the blast overpressure of a launch accident. Which isn't really very hard to do. Shucks, large pieces of Challenger survived the explosion, and nobody tried to design them that way. Packing your payload in bricks so that it can survive a 10 psi overpressure is easy.
It also says it was designed to survive a hyperbolic re-entry. That's harder, I would think....

Also of interest: the LRB design, which has not changed one bit. Right up until Columbia, and even a bit after, the suggestion of "shuttle with LRB's" has always been a viewgraph of that 1972 design; same dimensions, same clamshells.

Some interesting pieces (LRB's, upper stages) in that plan. An interesting plan, really. I don't think it would be very satisfying to fly from an Orbiteering standpoint, but an interesting read. Thanks for pointing it out!

 

[Andy44]

Are these LRBs engined with F1 engines? Are these the same LRBs that were discussed for use with uprated versions of Saturn?

Looking at things like the LRB'ed Shuttle-C with an 84 mT payload capacity are more reminders of the lost promise of STS.

 

[sputnik]

Are these LRBs engined with F1 engines? Are these the same LRBs that were discussed for use with uprated versions of Saturn?

Looking at things like the LRB'ed Shuttle-C with an 84 mT payload capacity are more reminders of the lost promise of STS.

The narrative talks very briefly about the engines; they require Kerosene, LOX, AND LH2. That's because they're SSME's, converted to burn Kerosene, but using the LH2 for cooling. Yikes! Does this seem like a bad idea to anyone else?

 

[Tachyon]

Thank you JamesG ..

I think the original quip...

that was my point. It makes no matter what the specific cause of the Challenger accident, incident, or tragedy was. The point is human error or hardware/software failure and you've got purple rain. We're not talking about an artist “formerly known as” either.

Now, I'm no expert and no I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, BUT, atomic blasts do more damage when detonated aerially. The Chernobyl accident was in a semi hardened building close to the ground. Imagine if you will a garbage truck or two full of this crap going BOOM at 40k feet. Lets just say that while I don't “live” in Florida, I'm sure the people there would not appreciate it glowing for the next few millennia

 

[Graham2001]

Some interesting pieces (LRB's, upper stages) in that plan. An interesting plan, really. I don't think it would be very satisfying to fly from an Orbiteering standpoint, but an interesting read. Thanks for pointing it out!

Some interesting launch sites too. About three years after the 1975 study I linked to above, a report was released looking into various disposal options, Earth/Lunar/Solar Orbit, Lunar Landing, Solar Impact & Solar Ejection.

This would still have been a single standard shuttle (SRBs) launch, but they looked at launching from Trinidade Island (which is part of Brazil BTW).

As there was not enough room on the island for a shuttle runway, so the shuttles carrying the waste would have been flown down from Kennedy to Brazil on the back of a 747 and shipped to the launch site.

Return to Earth would have been either through Kennedy or another 'remote location'.

Map of the Trinidade Launch Complex

See: Nuclear waste disposal in space, 1978

 

[Andy44]

Nuclear waste cannot explode like a nuclear bomb. It's physically impossible.

 

[Graham2001]

atomic blasts do more damage when detonated aerially. The Chernobyl accident was in a semi hardened building close to the ground. Imagine if you will a garbage truck or two full of this crap going BOOM at 40k feet. Lets just say that while I don't “live” in Florida, I'm sure the people there would not appreciate it glowing for the next few millennia

The real danger would not have been from a Hiroshima type blast.

The dangers would have been similar to those posed by RTGs eg the casing ruptures and the material is released into the environment. One of the reasons landing the waste on the Moon was considered was that even if the material 'leaked' out the local environment was already radioactive courtesy of the Sun.