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 14:42 Me wrote: > That is what part of the 42 million pays for When they took the Enterprise up to DC, how did they get it off of the 747? IIRC, they have some sort of air transportable version of the mate/demate crane assembly in case the Shuttle ever had to land at a place other than Kennedy or Edwards; did they use that? Pat
From: Robert Clark on 8 Jan 2010 13:04 On Jan 8, 10:45 am, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >... > 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 > > ... This page has links to images of the other Burans that can give you an idea of their level of completion: Soviet Buran Space Shuttle. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0153.shtml Bob Clark
From: Robert Clark on 8 Jan 2010 13:48 On Jan 7, 4:01 pm, David Spain <nos...(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: > Robert Clark <rgregorycl...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > ... > > And this for an initial investment of $42 million. > > Any estimate on the cost to retrofit the wings with > fuel tankage? > > How does the orbiter launch? Vertically with a special > launch pad as it does now, or horizontally from an airstrip? > > If the former, why not still use SRB's for assist? > > Why discard the ET at all? If you're not using it for fuel > its a high volume space, that if rigid enough to handle > G loads with SRBs attached give you even MORE payload > volume (if not capacity because of structural limitations) > than the payload bay.... > > Dave > > PS: For the rest of you, sorry for stoking the fire, but > I gotta know where this is going... > > Something about being partial to very fast 57 Chevys... > > ;-) A troll is when you post something you don't believe in just to start an argument or to be controversial. I think you've seen enough of my posts to know that's not something I'm into. It's possible of course that it's wrong. All that means, of course, is that the idea is just wrong. All this rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth is really over the top. If you did use wet wings for tankage, that would add greatly to the weight of the wings. You would need extra support added of wing spars and ribs, as well as extra support members connecting the wings to the fuselage. But I certainly don't think it would cost say in the range of $100 million, which is how much more the Virgin Galactic development cost is over the purchase price of $42 million for the orbiters. $100 million is approaching the price of entire jet airliners, including their engines, that do have such wing strengthening. (It might cost that much if the government gave one of the aerospace companies a cost-plus contract to do it. But a commercial company would have better sense than to do it that way.) The orbiter would be launched vertically. You probably would not want the entire weight of the vehicle to be resting on just the engine nozzles. You could have support pillars that lead up to connect onto the airframe. Remember with the current shuttle after the SRB's jettison that 1,000,000 lbs thrust from the engines is being transmitted up through the airframe. I'm not a fan of solid rockets for manned missions. The shuttle SRB's are also expensive also. It had been thought that reusing the casings would cut costs, but it turned out, retrieving them, cleaning them, and refilling them costs nearly as much as using new solid motors on each flight. The problem with the ET is that it is disposable. I want a fully reusable vehicle to cut costs. If I recall the cost of the ET is $100 million per flight, another quite expensive item. In regards to its feasibility, keep in mind that the orbiter is a rocket after all. And it does have it's own engines. After ET separation it is essentially operating in the fashion I'm suggesting with it's own on board fuel supply, albeit with much weaker engines. And with the ET still attached, after SRB sep, it is operating as a rocket with much higher thrust than what I'm suggesting and the aerodynamic stresses and structural loads are even worse than in my scenario since the ET would carry even more fuel and it is in a non- axial position. What I'm suggesting is actually *easier* than the current propulsion method of the shuttle system after SRB separation. Bob Clark
From: Greg D. Moore (Strider) on 8 Jan 2010 14:01 "Pat Flannery" <flanner(a)daktel.com> wrote in message news:eb2dnfbhc9j789rWnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d(a)posted.northdakotatelephone... > Me wrote: > >> That is what part of the 42 million pays for > > When they took the Enterprise up to DC, how did they get it off of the > 747? IIRC, they have some sort of air transportable version of the > mate/demate crane assembly in case the Shuttle ever had to land at a place > other than Kennedy or Edwards; did they use that? > > Pat Yes, I believe so. They've used the portable Mate/Demate device several times. In addition they used it in Paris and at White Sands. That said, I think it would have been FAR cooler if they'd done a drop from the back of the 747 and let it glide in. "Dulles this is Enterprise on final approach". "Roger Enterprise, this is Dulles. You're cleared on runway 1L. Please be advised there's a 747 in your same traffic pattern, they're cleared on 1R approximately 1 minute after you're wheel's down." "Thank you Dulles. BTW, we'll need a tow at wheels stop, we're without power and gliding in." "Without power? Are you declaring an inflight emergency? Please confirm." "That's a big negatory Dulles, we always land this way." "Roger that. At wheels stop contact Dulles ground control for taxiway and tow information." "Roger that, we're over the runway now and main gear down in 4, 3, 2, 1...." -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
From: Jeff Findley on 8 Jan 2010 14:34
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank(a)ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message news:98SdnYTVr6ovP9vWnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d(a)giganews.com... > OM wrote: >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:05:20 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank" >> <jrfrank(a)ibm-pc.borg> wrote: >>> 104 - USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson >> >> ...Considering how the Air Farce regarded the shuttle, I'd be *really* >> surprised if they even got Pathfinder. > > Trust me, if *NASA* was making the decision, they wouldn't get one. If it > were *me* making the decision, I'd send Enterprise to Dryden/Edwards since > 1) it has historical ties there, 2) it still gives the USAF "half an > orbiter" and 3) it puts an orbiter on the West coast within driving > distance of tens of millions of people, which in my mind makes it a better > site than Seattle (which is within driving distance of nothing but > Seattle) or Wright-Patterson (which is within driving distance of > Udvar-Hazy). > > Nevertheless, the USAF is pushing for an orbiter and their museum at > Wright-Patt is both large enough and well-equipped to preserve one, so > odds are they will get one. The USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB is definitely a world class facility (I'd knock the location, but it's within an hour's drive of my house). No doubt a shuttle orbiter would get center stage inside a brand spanking new building, I'd guess the one which is going to go up on the other side of the space missiles building. A quick web search seems to confirm this (and Jorge's view that they're *really* pushing for OV-104, which is Atlantis)... This article appears on the front page of the USAF Museum website: Vital Partnership, NASA and the USAF, Preserving a Legacy (on top of a picture of the shuttle at the launch pad) http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100104-030.pdf Check out the picture of what the inside of the building would look like (page 9), which is prominently displaying Atlantis in the middle of the huge Space Gallery. Impressive, no? Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |