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: Derek Lyons on 13 Jan 2010 14:55 Robert Clark <rgregoryclark(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. Which gains you about 10 seconds, at best, of SSME burn time. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
From: Androcles on 13 Jan 2010 15:09 "Derek Lyons" <fairwater(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4b502501.43877375(a)news.supernews.com... > Robert Clark <rgregoryclark(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>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. > > Which gains you about 10 seconds, at best, of SSME burn time. > > D. > -- > Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > > http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ > > -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. > Oct 5th, 2004 JDL Hmm... enough to send a LEM and a command module out of Earth orbit and on their way to the Moon... and the CM back again. -- Laugh now, eat later.
From: David Spain on 13 Jan 2010 15:33 On 1/13/2010 2:55 PM, Derek Lyons wrote: > Robert Clark<rgregoryclark(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Which gains you about 10 seconds, at best, of SSME burn time. > > D. Derek, Bob Clark wants to replace the SSME's with Russian NK-33's burning LOX/Kerosene. The reconfigured shuttle is not capable of reaching orbit on its own. The question of re-usability of the NK-33 is not addressed. If not reusable you have to factor in the cost to replace or rebuild for each flight. There would be a second stage, probably detachable from below for going into orbit. Presumably a 1-way trip, unless you're developing a new reusable vehicle? Which begs the question why not focus on the reusable vehicle anyway and ditch the shuttle? And fueled by what to present no hazard to the shuttle TPS? This question is left as an exercise for the reader. Bob, there are still two major cost factors, the cost of ground ops is still very high for such a large vehicle with a finicky TPS and you still have the unrecoverable cost of return ferry flights to the launch point since you're advocating vertical launches. So subtract the cost of SRB's, ET and SSME maintenance. Then add back in the new costs of NK-33 refurb/replacement, and the return ferry flights. Assuming all other costs remain the same and ignoring the one-off modification costs, including the development of ? for orbital ops. I don't see this as a paying proposition. Dave
From: Jorge R. Frank on 13 Jan 2010 20:31 Androcles wrote: > "Derek Lyons" <fairwater(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4b502501.43877375(a)news.supernews.com... >> Robert Clark <rgregoryclark(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> Which gains you about 10 seconds, at best, of SSME burn time. >> >> D. >> -- >> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. >> >> http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ >> >> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. >> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > > Hmm... enough to send a LEM and a command module > out of Earth orbit and on their way to the Moon... and the > CM back again. Wrong.
From: Pat Flannery on 13 Jan 2010 23:48
Derek Lyons wrote: > Robert Clark <rgregoryclark(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Which gains you about 10 seconds, at best, of SSME burn time. Remember that it's now supposed to be burning LOX/kerosene rather than LOX/LH2, so whatever is hanging on the back isn't a SSME. I've got models to the same scale of a Saturn IB and Shuttle sitting in front of me as I write this, and the cargo bay of the Shuttle looks like it could hold around 2/3rds the propellant volume of the Saturn IB first stage once you put the propellant tanks and their bulkheads in. So that's around 270,000 kg of propellant. I seriously doubt the cargo bay can support that kind of weight - either vertically or horizontally - as its normal payload weight limit is 24,400 kg....so you are putting around 11 times as much weight in it as it was designed to carry. Pat |