What happens to the ET on the SDHLV?

[chriscdc]

Obviously on the shuttle C variants it will get as high as the Cargo carrier. But what happens in the in line SDHLV? <br /><br />If it gets nowhere near orbital speed, could there be some way to retrieve it? As the SSME's are attached to the ET this would also have a finacial incentive.

 

[chriscdc]

Shame.<br />Just out of interest, how fast will it be going when jettesoned?

 

[trailrider]

Pardon me for intruding...and Shuttle_guy, I'd still like your input, please...<br /><br />I would suspect the ET will be going just under orbital velocity as it does now. My understanding, from two talks delivered at the 8th Mars Society Conference last week, one by Dr. Scott Horowitz, formerly an astronaut and now working for ATK-Thiokol, and by Chris Shank, Special Assistant to Mike Griffin, about the only things to be recovered from the SDHLV will be the SRB's. That will apply to the "Stick" (launching the CRV and the CEV) as well. There may be a development contract for larger parachutes for the SRB's to cut water impact velocities, which still can do a fair amount of damage to the aft skirts.<br /><br />BTW, the "Stick" is pretty well THE design chosen for the CRV/CEV launches until the ISS is finished, and probably after that for crew "yo-yo".<br /><br />With a non-recoverable cargo module, you don't have to worry about foam/ice impacts on the module. They probably don't cause significant damage on the way UP. And since the cargo mod will be de-orbited and dumped in the ocean, who cares if they can't re-enter?<br /><br />Exact configurations of the vehicles are still TBD. Thought is to make SSME's for single use only will cut the manufacturing costs, and improve reliability, since you can use weight penalties now required to make them re-usable for beefed up one-time-use main components.<br /><br />Nothing like re-inventing the wheel!<br /><br />Eventually, there could be a stickly in-line HLLV, for moon and Mars exploration.<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!<br />Trailrider

 

[john_316]

So the jist of the convo is this:<br /><br />SRB for CEV: Understood! 4 or 5 Segment SRB? Twin J-2S or Single SSME for second stage? New skirt for SRB?<br /><br />SDHLV: Shuttle-C or Inline? 4 or 5 Segment SRB? <br /><br />Are any of the SRB's interchangable with the HLV or the CEV? Example: SRB #so and so was on HLV flight #1 and then made CEV flight #5 later on etc etc???<br /><br />So will United Space Alliance/United Launch Alliance be redundant here?<br /><br />This is my guess: Boeing and LM and other contributers seem like they will be forming this lil alliance as you call it but to me its like a megamerger of operations like a megacorporation.<br /><br />I see ATK in the win win column and thus time to buy thier stock and Boeing and LM win either was as well because one will build the CEV and the others will build the Second Stage, the next ET, the next upper stages for HLV, the fairings, the cargo module, etc etc, The big 5 seem to win out here too.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[publiusr]

If the ET stretched and became the payload--the entire rocket could go itno orbit--or perhaps leave orbit to become a 1-shot cycler shell. It would be a long burn, and the only payload would be a soyuz dock at one end and some bare minimum rations. other HLLV launched standard payloads could dock with it.

 

[john_316]

Why a Soyuz dock? Wouldn't the US mating adapter be the correct choice since its a US Built Rocket if such a thing were done.<br /><br />The Russians could do that with Energia correct? Which in all intensive purposes will be reactivated in the next 10 years correct?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[qso1]

Rockets stage for a reason, and what your suggesting if I understand you correctly, is sending up an entire rocket with payload attached.<br /><br />The closest we have ever come to doing this is SSTO in the form of Delta Clipper, a prototype that demonstrated this concept in principle but never made it to the stage where it was large enough to place itself and payload into orbit.<br /><br />The reason rockets are staged is to avoid carrying the dead weight of the booster as the propellant empties. A stage with say, 10% propellant left will have to overcome its own weight to maintain enough accelleration to reach orbit. <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>

 

[qso1]

Last I heard, the Russians were developing the Angara. The Energia was a much more powerful rocket than Angara is supposed to be. The only reason they would reactivate the Energia is if they decide to make their first manned lunar journeys. Energia...or the Energia Buran system proved too costly for Russia to develop and was cancelled in 1993 by Boris Yeltsins Administration.<br /><br />In the entire history of spaceflight on both sides of the world, I can think of no launch vehicle that was retired, cancelled or otherwise put out to pasture, ever being reactivated.<br /><br />I'd bet Energia reactivation in a decade is not going to happen. <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>

 

[nacnud]

I have heard that the S-IC (first stage of the saturn v) was capable of SSTO but without a payload or maybe is was a S-IV with a single SSME...<br /><br />SSTO isn't the problem, reuseable SSTO is.

 

[qso1]

You may be reffering to SASSTO (Saturn Application Single Stage to Orbit) which is not the S1C but was a proposal for an SSTO in the mid 1960s. This was an S-IVB with a plug nozzle type engine or engines.<br /><br />The S1C boosts a Saturn V to about 6,000 mph at burnout which is around 38 miles altitude. It may be capable of SSTO with an extremelly small payload but whether thats a practical solution economically is another matter. For example, imagine if the Mercury spacecraft were launched by an S1C. at the time of Mercury, such a large booster did not exist and to get a Mercury craft to orbit using one would have required several more years before the S1C was available. In addition, its just such an undersized application for the stage itself. Imagine what it would take to get a 250,000 lb shuttle to orbit as an SSTO. <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>

 

[nacnud]

I never said it would be practical or economic to use those stages <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I still think SpaceX has the right idea when it comes to lowering the costs.