- Status
No way would I trust the private sector with the Space Shuttle. They're too old and and like everything else, all that matters is the 'bottom line'. No oversight on safety. Just look at the TSA or the FAA or any other oversight government organization. Retire the Shuttles, sell them to the highest bidder in the education/history fields and let private enterprise lead the way to LEO. Let NASA explore the solar system and develop other propulsion methods.
Another thing, I'm not a 'green' guy but until there is another way other than chemical propulsion, once commercial flights to LEO become commonplace, I bet the earth warms up a degree or two from all the pollution from rocket exhausts.
If, 50 years from now, we're still burning LOX and LH2, Kerosene, Hydrazine or whatever, we should be ashamed to call ourselves a space-faring planet. JMTC.
CTG
Another thing, I'm not a 'green' guy but until there is another way other than chemical propulsion, once commercial flights to LEO become commonplace, I bet the earth warms up a degree or two from all the pollution from rocket exhausts.
If, 50 years from now, we're still burning LOX and LH2, Kerosene, Hydrazine or whatever, we should be ashamed to call ourselves a space-faring planet. JMTC.
CTG
ZenDraken":2uun0f9e said:
A Soyus class payload and probably two stage rocket would need a much bigger then 747-class White Knight. Even four 100,000 pound engines probably wouldn't do it and that's about as big as they get.
>>None of this makes any sense. If the fleet wasn't aging and their was a more cost effective way to using the fleet, why would NASA be retiring the shuttle in the first place? Why wouldn't NASA be doing all those things stated in the OP if they were that simple? How the heck did this thread make it to the front page?<<
This is a very inportant question. But you are making the assumption that NASA is acting on the basis of logic.
If ANYONE has any documented evidence that Shuttle maintenance man-hours are higher now than they were early in the program, or that failure rates are higher, please provide some evidence. STS-129 crushed the previous recored for the smallest number of problem reports. The amount of tile maintenance needed has dropped sharply simce the improvements made after the Columbia loss due to improvements in the foam design and application.
The reason per-flight cost is so high is that so much of the overhead cost of NASA is charged tot he Shuttle program. If Shuttle is terminated that overhead will have to be charged to Constellation, which requires most of the same facilities to be maintained, and with its lower flight rate the per-flight cost will actually be higher for Constellation.
As to safety, the shuttles are inspected and maintained after every flight. We have many aircraft in service that are older, and numerous changes have been made that have greatly improved safety. Again, if ANYONE has evidence that shuttle failure rates are actually increasing with time, or that there are age-limited components that cannot bereplaced during normal maintenance, please provide it.
Obviously the shuttles should be replaced, if and when we have something better. But Ares/Orion does not provide any advantage, over Shuttle since it has less payload, flies less often, and is at least as expensive. Again, if there's any evidence, to the contrary, I would be as happy as anyone to see it.
This is a very inportant question. But you are making the assumption that NASA is acting on the basis of logic.
If ANYONE has any documented evidence that Shuttle maintenance man-hours are higher now than they were early in the program, or that failure rates are higher, please provide some evidence. STS-129 crushed the previous recored for the smallest number of problem reports. The amount of tile maintenance needed has dropped sharply simce the improvements made after the Columbia loss due to improvements in the foam design and application.
The reason per-flight cost is so high is that so much of the overhead cost of NASA is charged tot he Shuttle program. If Shuttle is terminated that overhead will have to be charged to Constellation, which requires most of the same facilities to be maintained, and with its lower flight rate the per-flight cost will actually be higher for Constellation.
As to safety, the shuttles are inspected and maintained after every flight. We have many aircraft in service that are older, and numerous changes have been made that have greatly improved safety. Again, if ANYONE has evidence that shuttle failure rates are actually increasing with time, or that there are age-limited components that cannot bereplaced during normal maintenance, please provide it.
Obviously the shuttles should be replaced, if and when we have something better. But Ares/Orion does not provide any advantage, over Shuttle since it has less payload, flies less often, and is at least as expensive. Again, if there's any evidence, to the contrary, I would be as happy as anyone to see it.
There is no question that this is a very bad idea. Even if it were possible (which it is really not), cheeper (which it is also not), and safer (which it is really not), the shuttle have served their purpose and have a place in history. Having done their job they need to be turned back over to the American people to preserve as a part of our history.
maybe they would be best use for a small spacestation... built all of them togethe in space or if possible land them on the moon or mars and use them as habita for the first mission there... I know they cant do that them self .. but they can go to space and then and then add what need to them in space ... or maybe take them apart here and send them in big pack .. maybe 10 or more with the tech we allrigth use to thos mission and put them back togethe again
blackarrowwillliveagain":1yhdv3t8 said:
As I mentioned before, the key fact is it wouldn't be expensive to use without the massively expensive (and expendable)external tank, the solid rocket boosters, and the SSME's, the most expensive and labor intensive rocket engines ever made.
For a first stage use where you have a heavy upper stage, the delta-V that the orbiter would reach would be significantly reduced, say, to about 2,000 m/s. You could use much simpler, lighter, and nearly maintenance-free thermal protection systems as well, so those costs would also be drastically cut.
Bob Clark
brandbll":163a6q6a said:
A truly evil suggestion {As Wayne's hand hovers over "The Big Red Button"}
najab":dysi56pb said:
I agree with you that several other options would also work that would also be relatively low cost. For instance on another forum someone suggested using the Russian Burans instead. Likewise you could use the Shuttle Enterprise. This didn't have engines or heat shield, but you would need to use different engines anyway, and for the first stage use you could use much more lightweight and maintenance-free thermal protection.
The Russian Burans have been ill treated since the cancellation of that program. The Buran that made the orbital flight was destroyed in a hangar collapse in 2002. The Buran that was used only for subsonic flight tests had been attempted to be sold over the internet for $6 million - with no takers. According to the Wikipedia page on it, it currently resides at a German museum:
OK-GLI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK-GLI
There are several other Burans that were only partially completed that also could be used:
Buran program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Bu ... ent_status
According to this video report, there are some Russian and American scientists who want to revive the Buran, with the American shuttle being retired:
Soviet space shuttle could bail out NASA.
"The Soviet-era Buran space programme, mothballed 20 years ago, may be revived. With NASA about to retire its aging fleet of space shuttles, there is a pressing need for viable space transport."
Published 15 November, 2008, 09:44
http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2008-11-15/So ... ?fullstory
Additionally other airframes intended for supersonic speed could also be used. These would be for example supersonic fighters or bombers, or passenger craft such as the Concorde, with delta-shaped wings. DC-9's or Boeing or Airbus type jets would not be suitable because the wings are designed for subsonic flight. Airframes with short-stubby wings such as the hypersonic, X-15 and X-34 would also work.
See the examples of delta-winged craft here:
Delta wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_wing
Then mothballed versions of these probably could be purchased at low cost. The jet engines would be removed and replaced with rocket engines. With the rocket propellant contained only in the wing tanks, they could probably reach sufficient delta-V for suborbital space tourism or hypersonic transport. If most of the fuselage volume previously used for cargo, payload, or bomb bays, was also used now to hold propellant, it is possible these could become fully orbital vehicles. If similar sized craft were made of all-composite construction they almost certainly could become fully orbital, reusable, SSTO's.
Bob Clark
Never happen. Even if all the engine tech was sold along with the orbiter for, say, another few tens of millions, that "just" leaves the small issue of expertise and support. Is a private company expected to hire all the experts from NASA to maintain a shuttle? Or hire all new experts and spend a few years reading the manuals and figuring it out from scratch? Makes no sense! The big advantage at Scaled or SpaceX or any of the private ventures is that they developed their systems themselves. That knowledge is probably worth a multiple of the cost of the hardware they offer.
The only "space tourism" the shuttles are going to do are for K-12 visits as static displays in museums. At $42 mil I could almost (sic) see a viable business plan for a real shuttle on display at a theme park. But as someone else has already commented, much better the orbiters get retired for the benefit of the public. One to the Smithsonian, one to permanent display at Cape Kennedy, and one to Houston?
The only "space tourism" the shuttles are going to do are for K-12 visits as static displays in museums. At $42 mil I could almost (sic) see a viable business plan for a real shuttle on display at a theme park. But as someone else has already commented, much better the orbiters get retired for the benefit of the public. One to the Smithsonian, one to permanent display at Cape Kennedy, and one to Houston?
I think you're failing to answer the most fundamental question about your suggestion. If you are going to spend $40M for an existing spacecraft and then spend $200M 'upgrading' it to end up with a system that does 95% of what you want it to, why not spend $250M to get a brand new spacecraft that does 100% of what you want?
ZenDraken":1evliwaz said:
My proposal could carry 100 people for space tourism or hypersonic transport. This is 16 times the number carried by SpaceShipTwo. How much do you think it would cost to develop a ship 16 time as large? Perhaps 16 times as much as the $150 million development cost for WK2 and SS2, so to $2.4 billion?
Bob Clark
Geoduck2":1jdnhz1i said:
If you did use wet wings for tankage, that would add greatly to the
weight of the wings. You would need extra support added of wing spars
and ribs, as well as extra support members connecting the wings to the
fuselage. But I certainly don't think it would cost say in the range
of $100 million, which is how much more the Virgin Galactic
development cost is over the purchase price of $42 million for the
orbiters. $100 million is approaching the price of entire jet
airliners, including their engines, that do have such wing
strengthening.
(It might cost that much if the government gave one of the aerospace
companies a cost-plus contract to do it. But a commercial company
would have better sense than to do it that way.)
The orbiter would be launched vertically. You probably would not want
the entire weight of the vehicle to be resting on just the engine
nozzles. You could have support pillars that lead up to connect onto
the airframe. Remember with the current shuttle after the SRB's
jettison that 1,000,000 lbs thrust from the engines is being
transmitted up through the airframe.
In regards to its feasibility, keep in mind that the orbiter is a
rocket after all. And it does have it's own engines. After ET
separation it is essentially operating in the fashion I'm suggesting
with it's own on board fuel supply, albeit with much weaker OMS engines.
And with the ET still attached, after SRB sep, it is operating as a
rocket with much higher thrust than what I'm suggesting and the
aerodynamic stresses and structural loads are even worse than in my
scenario since the ET would carry even more fuel and it is in a non-
axial position. What I'm suggesting is actually *easier* than the
current propulsion method of the shuttle system after SRB separation.
Bob Clark
Exoscientist, if you look up the original history of the design of the space shuttle orbiter you will find that all of the original designs for that vehicle were for it to be the "Second" stage of a TSTO system, and never the "First" stage!
So, using something that was never designed for a purpose for that very purpose just is plain ignorant.
Now, you might not be totally incorrect in using the space shuttle orbiter as a "Bus" for human space exploration. Indeed if it could be so used, the orbiter might just be capable of carrying as many as 100 people into LEO, using the very large internal bay. But without an actual use for so many people to get to LEO at this time, just what would be the point?
You are NOT going to place 100 extra people on the ISS! And you certainly would not have anywhere near enough life support equipment and materials to enable the orbiter itself to even stay in orbit for any amount of useful time for such "Tourists". So, unless you build a true space station with a very large capacity for having tourists on board, you really do not have a reason for such a craft anyway!
A far smaller craft as NASA originally wanted it to be, (with a capacity for 10 people at most) would be far more practical and cost affective to jump start Human Space Development in LEO. So indeed the current space shuttle (as magnificent as it has been) now has seen its day.
I may not like that, but it is the truth, and there is nothing to be done about it at this time!
Sorry about that, but that IS the way it IS!
So, using something that was never designed for a purpose for that very purpose just is plain ignorant.
Now, you might not be totally incorrect in using the space shuttle orbiter as a "Bus" for human space exploration. Indeed if it could be so used, the orbiter might just be capable of carrying as many as 100 people into LEO, using the very large internal bay. But without an actual use for so many people to get to LEO at this time, just what would be the point?
You are NOT going to place 100 extra people on the ISS! And you certainly would not have anywhere near enough life support equipment and materials to enable the orbiter itself to even stay in orbit for any amount of useful time for such "Tourists". So, unless you build a true space station with a very large capacity for having tourists on board, you really do not have a reason for such a craft anyway!
A far smaller craft as NASA originally wanted it to be, (with a capacity for 10 people at most) would be far more practical and cost affective to jump start Human Space Development in LEO. So indeed the current space shuttle (as magnificent as it has been) now has seen its day.
I may not like that, but it is the truth, and there is nothing to be done about it at this time!
Sorry about that, but that IS the way it IS!
frodo1008":ttalmd9a said:Exoscientist, if you look up the original history of the design of the space shuttle orbiter you will find that all of the original designs for that vehicle were for it to be the "Second" stage of a TSTO system, and never the "First" stage!
So, using something that was never designed for a purpose for that very purpose just is plain ignorant.
Now, you might not be totally incorrect in using the space shuttle orbiter as a "Bus" for human space exploration. Indeed if it could be so used, the orbiter might just be capable of carrying as many as 100 people into LEO, using the very large internal bay. But without an actual use for so many people to get to LEO at this time, just what would be the point?
You are NOT going to place 100 extra people on the ISS! And you certainly would not have anywhere near enough life support equipment and materials to enable the orbiter itself to even stay in orbit for any amount of useful time for such "Tourists". So, unless you build a true space station with a very large capacity for having tourists on board, you really do not have a reason for such a craft anyway!
A far smaller craft as NASA originally wanted it to be, (with a capacity for 10 people at most) would be far more practical and cost affective to jump start Human Space Development in LEO. So indeed the current space shuttle (as magnificent as it has been) now has seen its day.
I may not like that, but it is the truth, and there is nothing to be done about it at this time!
Sorry about that, but that IS the way it IS!
For the space tourism use or hypersonic transport use, note that Virgin Galactic is charging $200,000 just for space tourism and they believe they can make a profit based on a $150 million development cost, while carrying only 6 passengers per flight.
Carrying 100 passengers in my scenario would allow you to reduce the price significantly which would actually increase revenues at this high number of passengers with additionally, as I'm arguing, a lower development cost. Note also this would allow a hypersonic transport role for a large number of passengers in the airliner capacity range which actually would probably be a larger market. Imagine trips to Asia instead of taking a whole day only take 90 minutes. Note too this large number of passengers, at this short transport time anywhere in the world raises the possibility of military applications.
For the first stage booster use, it's very important to remember the Air Force believes using such reusable first stage boosters can cut launch costs by 50%. Now notice the similarity of the Lockheed first stage booster proposal to the space shuttle orbiter:
Plans for future re--usable space launch X-plane hatched.
Posted by Guy Norris at 3/31/2009 3:41 PM CDT
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/sp ... d=blogDest
A more detailed discussion:
USAF Seeks Reusable Booster Ideas.
May 14, 2009
By Graham Warwick
"The plan is to conduct an integrated demonstration of technologies and processes culminating in a subscale X-plane vehicle that would fly by 2017-18 and take the concept to a technology readiness level of 6, ready to enter full-scale development.
"AFRL has several ground-based experiments already under way involving structures, controls and systems for an operationally responsive launch vehicle. The work is focused on a reference concept for an unmanned vertical takeoff and horizontal landing reusable booster capable of turnaround in 24-48 hours and launch within 4-8 hours of a request."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 051409.xml
This is speaking of only of a subscale demonstrator by 2017-2018. I'm arguing that by using already produced airframes such as the shuttle orbiter or Buran you could have full scale demonstrators at a markedly reduced price in a shorter time frame. Note too the short turnaround time and quite short preparation time to a launch would be quite important for a hypersonic commercial transport or military transport role.
A detailed report on the Air Force's "Reusable Booster System" program is given here:
Spacelift Development Plan.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/conference/ ... elease.ppt
Notice the similarity of the first stage boosters to the shuttle orbiter in the diagram on page 8.
Bob Clark
Exo, it may very well be that the air force with its far larger space budget than even NASA is certainly interested in at least some kind of reusable earth to LEO type of vehicle. I have no problem with that thinking at all. But would they actually be interested in using NASA's cast off space shuttle orbiter for this purpose?
Please notice that while some of these ideas seem to be a relatively good match for the space shuttle, none of them are anywhere near such a match that they would be using them directly. In fact, if the orbiter would be used it would only be used as a second stage vehicle and not as a booster at all.
Many of the pictures in the PowerPoint representation are direct copies (or even directly taken) from the early designs for a TSTO human earth to LEO system that was originally envisioned by NASA for the space shuttle system itself.
Heck, it would even be somewhat of a return investment if such as DARPA was now going to do what NASA originally wanted to do, as it was to a great extent the Air Force that insisted on NASA building a space transportation system with the kind of carrying capacity that the shuttle now has, and therefore somewhat dooming the shuttle to the problems it has has all along!
However, I do not really see the air force buying up the current space shuttle assets for any military use now. I can certainly see them trying to do what NASA wanted originally wanted to do, by building an entirely new TSTO system.
Which seems to me to be just what all of these sites are saying!
Please notice that while some of these ideas seem to be a relatively good match for the space shuttle, none of them are anywhere near such a match that they would be using them directly. In fact, if the orbiter would be used it would only be used as a second stage vehicle and not as a booster at all.
Many of the pictures in the PowerPoint representation are direct copies (or even directly taken) from the early designs for a TSTO human earth to LEO system that was originally envisioned by NASA for the space shuttle system itself.
Heck, it would even be somewhat of a return investment if such as DARPA was now going to do what NASA originally wanted to do, as it was to a great extent the Air Force that insisted on NASA building a space transportation system with the kind of carrying capacity that the shuttle now has, and therefore somewhat dooming the shuttle to the problems it has has all along!
However, I do not really see the air force buying up the current space shuttle assets for any military use now. I can certainly see them trying to do what NASA wanted originally wanted to do, by building an entirely new TSTO system.
Which seems to me to be just what all of these sites are saying!
Nice video lecture here by Derek Webber of Spaceport Associates on the market possibilities of suborbital space tourism and hypersonic point-to-point transport:
05 August 2009
Updated FastForward Study Group overview presentation, Derek Webber video presentation on suborbital/point-to-point transportation.
http://www.sei.aero/com/news/newsindex.php?id=14
He discusses a market study he took part in by Futron/Zogby from 2002 on suborbital space tourism at a price point of $100,000. Virgin Galactic will charge $200,000 but Webber concludes the market in the U.S. alone might be $1 billion - $2 billion. It looks like at an initial investment of $150 million, Sir Richard Branson might have known what he was doing.
The market study is available here:
Space Tourism Market Study.
http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_cent ... tStudy.pdf
Bob Clark
05 August 2009
Updated FastForward Study Group overview presentation, Derek Webber video presentation on suborbital/point-to-point transportation.
http://www.sei.aero/com/news/newsindex.php?id=14
He discusses a market study he took part in by Futron/Zogby from 2002 on suborbital space tourism at a price point of $100,000. Virgin Galactic will charge $200,000 but Webber concludes the market in the U.S. alone might be $1 billion - $2 billion. It looks like at an initial investment of $150 million, Sir Richard Branson might have known what he was doing.
The market study is available here:
Space Tourism Market Study.
http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_cent ... tStudy.pdf
Bob Clark
There are two separate considerations in this topic: 1.)is it technically feasible, and 2.)is it financially better than just a new system.
For the first question, I don't think anyone thinks it is literally impossible based on the fact that the shuttle orbiter itself already acts as an independent rocket with quite a huge fuel tank after the SRB's jettison.
See the video of shuttle orbiters engines firing with the ET attached after SRB sep here:
NASA posts Solid Rocket Booster Video.
Published on 10 Jul 2006 at 3:54 am. 4 Comments.
Filed under In the News, Video.
http://www.dirtyskies.com/index.php/200 ... ter-video/
Other images:
The ET tank is larger than the shuttle orbiter. My proposal would be to fit a much smaller tank, both in dimensions and mass, inside the payload bay. The strengthening to the airframe would be less than what is already on the shuttle for securing the ET under full engine power.
The SSME's also put out much greater thrust than the engines I'm suggesting replacing them with. Then the SSME's already subject the orbiter to much greater loads than what I'm suggesting.
In regards to the second question, you could conceivably purchase the entire airframe including avionics, wiring etc. for under $6 million if you purchased a Buran. Undoubtedly starting from scratch to build an entire spacecraft of this size would cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
It is also unlikely merely strengthening the payload bay would cost in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars, since jet airliners have such strengthening of the wing fuel tanks with the total cost of the entire airliner including engines in the $150 million to $250 million dollar range.
Bob Clark
For the first question, I don't think anyone thinks it is literally impossible based on the fact that the shuttle orbiter itself already acts as an independent rocket with quite a huge fuel tank after the SRB's jettison.
See the video of shuttle orbiters engines firing with the ET attached after SRB sep here:
NASA posts Solid Rocket Booster Video.
Published on 10 Jul 2006 at 3:54 am. 4 Comments.
Filed under In the News, Video.
http://www.dirtyskies.com/index.php/200 ... ter-video/
Other images:
The ET tank is larger than the shuttle orbiter. My proposal would be to fit a much smaller tank, both in dimensions and mass, inside the payload bay. The strengthening to the airframe would be less than what is already on the shuttle for securing the ET under full engine power.
The SSME's also put out much greater thrust than the engines I'm suggesting replacing them with. Then the SSME's already subject the orbiter to much greater loads than what I'm suggesting.
In regards to the second question, you could conceivably purchase the entire airframe including avionics, wiring etc. for under $6 million if you purchased a Buran. Undoubtedly starting from scratch to build an entire spacecraft of this size would cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
It is also unlikely merely strengthening the payload bay would cost in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars, since jet airliners have such strengthening of the wing fuel tanks with the total cost of the entire airliner including engines in the $150 million to $250 million dollar range.
Bob Clark
GreenDude,
One my facts are off the cuff but are pretty close, two if you actually read my posts I do know most of the other things.
As for $1B, it is a little rounded but simple. Shuttle total anual budget ~$4B/yr (approximate as things can be comingled). Total flights per year 4-5. Cost per flight ~ $B/4-5 flights ~ $1B per flight. Perhaps back in the day when it flew 10-12 times per year the cost per flight was lower
I acknowledged up front the claim that the shuttles would last 100 flights when they were built, and I never disparaged the people who work on them. Keep in mind some very knowledgeable people made a recommendation several years ago to retire the Shuttles prior to Orion being available.
As far as the OMS engines I specified that they are for orbital maneuvering, most often to de-orbit. I am fully aware of Russian co-operation impacts on ISS.
The ~70,000 lbs was meant as EMPTY WEIGHT of the shuttle, and was supplied by the ORIGINAL POSTER. Again, actually read some posts prior to commenting on them.
I also expressed my support for the job shuttle has done for us. That does not change the fact that it is time for it to be retired.
One my facts are off the cuff but are pretty close, two if you actually read my posts I do know most of the other things.
As for $1B, it is a little rounded but simple. Shuttle total anual budget ~$4B/yr (approximate as things can be comingled). Total flights per year 4-5. Cost per flight ~ $B/4-5 flights ~ $1B per flight. Perhaps back in the day when it flew 10-12 times per year the cost per flight was lower
I acknowledged up front the claim that the shuttles would last 100 flights when they were built, and I never disparaged the people who work on them. Keep in mind some very knowledgeable people made a recommendation several years ago to retire the Shuttles prior to Orion being available.
As far as the OMS engines I specified that they are for orbital maneuvering, most often to de-orbit. I am fully aware of Russian co-operation impacts on ISS.
The ~70,000 lbs was meant as EMPTY WEIGHT of the shuttle, and was supplied by the ORIGINAL POSTER. Again, actually read some posts prior to commenting on them.
I also expressed my support for the job shuttle has done for us. That does not change the fact that it is time for it to be retired.
Exoscientist,
You have big dreams, and that is a good thing, but this is neither technically feasible nor financially better to modify an existing orbiter of either Shuttle or Buran heritage than building a new vehicle be it disposable or re-usable.
Modifying the cargo bay to hold fuel would be nice, and basically convert the orbiter into a configuration similar to an expendable, except with a LOT of extra structure: non-jettisonable stages, wings, etc. This is a massive weight penalty. Even dropping the ET structure and carrying a therefore smaller fuel load in the cargo bay, it is unlikely this system would have the performance to get off the pad, let alone orbit.
As for cost, a museum piece Buran might cost $6M for all I know, but after 20 years in a weedy field that thing has got to be junk. Refurbishing any such vehicle and modifying it to perform a useful mission is out of the question. Think about all those jetliners stored in the Mojave Desert after 9/11. After a few years when air travel picked back up, many were simply junked. Even in the arid desert they deteriorated until it was more economical to buy a new one than service those.
Even a conventional rocket with minimal wasted structural mass, like wings and other large control surfaces, needs staging to be effective and has a small payload fraction at best, normally around ~5% of gross takeoff weight or even less. Each bit of structure eats into that weight.
A few dot-com Billionaires have tried various approaches, but only the Falcon-9 rocket is close as a full launch vehicle. One of the key problems that is that they think only in terms of altitude, rather than energy. Potential energy ~ mass * height. But when using ballistic technology it takes kinetic energy to get there and that is ~ m * v^2. If burt Rutan’s Spaceship ones maxes out around mach 3 or 4, but orbital velocity is ~ 18,000 miles per hours or ‘mach 25’ if we ignore it being a vacuum; then it is (25/4) * (25/4) ~ 36 times as much energy to get into low orbit as to do Spaceship One. If Burt Rutan takes ~$150M to develop that thing, then does 36 times that mean $5B? Probably so, which is why most of the commercial launch efforts failed.
