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: Robert Clark on 15 Jan 2010 04:57 On Jan 14, 10:22 pm, Me <charliexmur...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ... > So Clark so how many times and by how many people do you have be told > that you ideas won't work? You must be an f'ing idiot to think you > are right and everyone else is wrong. That is a sign of mental > illness. How did you did get a degree and who did you pay off to let > you become a math instructor? The school that employs you should have > its accredition taken away. You are completely clueless when it > becomes to engineering. Just stick to math theory since you have > shown that you can't do math applications. It is quite common when there is great opposition to a new idea, that the more strongly the new idea becomes supported the more hysterical becomes the opposition. Then the fact that is obviously harder and requires more strengthening structural mass to have a *larger* tank hanging on the *outside* of a rocket then to have a *smaller* tank on the *inside* would cause a severe hysterical reaction. The opposite position would propose, that rocket designers, architects, civil engineers, had it wrong all these decades and centuries. Instead of having all these rockets with propellant tanks and engines in a line, lets put a bigger tank on the outside and just have this big empty space between the engines and upper stages. This would really take less structural mass! Yes! We KNOW that because the shuttle did it that way. Yep, the Saturn V could have launched much bigger payloads to the Moon by doing it that way. The Ares I and Ares V weight proplems would be solved just by just having larger tanks on the outside and just big empty spaces between the engines and upper stages. And moreover you actually save on structural mass that way! Undoubtedly the same holds for architects and civil engineers. Instead of having columns straight up and down supporting the weight vertically, lets just have a larger chunk shoved over to the side and just leave a big empty space between the lower column and the upper column. Then you could support a larger weight using thinner columns that way! Or maybe the shuttle designers were forced to do it that way because of the requirements of having such a large mass of propellant that couldn't fit internally to the desired orbiter size, knowing that it would require more structural mass to support it. Bob Clark
From: Robert Clark on 15 Jan 2010 05:03 On Jan 15, 1:05 am, fairwa...(a)gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote: > > >This would give about 300,000 kg of lox/ kerosene, or about 100,000 kg > >lox/LH2 if you wanted to use the same idea but keep the SSME's. > > Either figure greatly exceeds the cargo capacity of the orbiter, so it > matters little which one you pick. > The payload capacity of the current shuttle system is determined by the limitations of the propellant load it could carry and the rocket equation. For usual rockets with the propellant tanks inline with the engines and upper stages there is relatively little strengthening member mass required because much of the compressive and bending loads are supported by the pressurized tank. Bob Clark
From: Robert Clark on 15 Jan 2010 05:14 On Jan 15, 1:13 am, fairwa...(a)gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote: > Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Remember a large mass of propellant carried on the *inside* is the > >usual way rockets operate. Think of it this way: which would require > >greater mass and complexity of structural strengthening members, > > >the S-IC Saturn V first stage carrying the 5,000,000 lbs. of > >propellant inside, as it actually did, or a huge outside tank hanging > >off attachments points containing, say, 8,000,000 lbs, with just a big > >empty space in the rocket between the engines and the second stage? > > Probably the S-IC style would require the greater 'extra' mass, as the > external tank is attached near/to the wing roots and landing gear > which are already very strong for other reasons. You also forget that > only a small portion of the structure bears that 8,000,000 lb load, > and that a much greater proportion of the structure will feel the > 5,000,000 lb load. > > D. > -- If it weren't for the opposition to the current proposal nobody would be saying that shoving a greater mass off to the side would require lower structural strengthening support. If that were the case then after the shuttle was designed all the rockets would be done that way, afterall you could carry more propellant and at less strenthening structural mass. And after the shuttle made this great discovery all architectural columns from now on would be designed with a big chunk in the middle shoved over to the side since you could support more weight that way and use thinner columns to support it. Bob Clark
From: Me on 15 Jan 2010 07:12 On Jan 15, 4:57 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > It is quite common when there is great opposition to a new idea, that > the more strongly the new idea becomes supported the more hysterical > becomes the opposition. > Then the fact that is obviously harder and requires more > strengthening structural mass to have a *larger* tank hanging on the > *outside* of a rocket then to have a *smaller* tank on the *inside* > would cause a severe hysterical reaction. You still don't understand it. What you say is true for two designs started from the ground up. It is not true for the existing orbiter. The what you don't get that the what the shuttle carried on the outside is not applicable to the inside. The whole vehicle can not handle the mods. There are no mods viable to take extra weight of the propellant. It is not just in the payload bay. Any majors mods to the payload bay are going to necessitate mods to the other structural components of the orbiter and the systems within them. This will be prohibited in mass and in cost. So there is no advantage to your idea.
From: Me on 15 Jan 2010 07:18
On Jan 15, 4:57 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Or maybe the shuttle designers were forced to do it that way because > of the requirements of having such a large mass of propellant that > couldn't fit internally to the desired orbiter size, knowing that it > would require more structural mass to support it. > Duh, that is what we have been saying all along . You have been too thickheaded to listen. And what was worse is your idea to modified an existing orbiter. If the design was not feasible with a clean slate why would modifying an existing would work then? |