/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11981183
>Ditch the orange tank and boosters, replace it with a larger tank-only space plane fueled by kerolox and powered by F-1As
>Drop the RS-25s on the orbiter, replace with J-2s
>Replace fragile ceramic tiles with strong metallic ones
>Change any other parts for the purpose of making refurbishment easier
>Take any questionable management out back behind the VAB and shoot them

>inb4 but a whole development of another space plane will be expensive
Then enjoy your terrible launch system. Otherwise, take the Shuttle, replace tanks and cargobay with one big tank, replace RS-25 with F-1. There, you got yourself a Booster Shuttle.

>>11887827
It was technically possible since the 70s, the largest issue was that the launch market would've been too limited to make reuse viable. The market has been dominated by government payloads where money is no object until very recently.

>>10859129
>Also, friendly reminder that the only reasons why NASA walked away from these designs was because the stubby straight wings only worked for straight-in re-entrys and the big hypersonic delta wings and overbuilt thermal protection system needed to meet the USAF's requirement for cross-range reentry capability fucked up the mass fraction enough that it was no longer feasible to built it as a TSTO with 100% flyback ability like Starship/BFR will be.
Shame. I think it has potential. Maybe in this new "age" of reusability, someone might look into it again.