You have big dreams, and that is a good thing, but this is neither technically feasible nor financially better to modify an existing orbiter of either Shuttle or Buran heritage than building a new vehicle be it disposable or re-usable.
Modifying the cargo bay to hold fuel would be nice, and basically convert the orbiter into a configuration similar to an expendable, except with a LOT of extra structure: non-jettisonable stages, wings, etc. This is a massive weight penalty. Even dropping the ET structure and carrying a therefore smaller fuel load in the cargo bay, it is unlikely this system would have the performance to get off the pad, let alone orbit.
As for cost, a museum piece Buran might cost $6M for all I know, but after 20 years in a weedy field that thing has got to be junk. Refurbishing any such vehicle and modifying it to perform a useful mission is out of the question. Think about all those jetliners stored in the Mojave Desert after 9/11. After a few years when air travel picked back up, many were simply junked. Even in the arid desert they deteriorated until it was more economical to buy a new one than service those.
Even a conventional rocket with minimal wasted structural mass, like wings and other large control surfaces, needs staging to be effective and has a small payload fraction at best, normally around ~5% of gross takeoff weight or even less. Each bit of structure eats into that weight.
A few dot-com Billionaires have tried various approaches, but only the Falcon-9 rocket is close as a full launch vehicle. One of the key problems that is that they think only in terms of altitude, rather than energy. Potential energy ~ mass * height. But when using ballistic technology it takes kinetic energy to get there and that is ~ m * v^2. If burt Rutan’s Spaceship ones maxes out around mach 3 or 4, but orbital velocity is ~ 18,000 miles per hours or ‘mach 25’ if we ignore it being a vacuum; then it is (25/4) * (25/4) ~ 36 times as much energy to get into low orbit as to do Spaceship One. If Burt Rutan takes ~$150M to develop that thing, then does 36 times that mean $5B? Probably so, which is why most of the commercial launch efforts failed.
Please check your facts, or show a reference.Astro_Robert":n1592wsg said:
Space Shuttle orbiter
Empty Weight: 151,205 lb (68,587 kg)
Looking at some official numbers we use for analysis. These are from the most current flights...
OV-105, 154,980 [lbs] (not inluding SSME x3)
ORBITER WITHOUT CONSUMABLES, 185,070 [lbs] (inludes SSME x3)
ORBITER MODULE TOTAL AT SRB IGN, 226,397 [lbs] (not including cargo)
OV-104, 154,720 [lbs](not inluding SSME x3)
ORBITER WITHOUT CONSUMABLES, 185,234 [lbs](inludes SSME x3)
ORBITER MODULE TOTAL AT SRB IGN, 227,061 [lbs] (not including cargo)
OV-103, 154,721 [lbs](not inluding SSME x3)
ORBITER WITHOUT CONSUMABLES, 185,591 [lbs](inludes SSME x3)
ORBITER MODULE TOTAL AT SRB IGN, 227,481 [lbs] (not including cargo)
OV-105, 154,980 [lbs] (not inluding SSME x3)
ORBITER WITHOUT CONSUMABLES, 185,070 [lbs] (inludes SSME x3)
ORBITER MODULE TOTAL AT SRB IGN, 226,397 [lbs] (not including cargo)
OV-104, 154,720 [lbs](not inluding SSME x3)
ORBITER WITHOUT CONSUMABLES, 185,234 [lbs](inludes SSME x3)
ORBITER MODULE TOTAL AT SRB IGN, 227,061 [lbs] (not including cargo)
OV-103, 154,721 [lbs](not inluding SSME x3)
ORBITER WITHOUT CONSUMABLES, 185,591 [lbs](inludes SSME x3)
ORBITER MODULE TOTAL AT SRB IGN, 227,481 [lbs] (not including cargo)
It was a problem for that Mars orbiter ..exoscientist":20m2ozbr said:
but i think, we are on the same page now.I wish facts for prices would be so easy to get as technical data ...
As for the rest, i would go with dense fuel engines for boosters, probably same for the core, with tank made into a wing, with much bigger surface to allow slower, higher, cooler aero braking.
In short, fly-back boosters seam much more practical, than designing carrier plane or rocket, at least for the vertical launch.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram