Question about Shuttle Return Payload Capacity

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brandbll

Guest
I was wondering what the return payload capacity is for the Space Shuttle... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was wondering what the return payload capacity is for the Space Shuttle... <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV><br /><br />If I remember correctly it is 15 metric tons. Buran was able to return 20 metric tons.</p><p>But somebody who really knows may confirm or deny my toughts... <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

brandbll

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I remember correctly it is 15 metric tons. Buran was able to return 20 metric tons.But somebody who really knows may confirm or deny my toughts... <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV><br /><br />Basically, could we bring thhe Hubble Telescope back down to Earth? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was wondering what the return payload capacity is for the Space Shuttle... <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The Shuttle must be able to perform a return To Launch Site (RTLS) abort. Thus the return payload capability is the same as it's launch payload capability.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
<p><font color="#800080">Basically, could we bring thhe Hubble Telescope back down to Earth? Posted by brandbll</font></p><p>The Hubble was designed to be brought back to earth should a major malfunction require that. Mass of the Hubble telescope is about 25,000 lbs. Back during the Spacelab program, I recall hearing that the shuttle could only return 32,000 lbs in a nominal return mission. But like SG says, the shuttle has to be able to return with full payload capacity should an RTLS occur.</p><p>A heavier return payload mass would likely increase the distance from touchdown to wheelstop of the shuttle upon landing. What I would call a rollout distance. An empty orbiter should rollout at a shorter distance than a shuttle with 45,000 lbs in the bay.&nbsp;</p><p>The question then becomes, how much does increased mass cause the shuttle rollout distance to increase? The SLF runway is 15,000 feet of usable strip for the shuttle and IIRC, the average shuttle mission uses up around 8,000 feet of runway. An RTLS might use up 10 or 12,000 feet but I don't know for sure but its probably well below the 15,000 foot runway length.</p> <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>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The Shuttle must be able to perform a return To Launch Site (RTLS) abort. Thus the return payload capability is the same as it's launch payload capability. <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Not true.&nbsp; NASA accepted increased risks for RTLS with higher landing weights for the orbiter.&nbsp; Nominal end of mission payload weight was never higher than 32K lbs.&nbsp; </p>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Basically, could we bring thhe Hubble Telescope back down to Earth? <br /> Posted by brandbll</DIV></p><p>It would require the shuttle to fly up empty to retrieve HST.&nbsp; Not worth the cost.&nbsp; Also there have been many mods/additions (cryocooler radiator, new arrays, etc)&nbsp; to the HST that would have to be removed to allow it to fit in the payload bay&nbsp;</p>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
<p><font color="#800080">It would require the shuttle to fly up empty to retrieve HST.&nbsp; Not worth the cost.&nbsp; Also there have been many mods/additions (cryocooler radiator, new arrays, etc)&nbsp; to the HST that would have to be removed to allow it to fit in the payload bay Posted by Cygnus_2112</font></p><p>Much of the press surrounding the HST during its development, and the shuttle was the ability to bring back the Hubble. This is technically possible, even though the astronauts on such a mission might have to remove components. However, you mentioned that sending up an empty shuttle for the task would not be worth the cost. From the political and public point of view, I agree.</p><p>Even from a personal viewpoint, I'm not sure what would really be gained by bringing Hubble to earth. And Hubble to me is one of the best things we ever did in the shuttle program. Some posters here had proposed bringing it back to display in the Smithsonian which to me would be too expensive in light of current NASA budgetary problems.</p><p>A shuttle mission to bring the Hubble back would cost roughly $500 million dollars minimum. Then the cost of upgrading Hubble if thats the intended purpose plus cost of launching it back into space, another half a bill. Very expensive proposition considering that we are trying to go back to the moon.</p><p>Ground based observatories are rapidly getting to the point where they are about equal in capability to Hubble. For the price of a hubble return to earth, you could probably build five Kecks or Paranals.&nbsp;</p> <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>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
<p>Just some speculation without knowing the facts:</p><p>I think it would be cheaper to build a new hubble and launch it with the shuttle to the same orbit as the "old" hubble. Then the shuttle releases the new hubble and grabs the old one inside it to bring back to earth. At least it cannot be much more expensive than launching two shuttle missions for upgrading current one. Possibly also risk factors are lower because it would need only one flight and all the hardware would be completely new.</p><p>And this was just a speculation if we want to upgrade. At least I cannot find a good reason to do this because of the JWST and the other things like ground based observations and planned moon installed observation platform.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Not true.&nbsp; NASA accepted increased risks for RTLS with higher landing weights for the orbiter.&nbsp; Nominal end of mission payload weight was never higher than 32K lbs.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>No you are wrong. The accepted risk was for brake damage etc. NOT LOSS of the vehicle if an RTLS was called. The Orbiter must be able to perform a RTLS with any payload that is manifested. Yes, the max&nbsp;DESIRABLE return is 32 k pounds</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No you are wrong. The accepted risk was for brake damage etc. NOT LOSS of the vehicle if an RTLS was called. The Orbiter must be able to perform a RTLS with any payload that is manifested. Yes, the max&nbsp;DESIRABLE return is 32 k pounds <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>You could not be more wrong, stick to what you know, launch base processing and not payload manifesting.