Goodbye Atlantis!!!!

[llivinglarge]

Yeah, the OV-095 is the SAIL rig.

 

[drwayne]

The process of physical prototyping of complex machines has always fascinated me, since I was a boy.<br /><br />More of it is of course done by computer these days, but eventually, you have to run the wires, pipes etc....<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

it's done by computer. even maintenance is simulated. it's called CATIA <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[juliemac]

The thickness, shape of the wings leading edge and the angle of attack are not designed for lift. My airframe and fluid flow math are a BIT behind the times, but I don't see the correct shape needed to create the low and high pressure zones, nor is the angle of attack correct for air to move correctly.<br />It would need far too many mods to make it work.<br />Nice idea, but it would be cheaper to build a look alike based on a commercially available frame.

 

[mlorrey]

Oh come now, Juliemac, basic fluid flow math also says a bee can't fly, but it does. NOTE: As I previously stated, which the critics seemed to have ignored (why is it that the most dismissive critics always ignore key information??) the plain fact that the Buran, a near carbon copy of the US shuttle, has been flown with four turbojet engines on a large number of flights, proves that the Atlantis orbiter can also be flown similarly.<br /><br />A tip for the aerodynamics dillettante: High swept delta wings primarily generate lift through vortical generation, not Bernoulli effects or basic laminar flow velocity/pressure differentials.

 

[drwayne]

"Buran, a near carbon copy of the US shuttle"<br /><br />I wouldn't call it a carbon copy. It did not after all have engines.<br /><br />I thought that the Buran Analogue program to which you refer was a special build craft, not a spaceworthy vehicle.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

I had a class in CATIA last semester. That software package is so powerful. We only learned the basics to designing stuff in it, no testing but the professor showed us some higher level course projects that had been done and they can run like virtual hands in parts to see if maintence guys can really get their hands and tools in places to fix parts and stuff, really neat. I believe the 787 is the first plane to be completely modeled. I bet the CEV will be completely done on computer too.<br /><br />I wonder how much of the shuttle is nowadays? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

The point is that if Buran can fly like an airliner in powered flight with jet engines, so can Atlantis, esp after you put a Enterprise style cowling over the ass end of it to reduce its drag.

 

[mlorrey]

Actually, the 777 was the first to be completely modelled. Boeing was pretty proud of that back then.<br /><br />BTW: as someone who spent several years in hands on acft maint, I sympathize with the poster complaining about the nut in that galley part. Engineers, even with these tools, too often assume mechanics are monkeys with arms hanging down to their knees that they drag around on the ground, and their hands are spectrally thin... Should always shave a few inches off what CATIA claims is reachable arm length or room enough for hands to get through. Engineers cheat by making custom hands and arms in their software.<br /><br />Dropping nuts isn't the only problem: dropping tools deep into airframes is also possible, and with aircraft, Foriegn Object Damage comes from more than just stuff on the ground sucked in by engines, loose nuts and tools bouncing around inside an airframe can damage fluid or pressurized air lines, short across electrical contacts, etc.

 

[nolirogari]

Interesting- when Mercury ended, the only person grumbling was Shepard- because he wanted to do one more flight himself. When Gemini ended, no one was lamenting- they were all looking forward to Apollo. When Apollo ended everyone involved was simply praying that no one would cancel Skylab before SL-2 could launch And when ASTP splashed down and ended the era of the Saturns, most of America hardly noticed.<br /><br />Perhaps it is time for the shuttle to end and for everyone to do what was done after Gemini and LOOK FORWARD with a a can-do and a "Go" attitude.<br /><br />The shuttle is a FANTASTIC system and considering it was born out of the crumbs that congress and the Nixon administration left on the 1972 budget table for NASA to starve on, it is even more fantastic. Now it's time to phase it out and for gosh sakes not leave a gap for the vote grubs to worm into and try another Apollo style cancellation sell-job. Start stacking the SDLVs ASAP- move on and move up and kick some lunar dust.

 

[mattblack]

EXACTLY!! Well said, nolirogari. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

So you're admitting it could fly at 17,000 ft altitudes? That is plenty of room for a whoop-dee-doo and such. We're not talking about a long trip: 45 minutes to an hour at most with a multimedia presentation.<br /><br />Actually, the Molniya website says its capable of reaching 6,000 meters, not 5,000, can reach up to 600 kph, and lands at about 300 kph. Turns out the Buran jet was sold to an Australian company, was later found in Bahrain, and has been purchased by a German tourism company.<br /><br />I'd say that flying to 6,000 meters altitude fits the definition of "fly like an airliner in powered flight with jet engines"...<br /><br />The Lyulka 31 engine in A/B generates 27,000 lb thrust. Non-AB generates 18,000 lb thrust. Mass 1530 kg (3370 lbs), its T/W ratio is barely over 8. I'd also note that the flying Buran never had an aerodynamic cowling on it like the Enterprise did. This reduces drag by half, so the shuttles 5.5 L/D ratio would double to 11, significantly higher than the Buran's 6.5.<br /><br />Given the lighter US Shuttle, and the subsonic speed range for a amusement ride, I'd mount two PW4000 high bypass turbofans (99,000 lbf thrust each), under each OMS pod. The PW4000 weighs 9400 lb, so it has a T/W ratio of greater than 10, and 198,000 lbs thrust should provide enough to reach airliner speeds and altitudes.

 

[john_316]

wow....<br /><br />can someone simulate this on a PC someplace and give us some more figures. I mean it sounds interesting...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

I suppose i could work up a sim in X-Plane.... let me put that on the list...

 

[mlorrey]

Well, with turbine engines installed, with their own generators, you don't need the fuel cells, so those get chucked. There is tons of room in the wings and under the cargo compartment for fuel tanks.<br /><br />The Buran jet project simply installed a tank in the cargo compartment that took up 1/4 of the space.<br /><br />Okay, I've converted the stock Space Shuttle in X-Plane to one with two PW4xxx engines and a cover for the rear end like that used on the Enterprise. Right now I'm changing the cockpit and working out the proper CG location for this. The glide version has the CG too far forward, and I need to install flap controls that set the flaps upward to do the takeoff rotation. After that, modding the graphics of the livery for the new fuselage layout. <br /><br />I'm barely able to get it off the ground, but that is an issue of the CG being in the wrong place, because it doesn't want to rotate, and when it does it flies very unstably. I think one issue is the nose gear is shorter than the main gear, so the wings have a negative AOA on the ground, which impedes getting lift. I'll report back once I get these issues ironed out in the sim.

 

[mlorrey]

There are four control surfaces on the wings, two inboard and two outboard. Aelerons and elevons are the main uses, though with delta wings, you can use the inboard ones as flaps as well, depending on the vehicle. Given that the body flap is behind the fuselage, I don't see it as being very useful except in high AOA maneuvers and to pitch down. In trying to pitch up, I doubt the body flap would help at all.

 

[willpittenger]

Personally, I think one orbiter should be setup to allow complete tours. However, that scaffolding could be used. To me, let the taxpayers see the inside of the bay up close. Alternatively, have the bay open displaying something like SpaceLab.<br /><br />The aft part could be excluded completely as most visitors would not understand the collection of pipes. However, photos nearby would be a good idea. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

When you say "gutted," I start thinking of seats, instruments, and everything being removed. I hope that NASM is not displaying Enterprise that way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

The earliest shuttle designs did have jet engines built in. However, those were deleted later. I think they were attempting to save weight. The change was to have detachable engines that could for ferry flights. I have no idea why that design did not survive. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

When Boeing discontinued the 727, it was because the 757 was available. If 757 is in the same class commercially, perhaps it would perform similar as a Vomit Comet. However, it would hopefully, being newer, reduce maintenance costs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The only non flying Orbiter with a OV number that I know of was 099. The 0XX number was for non flying vehicles. 099, of course, was supposed to be a structural test article only<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>It just so happens that OV 099 flew. It was later destroyed with a teacher on board in January 1986. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

777 used it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

What if ISS is not done yet? Only the shuttle can launch most of the remaining components. When the Russians launch a component, they have to add fuel to the payload so it has a way to reach the station. With an orbiter, the fuel is provided by the shuttle and does not count as part of the payload. Either way, the limit appears to be 20 tons. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

What are the weights of the various station components? Which ones go over 20 tons?

 

[willpittenger]

Do the 747s that transport the orbiters have space internally for the tail cones? They look quite large and awkward to move around by themselves. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>