Interesting OLD space shuttle article

[Blur]

Yes, but if it had been mounted on top, and fitted with something similar to the old "escape tower rocket", there is a high liklihood it could have aborted.<br /><br />Like the article said 'There is a plan if there is a failure in one of the SRB's. The plan is, you die.'

 

[holmec]

>It's good to know that not everybody in those days was delusional. <<br /><br />Sound like the author of the article was delusional. Now were looking at something bigger than the Shuttle. An infrastructre. The question is not weather you are a fan of the shuttle or not but where to we go from here. What lessons have we leaned and can we learned. The author of this article makes fun of the size of the shuttle by comparing it to the Spruce Goose. How far have we come in our thinking since then? We went through Mir era, and now ISS. We have Hubble that gave us images beyond our belief. We have benefited from the Shuttle program.<br /><br />Why is Lycan359 so demanding? Lycan359 I do not appreciate the badgering on Shuttle_RTF.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[farmerman]

I agree putting the shuttle on top would be the thing, but how tall would the stack be? the three engines would be below the main tank, could something that tall work? Just thinking about mass, there is alot more mass/weight in the shuttle riding up high than what was on top in the apollo program. Considering how fast the shuttle leaps of the pad now and considering how heavy the shuttle is and the cargo it carries, having that all on top, I would think the whole stack would whip around something like the old films in early nasa history when the first rockets would blast off and go sideways. I guess to me the whole stack would be out of balance to fly, to top heavy. Going back to challenger if she was on top they would have need some sensor or some real time video to show what was going on to save her for an escape.

 

[holmec]

Well they also could have made the orbiter into two ships. One the crew compartment with wings to fly down and the other the cargo bay with parachutes to land with. That way they could be launched with two rockets and disperse the risk. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[Blur]

It probably wouldn't be much taller than a Saturn V. The shuttel is stacked in the same building that the Saturn V was integrated in, and stacking the shuttle involves lifting it over the main tank, so height should be similar. <br /><br />The shuttle itself would be shorter and lighter if the engines weren't attached to it. Engines should be in a jettissonable pod below the main tank. That way, you don't have to apply TPS or deorbit the entire massive tank. No engines on the shuttle should make the entire structure lighter as you expend less energy upon reentry, need less support from wings, landing gear, etc.<br /><br />Of course, I still don't think it makes sense to risk a bunch of astronauts lives every time you want to launch some boring com satellite or something. I think that was a politically motivated decision as much as anything.<br /><br />Think about it- if you want to launch a 40 ton satellite, is it really a good idea to take a 130 ton airplane and seven people along for the ride? The shuttle has similar liftoff weights and thrust as the Saturn V, but delivers 1/5 the payload to orbit! <br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

How about a reuseable LOX/Kerosene first stage that splashes down like the SRBs.<br /><br />A throw away LH2/LOX second stage<br /><br />Resusable capsule/lifting body/space plane OR throw away cargo module OR unmanned capsule/lifting body/space plane to retrive stuff from orbit.