Did Buran & Engeria have any advantages over STS?

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

qso1

Guest
jimfromnsf:<br />The extended PCR was never really considered<br /><br />Me:<br />Depends on what is meant by considered I guess. It was considered enough to be mentioned in the 1989 NASA fact sheet that proposed the shuttle "C" that was to be operational by 1995. Even so, extending the PCR is not exactly rocket science (No pun intended) and whether seriously considered or not. Had shuttle "C" been approved, this extension would have been relatively easy to accomplish and probably done on just one of the two pads. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
willpittenger:<br />Shuttle "C" 2 SSME version was to have been capable of lifting 45Kg to LEO<br /><br />Me:<br />I meant 45Kg from Jupiter...just kidding. I meant 45,000 Kg...LOL. Good catch there, sorry for the confusion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
gunsandrockets:<br />sorry qso1, that's not me you are quoting. I never brought up the Shuttle C, it was jimfromnsf who did.<br /><br />Me:<br />My apologies, it looks like I found one of jimfromnsf comments in a post of yours and accidently linked to you. IMO, Shuttle "C" was an excellent way to have what I called "Saturn class...on a budget". That is, close to Saturn V class lifting capability (3 X SSME) by doing no more than placing a cargo element on the shuttle LV stack.<br /><br />I personally wanted to see the "C" fly and then be followed by development of vehicles designed to do what the "C" could not do economically. In 1994-95...it would have been great to have even just a shuttle "C" for ISS construction. Less flights to build the ISS.<br /><br />But history is 20/20 I suppose and were long past any chance of shuttle "C" ever seeing service so whatever comes along as an HLLV is fine with me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
PCR extension would have been relatively easy to accomplish and probably done on just one of the two pads."<br /><br />It would not have been easy and would have made one pad unusable for the shuttle, hence the need for horizontal integration
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
There is basically no difference between a sidemount or Shuttle-C, just some minor details that don't really improve the basic concept.<br /><br />It still has the disadvantages of the shuttle-c
 
Q

qso1

Guest
jimfromnsf:<br />It would not have been easy<br /><br />Me:<br />If done right, it would have been easier than building a whole new tower on the MLP to access an inline type LV arrangement. As for rendering one pad unusable for the shuttle. This I would agree with. One thing about horizontal integration. As I recall, payloads such as Spacelab which were horizontally integrated sometimes required vertical access at the pad tho not necessarily through the PCR but OAA instead. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"If done right, it would have been easier than building a whole new tower on the MLP to access an inline type LV arrangement. "<br /><br />No tower at pad, encapsulated payload is installed at VAB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts