Shuttle Orbiter, test to failure?

[kelvinzero]

Thanks baktothemoon and docm <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">"No way. " <br /><br />Way. It has been documented over and over, the soviet built the shuttle because the US did and they followed the basic design. The US shuttle vs Buran is no where like Blackjack vs B-1. The US design is due to many compromises, which the soviets didn't need to follow but they did.</font><br /><br />Nope. Just like hundreds of other times, the Soviets wanted to build a piece of equipment that could match or exceed the capabilities of "western/American" equipment, they had their engineers build a machine that was as capable as their western counterparts. The SU-25 to the A-10 is another example where the Soviets wanted to do the same job, but came up with a very different piece of equipment. I could list a hundred more. The Soviet engineers never needed to "copy" our equipment, those guys were/are plenty good in their own right. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[roykirk]

For those who have never heard of the X-20A Dyna-Soar project. It would have been nice to see it fly. No worries about foam or ice damage! Check it out<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm <br /><br /><br />

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">They had trouble with the brakes, though; and tried to buy them from Boeing's supplier through a "middleman".</font><br /><br />I never knew that. I wonder what part of the brakes gave them trouble? I have to say, the first time I looked at a B-29 up close and personal, I was amazed at how much like a modern airplane it was, unlike a B-17, which looked like it was cut and put together with tin snips and A&P students. The B-29 seemed a close match to my 727. <br /><br />*EDIT* <br />I'm not knocking the B-17, it's an awesome airplane in it's own right, and I wouldn't exist if it wasn't such a great machine.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

""Edit: When was the last time any LV (no fins) crashed nose first? Never "<br /><br />Prove it Einstein.<br /><br />There have been cases because early LV were aerodynamically stable. Checkout the V2 for example."<br /><br />1. I said launch vehicles, not rockets<br />2. The V2 doesn't qualify as a launch vehicle<br />3. I said no fins

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The Soviet engineers never needed to "copy" our equipment, "<br /><br />They copied the shuttle configuration and it is proven

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> You should not let jim from nsf get to you. </font><br /><br />Give jim a break. He's really just a nice guy. He only wants everybody to check with him before they start a thread or make a post. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

SG<br />This started because you said<br />A bad idea since that would move the CP way to far forward."<br /><br />rocketwatcher said <br />"some type of stablizers to to keep the center of pressure behind the center of gravity?"<br /><br />I pointed out that that is not a requirement.<br /><br />OPS, X-38, Deamchaser and Dynasoar were/are going to have winged vehicles on top of launch vehicle. ASSET flew on top of Thors. <br />Early shuttle versions had the shuttle on the top of the stack<br />Most launch vehicles fly with a CP forward of the CG.

 

[jimfromnsf]

There was fins only on the Titan I version, not the T-III because of increased control margins . So the Dynasoar example works for my side too

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">"The Soviet engineers never needed to "copy" our equipment, " <br /><br />They copied the shuttle configuration and it is proven </font><br /><br />Absolutely wrong. What they did was build a machine with the same or greater capabilities. It happens to look like our Shuttle Orbiter because it's the right way to build a Shuttle Orbiter. They put their Orbiter almost exactly where we did because it's the right place to put it, aerodynamiclly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"It happens to look like our Shuttle Orbiter because it's the right way to build a Shuttle Orbiter."<br /><br />I wasn't just referring to the Orbiter, but the whole shuttle vehicle, with the sidemounted orbiter and the strapon boosters. That is not the only way to build a shuttle nor it is the "right" way. <br /><br />And have you ever attended a DOD briefing on the soviet shuttle? It has been stated over and over than soviet shuttle (not orbiter) is a copy of the US.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">And have you ever attended a DOD briefing on the soviet shuttle? It has been stated over and over than soviet shuttle (not orbiter) is a copy of the US. </font><br /><br />So you think it's a copy, even though it is totally different in almost every way except where the orbiter is located on the stack? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Did you notice the very large fins to keep the CP low...and that was with a lifting body on top not a vehicle with wings.</font><br /><br />Those fins are even bigger than I expected them to be.<br /><br />SLV-4 / X-20 Launch Vehicles - from left, Titan I, Titan C, Saturn I, Titan 3, Phoenix (SLS A-388) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

The final Titan-IIIC configuration had no fins. Those were earlier proposals when guidance systems weren't as advanced

 

[jimfromnsf]

"it is totally different"<br /><br />Orbiter on the side of a tank with strap on boosters is not totally different. No more than a 727 is different than a Trident.

 

[grdja]

If astronautix is to be believed, Soviet engineers toyed with various designs, some better than shuttle, but were ordered to make it as similar to shuttle as possible so no one could claim Soviet equipment is inferior to US.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">The final Titan-IIIC configuration had no fins. Those were earlier proposals when guidance systems weren't as advanced</font><br /><br />Interesting. They would have to create huge control moments so fast that I would think would be impractical. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm surprised that you think it would work well enought to put people on it. A launch vehicle like the one we are talking about would destroy itself in a few thousanths of a second if the guidance system hicupped.<br /><br /> At the risk of getting to personal about your posts, your posts have always seemed very negative. This is the first positive position I've ever seen in your posts, and I like it. <br /><br />My personal feeling is to leave the configuration roughly the way it is, and use all hypergolics, and fly-back boosters.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Orbiter on the side of a tank with strap on boosters is not totally different. No more than a 727 is different than a Trident.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The similarities and differences between STS and Energia-Buran are sufficient to merit an independent thread; it's a fascinating topic. But I'll put a short contribution here. If there is interest, I'd be happy to start a new one.<br /><br />They are different vehicles. There are some strong superficial similarities, but to describe Energia-Buran as a copy of the STS is to underestimate the amount of work that went into it -- and to underestimate the unique capabilities of Energia. Most notably, it is not an orbiter on the side of a tank with strap on boosters. It is an orbiter on the side of a super heavy lift rocket, the only one built since the days of the moon race. It might look like an external tank, but that big white thing is actually a gargantuan cryogenic liquid fueled core stage. Buran itself had no main engines. The most obvious advantage this gave to Energia is that it didn't need the orbiter to fly. It could also fly massive unmanned payloads, a la "Shuttle-C". And it did, exactly once. Sadly, like all of the great super heavy-lift boosters, Energia was just too expensive to justify itself in the absence of some huge project like a moon mission. <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>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"My personal feeling is to leave the configuration roughly the way it is, and use all hypergolics, and fly-back boosters. "<br /><br />My personal feeling is leave cargo to the ELV's or unmanned RLV's and crew on a Dynasoar or capsule<br /><br />

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">My personal feeling is leave cargo to the ELV's or unmanned RLV's and crew on a Dynasoar or capsule</font><br /><br />Sort of what I have been thinking, except where payload return is a requirement, or you need astronauts to work on the up-going payload, and you need the big orbiter. For the big Orbiter, how would you do it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Calli-<br />The more I learn about Barun, the more I am impressed by it, and of course Energia. I'd love to see a thread that highlights these awesome machines, and I believe we have a good group of folks that can teach me a lot about them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"1. payload return is a requirement, <br />2. you need astronauts to work on the up-going payload,"<br /><br />1. There isn't a real requirement for this. Most payloads are out of reach. A few hundreds/thousands of lbs of payload is all that is needed. Not a whole spacecraft.<br /><br />2. The astronauts go up on another vehicle.<br /><br />

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Jim-<br />Your customer has required it, so make it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

The idea of returning large structures to earth (satellites for repair? Military things?) has pretty much gone out of favor.<br /><br />Some cargoes do not need people working on them at all. ISS needs people crawling all over it to put it together with hand tools because it was designed to be built that way. There are other ways of doing it.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

But ISS is by far the most capible space station ever built. I don't see any way that a space station such as Mir could ever be able to support the same operations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>