A never-ending major goal for the Space Shuttle program is to continually improve flight safety, as long as this launch system remains in operational service. One of the options to improve system safety and to enhance vehicle performance as well, that has been seriously studied over the past several decades, is to replace the existing strap-on four segment solid rocket boosters (SRB's) with more capable units. A number of booster upgrade options have been studied in some detail, ranging from five segment solids through hybrids and a wide variety of liquid strap-ons (both pressure and pump fed with various propellants); all the way to a completely reusable liquid fly back booster (complete with air breathing engines for controlled landing and return). All of these possibilities appear to offer improvements in varying degrees; and each has their strengths and weaknesses from both programmatic and technical points of view. The most beneficial booster upgrade/design, if the shuttle program were to continue long enough to justify the required investment, would be an approach that greatly increased both vehicle and crew safety. This would be accomplished by increasing the minimum range/minimum altitude envelope that would readily allow abort to orbit (ATO), possibly even to zero/zero, and possibly reduce or eliminate the Return to Launch Site (RTLS) and even the Trans Atlantic Landing (TAL) abort mode requirements. This paper will briefly survey and discuss all of the various booster upgrade options studied previously, and compare their relative attributes. The survey will explicitly discuss, in summary comparative form, options that include: five segment solids; several hybrid possibilities; pressure and/or pump-fed liquids using either LO2/kerosene, H20/kerosene and LOz/Jz, any of which could be either fully expendable, partly or fully reusable; and finally a fully reusable liquid fly back booster system, with a number of propellant and propulsion system options. Performance and configuration comparison illustrations and tables will be included to provide a comprehensive survey for the paper.

The Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a study of two configurations of a three-stage, inline, liquid propellant small launch vehicle concept developed on the premise of maximizing affordability by targeting a specific payload capability range based on current industry demand. The initial configuration, NESC-1, employed liquid oxygen as the oxidizer and rocket propellant grade kerosene as the fuel in all three stages. The second and more heavily studied configuration, NESC-4, employed liquid oxygen and RP-1 on the first and second stages and liquid oxygen and liquid methane fuel on the third stage. On both vehicles, sensitivity studies were first conducted on specific impulse and stage propellant mass fraction in order to baseline gear ratios and drive the focus of concept development. Subsequent sensitivity and trade studies on the NESC-4 concept investigated potential impacts to affordability due to changes in gross liftoff weight and/or vehicle complexity. Results are discussed at a high level to understand the impact severity of certain sensitivities and how those trade studies conducted can either affect cost, performance, or both.