&nbsp; Also read the thread topic return capability not abort or landing capability.&nbsp; Also brakes are not the only constrain on payload mass, nose gear slapdown is an issue.</p><p>&nbsp;"DESIRABLE" is just plain wrong term.&nbsp; The orbiter was designed return from orbit with a max payload of 32klb.&nbsp; No mission did or will return from orbit with a payload greater that that.&nbsp; RTLS and AOA are abort landing weights and not "return" payloads</p><p>&nbsp;Look in NSTS 07700 </p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You could not be more wrong, stick to what you know, launch base processing and not payload manifesting.&nbsp; Also read the thread topic return capability not abort or landing capability.&nbsp; Also brakes are not the only constrain on payload mass, nose gear slapdown is an issue.&nbsp;"DESIRABLE" is just plain wrong term.&nbsp; The orbiter was designed return from orbit with a max payload of 32klb.&nbsp; No mission did or will return from orbit with a payload greater that that.&nbsp; RTLS and AOA are abort landing weights and not "return" payloads&nbsp;Look in NSTS 07700 &nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>My point is that a RTLS does return the payoad. If&nbsp;someone one reads your posts about max return capability then they would believe that we launched many payloads which could not return by a RTLS, TAL&nbsp;or AOA. That is, of course, wrong.&nbsp;You need to expand your knowledge beyond payload ops.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My point is that a RTLS does return the payoad. If&nbsp;someone one reads your posts about max return capability then they would believe that we launched many payloads which could not return by a RTLS, TAL&nbsp;or AOA. That is, of course, wrong.&nbsp;You need to expand your knowledge beyond payload ops.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>Okay guys, let's back off for a moment.&nbsp; It appears that you are both correct, but for different contexts.&nbsp; Many users are more interested in knowing what the nominal landing mass for the Shuttle would be, but it is helpful to know that any mass payload should result in a survivable RTLS (insofar as RTLS is acheivable anyway, it being a very difficult maneuver in the best of circumstances).</p><p>Just a thought -- is the maximum RTLS mass higher in part because in that situation, one is less concerned about doing damage to the vehicle in such a dire situation?&nbsp; (After all, in RTLS, the real priority is crew survivability.&nbsp; Needing to replace all of the gear would be an acceptable price for getting them back alive.) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
<p><font color="#800080">The orbiter was designed return from orbit with a max payload of 32klb.&nbsp; No mission did or will return from orbit with a payload greater that that.&nbsp; RTLS and AOA are abort landing weights and not "return" payloads&nbsp;Look in NSTS 07700 Posted by Cygnus_2112</font></p><p>The shuttle could be required to abort with the heaviest of payloads and Murphys law would probably make sure it happens that way. I would think the shuttle would be designed to at least land with the full 65,000 lb capability it was originally designed for in order to assure a safe return for the crew.</p><p>As Cali pointed out, it may be the context. In a nominal mission, the shuttle probably was rated for no more than 32K return capability. I've never seen that in any documentation I have ever seen and I currently do not have access to NSTS 07700. But I have heard the 32K figure before and have always assumed that the shuttle was designed to return with 32K under ideal conditions, not RTLS or other abort modes.</p><p>My earlier post took that into consideration. I mentioned that the shuttle could probably return with 65,000 lbs of payload. Return intact? Thats a different question since an RTLS has so far never had to actually be performed. I would think the shuttle could return intact but use a lot of runway with 65,000 lbs which was probably one of the considerations that drove the requirement for a 15,000 foot runway.</p><p>The shuttle might land and roll out in 12,000 feet but otherwise be fine. Although NASA officials would probably retire the orbiter in question citing airframe overstressing. At the very least, ground the orbiter until thorough testing could verify its reflight capability.</p><p>Unless or until an abort actually occurs, we probably wont ever really know for certain. We know what it was designed for, but even NASA stressed RTLS as being the one maneuver it hoped would never have to be tested so to speak. In fact, prior to STS-1 when the main concerns about shuttle flights were SSME and TPS readiness, a deliberate RTLS type mission profile was considered but abandoned as "Too risky".</p><p>In a book I wrote a few years back. I considered the possibility of what might happen if the shuttle aborted then fell short of the SLF but the crew knew it was falling short and had another landing target in sight. The Crawlerway. NASA would have to immediatly evac the affected areas then allow the shuttle to land on the crawlerway.</p><p>Before anyone starts mentioning all the drawbacks, remember...if NASA decides the difference would be a crawlerway landing with a live crew and not landing...committing the crew to certain death if they are too late for bailout. I think they would choose a crawlerway landing. The shuttle itself would be damaged probably beyond repair and the crew might even sustain significant injuries. But they would be alive assuming such a scenario occured.</p><p>I bring that up because it would be something that nobody ever considered at NASA AFAIK. No documentation to cover it AFAIK but a scenario however unlikely, still not impossible. Its also one that the actual outcome would not be known with 100% certainty but for the purpose of the book, it was illustrated as successful.</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/df048faf-0e0f-40e3-9368-b2dfef3089da.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br />&nbsp;</p> <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>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Okay guys, let's back off for a moment.&nbsp; It appears that you are both correct, but for different contexts.&nbsp; Many users are more interested in knowing what the nominal landing mass for the Shuttle would be, but it is helpful to know that any mass payload should result in a survivable RTLS (insofar as RTLS is acheivable anyway, it being a very difficult maneuver in the best of circumstances).Just a thought -- is the maximum RTLS mass higher in part because in that situation, one is less concerned about doing damage to the vehicle in such a dire situation?&nbsp; (After all, in RTLS, the real priority is crew survivability.&nbsp; Needing to replace all of the gear would be an acceptable price for getting them back alive.) <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Another thing is that on a RTLS, the speed of the orbiter is much lower. </p><p>When the orbiter hits the atmosphere returning from orbit, it's going ~ 17,500 mph.</p><p>Is the return from orbit constraint at the top of the atmosphere, or the physics of hitting the runway.</p><p>On a RTLS, that's a moot point....any landing you walk away from under those circumstances is a good one.</p><p>MW</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p>prior to STS-1 when the main concerns about shuttle flights were SSME and TPS readiness, a deliberate RTLS type mission profile was considered but abandoned as "Too risky".</p><p>That is correct, however the biggest issue with an intentional RTLs was that the flight control software had a problem. The computers would have pulled the wings off during ET sep. because the computers would pitch the Orbiter up to rapidly.&nbsp;(ET sep during a RTLS takes place&nbsp;lower than during any other abort or normal flight. The dynamic pressure is significant.). Until the software was fixed and certified the crews were trained to do RTLS ET sep while manually flying the Orbiter.&nbsp;The crews were being killed&nbsp;a high percentage of the simulations...........&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
<p><font color="#800080">That is correct, however the biggest issue with an intentional RTLs was that the flight control software had a problem. The computers would have pulled the wings off during ET sep. because the computers would pitch the Orbiter up to rapidly.&nbsp;(ET sep during a RTLS takes place&nbsp;lower than during any other abort or normal flight. The dynamic pressure is significant.). Until the software was fixed and certified the crews were trained to do RTLS ET sep while manually flying the Orbiter.&nbsp;The crews were being killed&nbsp;a high percentage of the simulations...........Posted by shuttle_guy</font></p><p>Wow, I always wondered what the specifics were.&nbsp;</p> <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
<p><font color="#800080">Another thing is that on a RTLS, the speed of the orbiter is much lower. When the orbiter hits the atmosphere returning from orbit, it's going ~ 17,500 mph.Is the return from orbit constraint at the top of the atmosphere, or the physics of hitting the runway.On a RTLS, that's a moot point....any landing you walk away from under those circumstances is a good one.MW Posted by MeteorWayne</font></p><p>I would have to say the main constraint is the physics of landing. The shuttle is about as aerodynamic as a brick compared to conventional aircraft. Added weight will increase landing rolls. I personally think the shuttle would do pretty well in an RTLS, but its not something I'd want to test deliberately if I were a NASA manager or engineer. </p> <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>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Another thing is that on a RTLS, the speed of the orbiter is much lower. When the orbiter hits the atmosphere returning from orbit, it's going ~ 17,500 mph.Is the return from orbit constraint at the top of the atmosphere, or the physics of hitting the runway.On a RTLS, that's a moot point....any landing you walk away from under those circumstances is a good one.MW Posted by MeteorWayneI would have to say the main constraint is the physics of landing. The shuttle is about as aerodynamic as a brick compared to conventional aircraft. Added weight will increase landing rolls. I personally think the shuttle would do pretty well in an RTLS, but its not something I'd want to test deliberately if I were a NASA manager or engineer. <br />Posted by qso1</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I have flown in the JSC Shuttle simulatore 3 times as a MS1 in the flight deck aft right hand seat. In the one RTLS we did we were killed.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I have flown in the JSC Shuttle simulatore 3 times as a MS1 in the flight deck aft right hand seat. In the one RTLS we did we were killed. <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV><br /><br />We're very happy it was a simulator!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We're very happy it was a simulator!! <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I feel the same way.</p><p>Actually the sim. guys stopped the sim run as we looked out the forward windows at the sea coming up at 500 mph. It seems the simulator math model gets very disorganized if it actually crashes.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I feel the same way.Actually the sim. guys stopped the sim run as we looked out the forward windows at the sea coming up at 500 mph. It seems the simulator math model gets very <span style="font-style:italic">disorganized</span> if it actually crashes.&nbsp; Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV> (Emphasis added)</p><p>It sounds like a very, very accurate simulator. :)</p><p>I'm envious. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
Very Interesting. SG, what's an MS1? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Very Interesting. SG, what's an MS1? <br /> Posted by earth_bound_misfit</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Mission Specialist 1, which serves as a flight engineer&nbsp;</p>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Mission Specialist 1, which serves as a flight engineer&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>No, MS1 sits to the right of the Flight Engineer who's position is MS2.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts