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: Me on 15 Jan 2010 07:20 On Jan 15, 5:14 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Wrong, there were proposals to increase the size of the ET and its propellant load. Some didn't require any mods to the orbiter.
From: Me on 15 Jan 2010 07:24 On Jan 15, 4:57 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. There is no " big empty space" between the engines and upper stages. The shuttle payloads were always carried as close to the aft bulkhead of payload bay which is next to the main propulsion plumbing and engines
From: hallerb on 15 Jan 2010 09:34 On Jan 14, 1:59�pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...(a)ugs.nojunk.com> wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote in message > > news:fMp3n.6$qF1.3(a)newsfe11.ams2... > > > > > > > > > "Derek Lyons" <fairwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:4b502501.43877375(a)news.supernews.com... > >> Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>The ET tank is larger than the shuttle orbiter. My proposal would be > >>>to fit a much smaller tank, both in dimensions and mass, inside the > >>>payload bay. > > >> Which gains you about 10 seconds, at best, of SSME burn time. > > >> D. > >> -- > >> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > > >>http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ > > >> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. > >> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > > > Hmm... enough to send a LEM and a command module > > out of Earth orbit and on their way to the Moon... and the > > CM back again. > > -- Laugh now, eat later. > > Absolutely wrong. > > Look at the size of the third stage of the Saturn V which performed the TLI > burn for the Apollo lunar missions. �Here's a hint, it's far too large to > fit in the shuttle payload bay. > > If you don't believe this, do the math and post the result here. �Several > readers of this group are qualified to check your math. > > Jeff That stage was originally designed for moon direct or whatever it was called, that stage would of landed and taken off from the moon if it had been used. later they went with LEM, but didnt bother making the stage smaller it was a big overdesign for its actual use
From: Me on 15 Jan 2010 10:07 On Jan 15, 9:34 am, "hall...(a)aol.com" <hall...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 14, 1:59 pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...(a)ugs.nojunk.com> > wrote: > > > > > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote in message > > >news:fMp3n.6$qF1.3(a)newsfe11.ams2... > > > > "Derek Lyons" <fairwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:4b502501.43877375(a)news.supernews.com... > > >> Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(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. > > > Absolutely wrong. > > > Look at the size of the third stage of the Saturn V which performed the TLI > > burn for the Apollo lunar missions. Here's a hint, it's far too large to > > fit in the shuttle payload bay. > > > If you don't believe this, do the math and post the result here. Several > > readers of this group are qualified to check your math. > > > Jeff > > That stage was originally designed for moon direct or whatever it was > called, that stage would of landed and taken off from the moon if it > had been used. > > later they went with LEM, but didnt bother making the stage smaller it > was a big overdesign for its actual use Haller, you don't know what you are talking about. It was not overdesigned nor was it to be used for landing or taking off the moon. For the "Direct" mission, the lander stage was on the Apollo spacecraft and not the Saturn and was not the S-IVB. The S-IVB was sized perfectly for the role of the Saturn V 3rd stage
From: bob haller safety advocate on 15 Jan 2010 12:27
On Jan 15, 10:07�am, Me <charliexmur...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 15, 9:34�am, "hall...(a)aol.com" <hall...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 1:59 pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...(a)ugs.nojunk.com> > > wrote: > > > > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote in message > > > >news:fMp3n.6$qF1.3(a)newsfe11.ams2... > > > > > "Derek Lyons" <fairwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:4b502501.43877375(a)news.supernews.com... > > > >> Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(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. > > > > Absolutely wrong. > > > > Look at the size of the third stage of the Saturn V which performed the TLI > > > burn for the Apollo lunar missions. Here's a hint, it's far too large to > > > fit in the shuttle payload bay. > > > > If you don't believe this, do the math and post the result here. Several > > > readers of this group are qualified to check your math. > > > > Jeff > > > That stage was originally designed for moon direct or whatever it was > > called, that stage would of landed and taken off from the moon if it > > had been used. > > > later they went with LEM, but didnt bother making the stage smaller it > > was a big overdesign for its actual use > > Haller, you don't know what you are talking about. �It was not > overdesigned nor was it to be used for landing or taking off the > moon. �For the "Direct" mission, the lander stage was on the Apollo > spacecraft and not the Saturn and was not the S-IVB. �The S-IVB was > sized perfectly for the role of the Saturn V 3rd stage- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - the original apollo plan was landing the service module on the moon with landing legs deploying. then they started to wonder how the crew would get out of the CM and to the surface?? even in low gravity thats a long way down. then the LEM approach was used. |