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 8 Jan 2010 03:16 Pat Flannery wrote: > > I wonder how much you could get for cutting one up for parts and selling > them on eBay?* > There are a lot of tiles on one, and you could probably sell those for a > nice price each. Let's see...27,000 tiles per orbiter, each one framed and including a map of where it came from on the orbiter and a certificate of authenticity. Should be able to whip that up for around $25.00 per tile if we ship them off to China for enclosure in their display frames. Can get $200.00 per tile easy, maybe as much as $500.00* as they are all flown space hardware, so we'll call it $300.00, of which $275.00 is profit (S&H extra). So $300.00 x 27,000 = $7,425,000 just for the tiles. * Some flown ones have gone for nearly $10,000 dollars: http://www.astronautscholarship.org/2009_auction.py?lot=41 ....and even unflown ones go for $350.00-$500.00: http://www.mkjassociates.com/cgi-bin/ilgvulot.pl?site=1&sale=49&lot=254 But of course this is going to flood the market. Pat
From: Pat Flannery on 8 Jan 2010 03:53 Pat Flannery wrote: > So $300.00 x 27,000 $275.00 x 27,000. Pat
From: Me on 8 Jan 2010 06:50 On Jan 7, 7:09 pm, OM <o...(a)sci.space.history> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:23:55 -0800 (PST), Charlie X. Murphy, L2 > sycophant <charliexmur...(a)yahoo.com> arrogantly quiffed: > > >NASM does get one to exchange with Enterprise > > ...Care to cite source? Or is that only available with an L2 purchase? > > OM > My work
From: Me on 8 Jan 2010 06:58 On Jan 8, 2:02 am, Pat Flannery <flan...(a)daktel.com> wrote: > David Spain wrote: > > As far as selling simulated 'stick time' to would be astronauts I think > > the answer is known and is 'yes' even without an orbiter and spending > > $42 million. > > I wonder how much you could get for cutting one up for parts and selling > them on eBay?* > There are a lot of tiles on one, and you could probably sell those for a > nice price each. > In fact, you could just replace the tiles with display ones and still > sell them while keeping the orbiter intact. > Moving the orbiters from KSC to their final destinations is going to be > a real pain also. You are either going to have to fly them there on the > 747 (and how do you get them off of it once they arrive? That's how they > got Enterprise to Washington DC), or disassemble them for rail or truck > shipment. > Since NASA is in a cash crunch, do they really want to spend money on > this? That is what part of the 42 million pays for
From: Robert Clark on 8 Jan 2010 10:45
On Jan 6, 3:02 am, Pat Flannery <flan...(a)daktel.com> wrote: >... > > I can't for the life of me figure out why Robert Clark is constantly > coming up with ideas for so radically modifying something that already > exists that it effectively becomes a entirely different spacecraft, but > without the advantages that a whole new design would offer. > > Pat There are several other options that could be used at relatively low cost. I still believe though retrofitting already existing but unused airframes would be much cheaper. For instance on another forum someone suggested using the Russian Burans instead. Likewise you could use the Shuttle Enterprise. This didn't have engines or heat shield, but you would need to use different engines anyway, and for the first stage use you could use much more lightweight and maintenance-free thermal protection. The Russian Burans have been ill treated since the cancellation of that program. The Buran that made the orbital flight was destroyed in a hangar collapse in 2002. The Buran that was used only for subsonic flight tests had been attempted to be sold over the internet for $6 million - with no takers. According to the Wikipedia page on it, it currently resides at a German museum: OK-GLI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK-GLI There are several other Burans that were only partially completed that also could be used: Buran program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Buran_program#Current_status According to this video report, there are some Russian and American scientists who want to revive the Buran, with the American shuttle being retired: Soviet space shuttle could bail out NASA. "The Soviet-era Buran space programme, mothballed 20 years ago, may be revived. With NASA about to retire its aging fleet of space shuttles, there is a pressing need for viable space transport." Published 15 November, 2008, 09:44 http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2008-11-15/Soviet_space_shuttle_could_bail_out_NASA.html?fullstory Additionally other airframes intended for supersonic speed could also be used. These would be for example supersonic fighters or bombers, or passenger craft such as the Concorde with delta-shaped wings. DC-9's or Boeing or Airbus type jets would not be suitable because the wings are designed for subsonic flight. Airframes with short-stubby wings such as the hypersonic, X-15 and X-34 would also work. See the examples of delta-winged craft here: Delta wing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_wing Then mothballed versions of use probably could be purchased at low cost. The jet engines would be removed and replaced with rocket engines. With the rocket propellant contained only in the wing tanks, they could probably reach sufficient delta-V for suborbital space tourism or hypersonic transport. And if most of the fuselage volume previously used for cargo, payload, or bomb bays, was also used now to hold propellant, it is *possible* these could become fully orbital vehicles. If similar sized craft were made of all-composite construction they almost certainly could become fully orbital, reusable, SSTO's. Bob Clark |