Space shuttle for space tourism and first stage of a TSTO.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Eclipses Yield First Images of Elusive Iron Line in Solar Corona
Next: What happens when all dimensions are doubled overnight?
From: Pat Flannery on 11 Jan 2010 12:17 Jeff Findley wrote: > That's it! I bow to your superior Google-Fu. ;-) > > I'm sure doing a mate operation this way is a bit unnerving with the > supervisors in charge hoping nothing goes wrong. The appearance of the > regular mate/de-mate hardware makes it look a lot more sturdy than using the > mobile cranes with the mobile mate/de-mate hardware. I was surprised to see the transport boat tail was in multiple parts, but I imagine that's for ease of transport. I wonder if it comes to the landing site in the same aircraft that carries the strongback, or by truck or rail? To me it looks like the major challenge is parking the cranes in such a way that they don't collide with the 747 when it moves into position between them. Pat
From: Pat Flannery on 11 Jan 2010 12:45 Jeff Findley wrote: > Not sure, but the current Space Missiles Gallery is quite impressive to see > in person. Displaying the missiles vertically, in close proximity to each > other, gives you an excellent sense of scale. When you're standing on the > ground (lowest level of the building), they really tower over you. I don't > quite get the same sense of scale when a missile or launch vehicle is > displayed horizontally. I noted in the photo that they have a Minuteman III, but do they also have a Minuteman I & II? I imagine this got destroyed, but the full scale mock-up of the early DynaSoar on its Titan I booster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uId5mhxn4TE&feature=related * ....really would have looked great in that collection, as would the Boeing full scale mock-up of the finished design. * In part 2 of that series you get to see a large scale model Titan I/DynaSoar being elevated out of a Titan I silo, reminding you that at this point in its development this is still very much a strategic weapon's system. I posted these earlier to sci.space.history, but since this is going to multiple newsgroups, here are the X-20 DynaSoar videos on YouTube: Four videos about research on the design, including a full-scale Titan I/early DynaSoar mock-up in part three, and testing of the aerodynamics in part four: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjIvBWUQPmk&feature=PlayList&p=981AC39C776B7661&index=0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkQnOQP44dE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uId5mhxn4TE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSe9DdmZb-I&feature=related Astronauts Grissom, Schirra, and Armstrong try the Dynasoar cockpit on for size: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7mRXblByxo&feature=related Boeing unveils the mock-up of the final design: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bn5A0oNpuM Air Force progress report on X-20 project, parts one and two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drfcrl_vc8M&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muNYhj9DFrM&feature=related Plans for orbital test launch on Titan III: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_GcjJ71Tc4&feature=related Two part USAF feature showing animated X-20/Titan I mission: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpO5q86Bqys&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1spbZ9o4N8k&feature=related DynaSoar docking with S-IV stage based space station: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1sO8OKKFZg&feature=related DynaSoar on recon mission: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgYSgUVYO9Q&feature=related Pat
From: Greg D. Moore (Strider) on 11 Jan 2010 11:20 "Pat Flannery" <flanner(a)daktel.com> wrote in message news:BvOdnW3Rq_eQ3NbWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d(a)posted.northdakotatelephone... > Jeff Findley wrote: > >> That's it! I bow to your superior Google-Fu. ;-) >> >> I'm sure doing a mate operation this way is a bit unnerving with the >> supervisors in charge hoping nothing goes wrong. The appearance of the >> regular mate/de-mate hardware makes it look a lot more sturdy than using >> the mobile cranes with the mobile mate/de-mate hardware. > > I was surprised to see the transport boat tail was in multiple parts, but > I imagine that's for ease of transport. > I wonder if it comes to the landing site in the same aircraft that carries > the strongback, or by truck or rail? I'm pretty sure it comes in the C-5 with the strongback. > To me it looks like the major challenge is parking the cranes in such a > way that they don't collide with the 747 when it moves into position > between them. Yeah... > > Pat
From: Pat Flannery on 11 Jan 2010 16:28 Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: >> To me it looks like the major challenge is parking the cranes in such a >> way that they don't collide with the 747 when it moves into position >> between them. > > Yeah... Can you imagine dropping the orbiter somehow? "Gentlemen...our NASA careers are now officially...100%...completely...ended." :-D And I bet they thought about that every time they hoisted the orbiter up with that gizmo. What's NASA got in mind for the carrier 747's after the Shuttle is retired? They must have quite a few years on them by now. Pat
From: Robert Clark on 13 Jan 2010 13:14
There are two separate considerations in this topic: 1.)is it technically feasible, and 2.)is it financially better than just a new system. For the first question, I don't think anyone thinks it is literally impossible based on the fact that the shuttle orbiter itself already acts as an independent rocket with quite a huge fuel tank after the SRB's jettison. See the video of shuttle orbiters engines firing with the ET attached after SRB sep here: NASA posts Solid Rocket Booster Video. Published on 10 Jul 2006 at 3:54 am. 4 Comments. Filed under In the News, Video. http://www.dirtyskies.com/index.php/2006/07/10/nasa-posts-solid-rocket-booster-video/ Other images: http://www.space-shuttle.com/histshuttle6.jpg http://www.buran.fr/bourane-buran/img/STS-SRB-separation-grand.jpg The ET tank is larger than the shuttle orbiter. My proposal would be to fit a much smaller tank, both in dimensions and mass, inside the payload bay. The strengthening to the airframe would be less than what is already on the shuttle for securing the ET under full engine power. The SSME's also put out much greater thrust than the engines I'm suggesting replacing them with. Then the SSME's already subject the orbiter to much greater loads than what I'm suggesting. In regards to the second question, you could conceivably purchase the entire airframe including avionics, wiring etc. for under $6 million if you purchased a Buran. Undoubtedly starting from scratch to build an entire spacecraft of this size would cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is also unlikely merely strengthening the payload bay would cost in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars, since jet airliners have such strengthening of the wing fuel tanks with the total cost of the entire airliner including engines in the $150 million to $250 million dollar range. Bob Clark |