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 20 Jan 2010 12:49 On Jan 20, 11:07 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. > > ... > > Deep Discount on Space Shuttles. > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > Published: January 16, 2010 > "CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) Here is a recession bargain: the space > shuttle. NASA has slashed the price of the 1970s-era spaceships to > $28.8 million apiece from $42 million."http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/science/space/17nasa.html > > What I found really interesting was this passage: > > "As for the space shuttle main engines, those are now free. NASA > advertised them in December 2008 for $400,000 to $800,000 each, but no > one expressed interest. So now the engines are available, along with > other shuttle artifacts, for the cost of transportation and handling. > "Assembly will be required, however." > > I doubt though you could keep these engines and be profitable as a > suborbital tourism vehicle or first stage booster. The maintenance > costs on these engines are just so high. However, the most maintenance > intensive parts were the turbopumps for the high pressure cryogenic > LOX and liquid hydrogen. If you could switch out these turbopumps to > lower performance dense propellant ones, or find some other method > rather then the original turbopumps for pumping the LOX/LH2 at these > volumes and high pressures it might be doable. Where would space shuttle land at Wright-Patt? By John Nolan, Staff Writer Updated 5:17 PM Saturday, January 16, 2010 "NASA said it will cost a shuttle recipient $28.8 million to prepare the shuttle for display and transport it. Metcalf has said he sees no reason for an exchange of money between the Air Force and NASA, both government agencies." http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/where-would-space-shuttle-land-at-wright-patt--496844.html?cxtype=rss_local-news The Air Force wants low cost reusable winged boosters for its "Reusable Booster System" program. Then if NASA would agree to it it could have the airframe for such a booster literally for free. Bob Clark
From: Me on 20 Jan 2010 13:43 On Jan 20, 12:49 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 20, 11:07 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > ... > > > Deep Discount on Space Shuttles. > > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > > Published: January 16, 2010 > > "CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) Here is a recession bargain: the space > > shuttle. NASA has slashed the price of the 1970s-era spaceships to > > $28.8 million apiece from $42 million."http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/science/space/17nasa.html > > > What I found really interesting was this passage: > > > "As for the space shuttle main engines, those are now free. NASA > > advertised them in December 2008 for $400,000 to $800,000 each, but no > > one expressed interest. So now the engines are available, along with > > other shuttle artifacts, for the cost of transportation and handling. > > "Assembly will be required, however." > > > I doubt though you could keep these engines and be profitable as a > > suborbital tourism vehicle or first stage booster. The maintenance > > costs on these engines are just so high. However, the most maintenance > > intensive parts were the turbopumps for the high pressure cryogenic > > LOX and liquid hydrogen. If you could switch out these turbopumps to > > lower performance dense propellant ones, or find some other method > > rather then the original turbopumps for pumping the LOX/LH2 at these > > volumes and high pressures it might be doable. > > Where would space shuttle land at Wright-Patt? > By John Nolan, Staff Writer Updated 5:17 PM Saturday, January 16, 2010 > "NASA said it will cost a shuttle recipient $28.8 million to prepare > the shuttle for display and transport it. Metcalf has said he sees no > reason for an exchange of money between the Air Force and NASA, both > government agencies."http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/where-would-space-shu... > > The Air Force wants low cost reusable winged boosters for its > "Reusable Booster System" program. Then if NASA would agree to it it > could have the airframe for such a booster literally for free. > > Bob Clark The USAF isn't as stupid as you, and knows it won't work
From: Pat Flannery on 20 Jan 2010 17:31 Robert Clark wrote: > Where would space shuttle land at Wright-Patt? Jeeze, I don't know...maybe on its runway? It's a Air Force base, and those tend to have runways: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/GEO_Wright-Patterson_AFB_lg.jpg Pat
From: Greg D. Moore (Strider) on 20 Jan 2010 15:50 "Pat Flannery" <flanner(a)daktel.com> wrote in message news:_oOdnQlBW-9l-srWnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d(a)posted.northdakotatelephone... > Robert Clark wrote: >> Where would space shuttle land at Wright-Patt? > > Jeeze, I don't know...maybe on its runway? > It's a Air Force base, and those tend to have runways: > http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/GEO_Wright-Patterson_AFB_lg.jpg > > Pat Now Pat, that's not fair, confusing Robert with facts like that. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
From: Robert Clark on 20 Jan 2010 16:05
On Jan 20, 5:31 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...(a)daktel.com> wrote: > Robert Clark wrote: > > Where would space shuttle land at Wright-Patt? > > Jeeze, I don't know...maybe on its runway? > It's a Air Force base, and those tend to have runways:http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/GEO_Wright-Patterson_AFB_l... > > Pat Perhaps I should have quoted more of the article. The question in the article being debated between the Air Force and NASA was whether the runway was long enough for the 747 carrier plane for the shuttle. Bob Clark |