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 13 Jan 2010 23:57 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. > -- Laugh now, eat later. You aren't getting what Clark is talking about here. It isn't going to have any ET or SRBs on it; it's just the Orbiter converted to LOX/kerosene propulsion with all of its propellants in the cargo bay. Effectively, all he's done is build a super-sized ground takeoff X-15. Pat
From: Pat Flannery on 14 Jan 2010 00:01 David Spain wrote: >I don't see this as a > paying > proposition. This whole concept is completely irrational from end-to-end. Pat
From: Androcles on 14 Jan 2010 01:41 "Pat Flannery" <flanner(a)daktel.com> wrote in message news:reidnQKOVLBqGtPWnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d(a)posted.northdakotatelephone... > 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. >> -- Laugh now, eat later. > > You aren't getting what Clark is talking about here. > It isn't going to have any ET or SRBs on it; it's just the Orbiter > converted to LOX/kerosene propulsion with all of its propellants in the > cargo bay. > Effectively, all he's done is build a super-sized ground takeoff X-15. > > > Pat It's not rocket science... oh wait... yes it is. At least that stupid shuttle is being scrapped.
From: Robert Clark on 14 Jan 2010 07:33 On Jan 13, 3:33 pm, David Spain <nos...(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: > ... > 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 I'll give you a hint about the economic value of reconfiguring the shuttle or Buran as a first stage: Aug. 10, 2007 NASA Awards First Stage Contract for Ares Rockets. "WASHINGTON - NASA has signed a $1.8 billion contract with Alliant Techsystems, known as ATK, located near Brigham City, Utah, for the design, development, testing, and evaluation of the first stage of the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles." http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/aug/HQ_C07036_Ares_first_stage.html Still need to do the calculations. Bob Clark
From: Me on 14 Jan 2010 10:38
On Jan 14, 7:33 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 13, 3:33 pm, David Spain <nos...(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: > > > > > ... > > 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 > > I'll give you a hint about the economic value of reconfiguring the > shuttle or Buran as a first stage: > > Aug. 10, 2007 > NASA Awards First Stage Contract for Ares Rockets. > "WASHINGTON - NASA has signed a $1.8 billion contract with Alliant > Techsystems, known as ATK, located near Brigham City, Utah, for the > design, development, testing, and evaluation of the first stage of the > Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles."http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/aug/HQ_C07036_Ares_first_stage.html > No, this would be the similar to the cost of reconfiguring the shuttle, Also, the ATK contract is for the develop of the booster and not the unit cost |