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 12:56 On Jan 15, 12:27 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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. > That was not the third stage of the saturn V
From: bob haller safety advocate on 15 Jan 2010 17:05 On Jan 15, 12:56�pm, Me <charliexmur...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 15, 12:27�pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...(a)aol.com> > wrote: > > > > > 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. > > That was not the third stage of the saturn V- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - my bad then it was a long time ago. by now i thought we would of been to mars and beyond:(
From: Me on 15 Jan 2010 17:07 On Jan 8, 6:50 am, Me <charliexmur...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 7:09 pm, OM <o...(a)sci.space.history> wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:23:55 -0800 (PST), <charliexmur...(a)yahoo.com> > > > >NASM does get one to exchange with Enterprise > > > ...Care to cite source? Or is that only available with an L2 purchase? > > > OM > > My work And here it comes, wait for it........... and there it is. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-012_orbiter_disposition.html "NASA is planning to transfer space shuttle Discovery to the National Air and Space Museum."
From: Peter Stickney on 16 Jan 2010 09:12 Pat Flannery wrote: > 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. Years, yes. Flight hours, no. Although since both were retired airliners (Ex-American Airlines, IIRC), I don't know how much tome they've got left. Remember that the 2 lowest time B-52s were the oldest - 52-003 and 52-008, the NB-52A and NB-52B respectively, that were NASA's heavy drop/launch platforms dor everything from the X-15 through Pegasus through hyper-X. They don't get a lot of use. -- Pete Stickney Failure is not an option It comes bundled with the system.
From: Robert Clark on 16 Jan 2010 15:39
On Jan 5, 10:26 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > This article describes the plan to sell the orbiters minus engines > for $42 million: > > For sale: Used space shuttles. Asking price: $42 million apiece > By John Matson > Dec 18, 2008 04:00 PM in Spacehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post..cfm?id=for-sale-used-spac... > > It is currently intended only to be sold to educational institutions, > or governmental agencies. > The Air Force is looking for designs for reusable first stage > boosters for two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) systems. Then it might be able > to be used for this purpose. Most likely you would use kerosene fuel > for this since dense fuels are more suitable for first stages. > The payload bay would be converted to a fuel tank, and the second > stage of the TSTO would be carried on top or below the orbiter. High > performance kerosene engines such as the Russian NK-33, with a near > legendary thrust/weight ratio of 136.66 to 1 at a weight of 1,222 kg, > could be used for propulsion: > > NK-33.http://www.astronautix.com/engines/nk33.htm > > The orbiter without the SSME engines masses around 68,600 kg: > > Atlantis.http://www.astronautix.com/craft/atlantis.htm > > Its payload bay is around 300 cubic meters that could be used for > propellant. Using the densities of kerosene and lox given here: > > Lox/Kerosene.http://www.astronautix.com/props/loxosene.htm > > and the oxidizer to fuel ratio of the NK-33 of 2.8 to 1 we can > calculate the propellant load that can be carried as about 300,000 kg. > You would need at least 3 of the NK-33's to lift this fuel load, > orbiter and second stage. > The tank weight of kerosene/lox is typically around 1/100th of the > propellant weight so around, 3,000 kg. Then the empty weight of the > reconfigured orbiter would be 68,600kg + 3*1,222kg + 3,000kg = > 75,266kg. And the fully fueled weight of this stage would be > 375,266kg. > For this first stage alone without a second stage, this would be a > mass ratio of about 5. Using an average Isp of the NK-33 of 315 you > could get a delta-V of 315*9.8*ln(5) = 4,970 m/s, about Mach 15. > A total delta-V this high raises the possibility it could be used for > suborbital space tourism or point-to-point hypersonic transport, if > sale to commercial organizations were to be allowed. > Robert Zubrin in his book "Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization" makes some interesting observations about the space shuttle: "The shuttle is a fiscal disaster not because it is reusable, but because both its technical and programmatic bases are incorrect. The shuttle is a partially reusable launch vehicle: Its lower stages are expendable or semi-salvageable while the upper stage (the orbiter ) is reusable. As aesthetically pleasing as this configuration may appear to some, from an engineering point of view this is precisely the opposite of the correct way to design a partially reusable launch system. Instead, the lower stages should be reusable and the upper stage expendable. Why? Becasue the lower stages of a multi-staged booster are far more massive than the upper stage: so if only one or the other is to be reusable, you save much more money by reusing the lower stage. Furthermore, it is much easier to make the lower stage reusable, since it does not fly as high or as fast, and thus takes much less of a beating during reentry. Finally the negative payload impact of adding those systems required for reusability is much less if they are put on the lower stage than the upper. In a typical two- stage to orbit system for example every kilogram of extra dry mass added to the lower stage reduces the payload delivered to orbit by about 0.1 kilograms, whereas a kilogram of extra dry mass on the upper stage causes a full kilogram of payload loss. The Shuttle is actually a 100-tonne to orbit booster, but because the upper stage is a reusable orbiter vehicle with a dry mass of 80 tonnes, only 20 tonnes of payload is actually delivered to orbit. From the amount of smake, fire, and thrust the Shuttle produces on the launch pad, it should deliver five times the payload to orbit of a Titan IV, but because it must launch the orbiter to space as well as the payload, its net delivery capability only equals that of the Titan. There is no need for 60-odd tonnes of wings, landing gear and thermal protection systems in Earth orbit, but the shuttle drags them up there (at a cost of $10 million per tonne) anyway each time it flies. In short the Space Shuttle is so inefficient because *it is built upside down*. {emphasis in the original.} "Entering Space", p. 29. This provides support for the view of the Air Force that reusable first stage boosters can cut the costs to space by 50%: Spacelift Development Plan. http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/conference/briefs/HampstenSDP%20Public%20Release.ppt The shuttle is quite large for an upper stage. But it is the right size for a first stage. It's my intention to turn the Space Shuttle System right-side up by making the orbiter into a reusable first stage. Bob Clark |