unholy union to save the Shuttle!

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"What has always amazed me is that they made the craft totally automatic, and without people on board. "</font><br /><br />What totally amazes <b>me</b> is that our shuttles are 99.5% automatic... and that they didn't go the extra .5%. For a flight such as the Buran made -- humans are required only for a couple of <b>very</b> minor activities (like pushing the button to drop the landing gear).

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The manual functions ensured them there would always be a crew on board. "</font><br /><br />It may have made the 'nauts happy, but it reduced the flexibility of the shuttle orbiters significantly. Had the orbiters been made fully automatic, I have a hard time seeing the astronauts deciding "That's it... we're walking!" (and if they had, a few thousand others would have queued up to take their place). Ergo, I'm still amazed that the decision was made to deliberately cripple the orbiters.

 

[nacnud]

Why should there always be a crew on board?<br /><br />What if the crew became incapacitated, was it STS-3 that had trouble on landing possibly due to crew exhaustion/dehydration?<br /><br />It does seem an odd decision not to have the option for automatic operations.<br />

 

[spacefire]

"Pilot Pride Poops Program" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

That was one scary moment with the landing! <br /><br />There's a longer video of STS-3's landing (starting from where they are in the HAC). It sounded like some of the astronauts were actually being physically sick!<br /><br />Did they refuse to drink the water during the mission - believing it was contaminated? Not sure if that's a true story?<br /><br />Also, there was a bouncy landing of Enterprise by Fred Haise on the last flight of the Shuttle Approach & Landing Test Program - and after some searching the official line seems to claim: <br /><br />"NASA used the F-8 Crusader fighter they had modified to test the Shuttle digital fly-by-wire control system to research the Pilot-Induced Oscillation problem that caused the bounce. The problem was traced to a slight lag between control input and response."

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>The story I heard was the commander had a bet that he could touch down at a certain point on the runway and he forced it down. <<br /><br />I prefer that story! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[n_kitson]

There is an undated photo of an early concept of Buran. Gagarin is in the photo, which indicates that the Soviet design was close to final before 1968. It is thus very unlikely that the Soviet Shuttle was a copy made from stolen plans.

 

[drwayne]

Maybe *we* stole it.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><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]

...or the model.which would be easier because it's in the foreground. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[discovery_fan]

Something I do not understand about the buran/energia system:<br />On that buran-energia website its says <i>"...the Buran-Energia is designed as a fully reusable shuttle system, that includes the four side 'Zenit' boosters and the main huge 'Energia' core super booster (Energia-T)...The Zenit boosters that strap on to the Energia core rocket are equipped with large parachute/retro rocket soft landing systems. The Energia core booster itself is designed to use such a system. This allows Energia and Zenit rockets to be recovered, refuelled, and re used at least ten times. It it worth noting, however, that the first flight of Buran-Energia in space did not take place with recoverable side or core booster rockets, but this was still in the development phase of the shuttle's life."</i> <br /><br />Is that true? <br />I allways thought that the energia rocket was lost and not reuseable (on its only two flights it was lost as a whole, core and boosters). <br />I can imagine that the zenit booster could have been upgraded with a parachute system to land like the STS-SRBs. <br />But the core rocket with the main engines too?<br />I understand it that the core energia rocket (a kind of ET with SSMEs attached) would provide thrust to a point in flight similar to the ET seperation on the STS. That means it would have nearly reached an orbit, and therefore a very high speed (almost the same speed as the orbiter, much higher than the boosters). <br />To land back like the boosters, it would need to do a kind of reentry procedure. That means it must get rid of the speed. <br />This could have happened either with aerobreaking (like all the capsules and the orbiters do), or with a kind of break-engine (or is there another option?). <br />In order to aerobreak it during reentry, the Energia core/main rocket would need a thermal protection system like an orbiter or a giant heatshield. <br />As far as I know there was no TPS and no heatshield on the Energia (and I can not imagine one). <br></br>

 

[chonner]

On the official RSC Energia website (the people who designed the Energia rocket) it says:<br /><br />"The Energia-Buran Space System should be reusable and employed no less than in 10 missions. As a result of comprehensive studies, a parachute rocket system was selected for the core stage recovery after its separation from LV. To return and reuse the core stage was a complex scientific-engineering task assumed to be solved successfully, as experimental development was progressing."<br /><br />"Parachute Rocket System" - hmmm interesting i wonder how that would of worked...<br /><br />Also note it says "task <b>assumed</b> to be solved successfully, as experimental development was progressing." So they did not have a working system completed but were developing one which they "assumed" would be successful.<br /><br />http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/vehicle_energia-rb.html<br /><br />Suppose we'll never now if that had a working design that could return the core stage succesfully without it being burn to frizzle.<br /><br />Chonner

 

[krrr]

Some drawings here.

 

[discovery_fan]

So that means the full reuseable energia variant is that one that looks similar to an orbiter itself. Right?<br /><br />Now I have a question about that (I am beginning to learn how these things work, excuse my stupidity):<br /><br />I learned from this site (e.g. the various excellent posts by Mr. Shuttle_guy) that there is a connection between the STS ET and the orbiter payload. This seems to be logical to me, because ET and Orbiter are essentially one "stage". <br />So if you add weight to the ET, you loose payload on the orbiter in nearly the same ammount (both climb together into space, with the same thrust source).<br />I learned this is one reason why a modification of the ET is so difficult. <br />As the law of physics are the same in the USA as they are in Russia or the fromer USSR, the same principle applies to the energia/buran. <br />The "Buran" (or pitchka or whatever) is connected in the same way to the EnergiaT, like the STS orbiter to the ET. <br />Both, Buran and EnergiaT share the same source of thrust (in that case the engines of the energia as the Buran has none). That means the couple EnergiaT (the core I mean) and Buran are essentially one stage (like shuttle and ET). The difference is that the Shuttle SSMEs are on the orbiter and the Buran/Energia Engines are "on the tank".<br />So that means it makes from the weight nearly no difference if the engines are on the core or on the orbiter, because both have to climb together in a bundle. So if one says that it is an advantage to have the main engines on the core, it is not weight related. Right? It means that there is more space and a simpler structure on the orbiter. With the disadvantage that you loose the main engines for every flight unless the core is also reuseable. <br />That issue should have been solved with the Energia2, according to that website, right?<br />It seems to me that the solution to the problem was (at least in the pictures it looks that way) to attach orbiter-like wings and a TPS to t

 

[discovery_fan]

Amazing.<br />I really learn something new every day here. I have not thought that the fuel lines etc. from the tank to the orbiter are that much longer then they are from the tank down to the engines. But of course they go a complex way (and not just straight down), and that makes more length than one would guess...<br /><br />So that means the wings and rudder etc. could have been made that light, that the payload on the orbiter would not have been that restricted? I would have guessed that the wings and other structures on that tank would have a weight of about 20 - 40 t or more. Because that wings would be as large as orbiter wings, or not? But apperently there would have been a way to construct them much lighter - right?<br />Or would the weight of the wings and other things not reduce the payload for the orbiter? I'm a bit confused.

 

[chonner]

Ok i'm just gunna try and clear up the confusion a little bit.<br /><br />The Buran Shuttle was designed to be boosted on the Energia LV. Rather than the orbiter being an integral part of the lauch vehical it is just rides piggback unpowered, effectivly making it a payload for the Engeria LV. There fore there is no connection between the Energia Core and the orbiter in terms of one needing the other to launch, unlike the STS. After launch the Zenit strap on boosters would seperate and then parachute back to earth in a similar way to the Shuttle SRBs. The Energia Core would continue to boost the Buran orbiter until it had enough speed to achieve the desired orbit, which meant the cored stage was at the same speed as orbiter and would also continue to orbit if not acted uppon. On the RCS Engeria website they say that the core would use a "Parachute Rocket System" to get back to the ground in one piece so it could be reused. How that would of worked, none of us know, well i certainly don't. The heat generated from the re-entry would be ernormouse and would have most likely burned the energia core stage to a frizzle without a TPS in the pictures doesn't seem to exist. Shuttle Guy is correct in that becasue the core is empty and has a very low mass less energy needs to be disapated. As the basic equation is energy = mass x speed. So there fore you would not need as substantial TPS, but you would still need something as i think bare sheet aluminium would not be up to it.<br /><br />It also worth while remembering that the energia could also just lauch large payload.<br /><br />Now the Energia2 Flyback booster i think was a completely different system, not connected with the Buran Orbiter but still based on the Energia core and Zenit booster. If you look at the pictures it appears that the payload ( in this case a satalite) is in a nose faring and does not ride piggy back so there fore it would not be able to carry the Buran orbiter.<br /><br /><br />Ok I may have confused you ev

 

[drwayne]

"As the basic equation is energy = mass x speed."<br /><br />The kinetic energy, which I assume is the energy to which you refer, is proportional to<br /><br />mass * speed * speed<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

The winged Energia core is fiction dreamed up by the linked site. However I have heard that the real Energia core was eventualy to be reuseable. However with all the mass of the engines I would expect it to reenter backwards so I don't know what the plan would have been?<br /><br />The first question that could solve this is, Is the RD-0120 reuseable?

 

[drwayne]

In the immortal words of Heny Spencer,<br /><br />"almost any regeneratively-cooled liquid<br />rocket engine is reusable, even if it was built for expendable vehicles."<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[discovery_fan]

At this moment I would like to thank you all for your input. I'm a longtime spacefan, and have read lots of books and magazines, but could not get the knowledge you provide here for folks like me. Big thanks to you.<br /><br />I think I finally understand the weight/payload and orbiter/ET relation. It may sound stupid, but I did not realize things like that before I discovered this website.<br /><br />The thing with the winged energia is also clear now. I did not realize that this was a whole new concept by itself (a transport system without an orbiter). I thought it to be an update to the energia/buran combination, but it is more compareable to the shuttle derived heavy launch vehicle concepts. I never heard or read about it before, and it was certainly an interesting idea. <br /><br />Its a bit unfortunate that the mentioned parachute/rocket system is not somewhere described. It would have been interesting to know how that concept looked like. <br />It could be possibly some idea for e.g. the Shuttle derived heavy lifter rocket, because if it works it could be used to save the SSMEs that are attached at the bottom of the external tank, or not? <br /><br />Again, thanks for the input so far,<br /><br />stefan <br /><br />(hoping for a STS-121 launch in march, I plan to view it live if possible)