Space shuttle for space tourism and first stage of a TSTO.
Robert Clark
for $42 million:
For sale: Used space shuttles. Asking price: $42 million apiece
By John Matson
Dec 18, 2008 04:00 PM in Space
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=for-sale-used-space-shuttles-asking-2008-12-18
It is currently intended only to be sold to educational institutions,
or governmental agencies.
The Air Force is looking for designs for reusable first stage
boosters for two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) systems. Then it might be able
to be used for this purpose. Most likely you would use kerosene fuel
for this since dense fuels are more suitable for first stages.
The payload bay would be converted to a fuel tank, and the second
stage of the TSTO would be carried on top or below the orbiter. High
performance kerosene engines such as the Russian NK-33, with a near
legendary thrust/weight ratio of 136.66 to 1 at a weight of 1,222 kg,
could be used for propulsion:
NK-33.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/nk33.htm
The orbiter without the SSME engines masses around 68,600 kg:
Atlantis.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/atlantis.htm
Its payload bay is around 300 cubic meters that could be used for
propellant. Using the densities of kerosene and lox given here:
Lox/Kerosene.
http://www.astronautix.com/props/loxosene.htm
and the oxidizer to fuel ratio of the NK-33 of 2.8 to 1 we can
calculate the propellant load that can be carried as about 300,000 kg.
You would need at least 3 of the NK-33's to lift this fuel load,
orbiter and second stage.
The tank weight of kerosene/lox is typically around 1/100th of the
propellant weight so around, 3,000 kg. Then the empty weight of the
reconfigured orbiter would be 68,600kg + 3*1,222kg + 3,000kg =
75,266kg. And the fully fueled weight of this stage would be
375,266kg.
For this first stage alone without a second stage, this would be a
mass ratio of about 5. Using an average Isp of the NK-33 of 315 you
could get a delta-V of 315*9.8*ln(5) = 4,970 m/s, about Mach 15.
A total delta-V this high raises the possibility it could be used for
suborbital space tourism or point-to-point hypersonic transport, if
sale to commercial organizations were to be allowed.
Bob Clark
David Spain
> The payload bay would be converted to a fuel tank, and the second
> stage of the TSTO would be carried on top or below the orbiter.
With that top or bottom mounted 2nd stage using cryogenic fuels?
Ooops, here we go again....
Unless, double hulled?
Dave
Pat Flannery
I can't for the life of me figure out why Robert Clark is constantly
coming up with ideas for so radically modifying something that already
exists that it effectively becomes a entirely different spacecraft, but
without the advantages that a whole new design would offer.
Pat
David Spain
BTW, unless Vandenberg can be recomissioned with minimal $$$, how does this
help the Air Force? Seems like a pricey option as far as ground support
goes as opposed to flying ELVs in the orbits most favored.
The cost isn't in the orbiter, it's in the ground support and prep.
As far as a hypersonic transport you'd need > 3 orbiters or a crew
compartment capable of flying > 7 people, unless they're riding in
a can atop the thing. Not to mention that unless you build duplicated
launch facilities at the destination, you either have to send only the
can and return the orbiter to launch point, *or worse*, fly the thing back on
the back of a 747, thus ticketed passengers are also paying for the
dead head subsonic return flight, unless you're planning on putting
passengers in the transport 747 for the return flight. Plus with all
that extra drag, what it the range of that 747? Refueling stops needed
along the way?
If the can (2nd stage) is resuable it always has to be returned somehow,
even if the flyback 'orbiter' portion does not. How's that done economically?
FexEx? DHL? UPS?
Any handle on the cost to prep the shuttle for flight minus the SSMEs?
I'm skeptical that you could keep the cost low enough to be able to
provide reasonable ticket charges. Not to mention the fact that hardware
upgrades/replacements are out of the question w/o expensive retooling...
Dave
David Spain
> As far as a hypersonic transport you'd need > 3 orbiters or a crew
> compartment capable of flying > 7 people, unless they're riding in
> a can atop the thing.
Oops, I meant *next to* the thing...
Dave
Pat Flannery
> And no SRB's?
>
> BTW, unless Vandenberg can be recomissioned with minimal $$$, how does this
> help the Air Force? Seems like a pricey option as far as ground support
> goes as opposed to flying ELVs in the orbits most favored.
Maybe it's supposed to fly off of a runway?
Pat
Pat Flannery
>> As far as a hypersonic transport you'd need > 3 orbiters or a crew
>> compartment capable of flying > 7 people, unless they're riding in
>> a can atop the thing.
>
> Oops, I meant *next to* the thing...
Now picture a SR-71...now picture a SR-71 with a SRB strapped to its
back, a big LOX tank attached under either of its engine nacelles, and a
SSME converted to LOX/JP-7 in its tail...now picture that riding on a
giant take-off trolley, with a trained Chimpanzee in the cockpit...but
not just any Chimpanzee...a Chimpanzee that has been genetically
modified with Bald Eagle DNA to give it an intuitive ability to
understand flight... ;-)
Pat
David Spain
Robert Clark
...
> I can't for the life of me figure out why Robert Clark is constantly
> coming up with ideas for so radically modifying something that already
> exists that it effectively becomes a entirely different spacecraft, but
> without the advantages that a whole new design would offer.
>
> Pat
The $42 million costs for the basic spacecraft is significantly less
than the $150 million development cost of the Whiteknight2 and
SpaceShipTwo:
Sales are rocketing at Virgin Galactic.
http://www.virgingalactic.org/2008/04/sales-are-rocke.html
and the result would be a vehicle that could do significantly more
than the Virgin Galactic system. It could act as a suborbital space
tourism vehicle, but it also could act as a very high speed point-to-
point transport system. Imagine a cross-Atlantic trip instead of
taking 6 hours only took 1/2 hour. Or a cross country trip instead of
taking 5 hours only took 20 minutes.
Moreover, it could also serve as the reusable first stage of a TSTO.
I'm arguing it could be used to reduce the costs to space if used as a
reusable first stage booster for a TSTO system. The Air Force for
instance believes such a TSTO could cut launch costs by 50%.
The Russian engines that would need to be added would be relatively
low cost. According to this page, in the mid 90's Aerojet purchased 36
of them from the Russians for only $1.1 million each(!):
NK-33.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK-33#History
Installation of the lox/kerosene tanks and modifications to
strengthen the body frame to carry the extra loads would also be
relatively low cost.
The 68,600 kg empty weight of the orbiter sans engines could probably
be reduced also. The main system that could probably be removed would
be the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS). This is used for final
orbital insertion of the shuttle and changes of its orbit. This
wouldn't be needed for a first stage vehicle or a suborbital vehicle.
I don't trust the value given for the OMS weight however on the
Atlantis Astronautix page. It says this:
Main Engine: OME. Main Engine: 14,912 kg (32,875 lb). Main Engine
Thrust: 53.367 kN (11,997 lbf). Main Engine Propellants: N2O4/MMH.
Main Engine Propellants: 12,412 kg (27,363 lb). Main Engine Isp: 316
sec. Spacecraft delta v: 700 m/s (2,290 ft/sec).
The OME refers to the OMS engine. The engine does not weigh 14,912
kg. Perhaps they are referring to the entire OMS system, both pods.
That seems unlikely as well, unless they are including the propellant
weight.
In any case it's this OMS system weight that I'm trying to find out
to subtract off.
Bob Clark
David Spain
> take-off trolley, with a trained Chimpanzee in the cockpit...but not just any
> Chimpanzee...a Chimpanzee that has been genetically modified with Bald Eagle
> DNA to give it an intuitive ability to understand flight... ;-)
Is that Chimpanzee over-caffinated too?
:-)
Dave
Pat Flannery
> I think we're bordering into this realm...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ygqzzud
I don't know if it was that one, but I've seen a jet-powered truck in
action, and it's really something to behold.
Pat
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:X_GdnUlUu5jmutnW...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
> I can't for the life of me figure out why Robert Clark is constantly
> coming up with ideas for so radically modifying something that already
> exists that it effectively becomes a entirely different spacecraft, but
> without the advantages that a whole new design would offer.
I don't know, but I solved the problem long ago by putting him in my
killfile.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Me
> On Jan 6, 3:02 am, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > I can't for the life of me figure out why Robert Clark is constantly
> > coming up with ideas for so radically modifying something that already
> > exists that it effectively becomes a entirely different spacecraft, but
> > without the advantages that a whole new design would offer.
>
> > Pat
>
> The $42 million costs for the basic spacecraft is significantly less
> than the $150 million development cost of the Whiteknight2 and
> SpaceShipTwo:
>
> Installation of the lox/kerosene tanks and modifications to
> strengthen the body frame to carry the extra loads would also be
> relatively low cost.
This is just more BS from Clark. When his non viable ideas are nixed
on one forum, he goes and posts the same crap on another forum.
The 42 million costs for the basic spacecraft is a drop in the bucket
compared to the costs of all the mods. Also you don't even consider
the mods for ground operations. The orbiter has no structural
interface with the launch pad, it just hangs on the ET, so how do you
propose to sit the orbiter on its tail
The mods to carry the propellant tanks would not be "low cost", it
would require an extensive mod to the vehicle, which would be
basically a rebuild.
Clark, face it, you don't know what you are talking about and your
ideas are not workable.
Pat Flannery
Nothing that banal; the Eagle/Chimp hybrid (Eaglepanzee) will be given
Ayahuasca by an Amazonian shaman to allow it to pilot the vehicle
without even looking out the windows - by causing its spirit to be
everywhere at once, and in the past, present, and future simultaneously,
like a furry little Guild Steersman.
After a few flights the Eaglepanzee will be so skilled that we won't
even need the modified Shuttle at all; it will simply approach the
payload, shake its ceremonial rattle at it, and the payload will be
transported directly into space...as will anyone foolish enough to piss
off the Eaglepanzee or slow to bring it banana-stuffed salmon.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:X_GdnUlUu5jmutnW...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>> I can't for the life of me figure out why Robert Clark is constantly
>> coming up with ideas for so radically modifying something that already
>> exists that it effectively becomes a entirely different spacecraft, but
>> without the advantages that a whole new design would offer.
>
> I don't know, but I solved the problem long ago by putting him in my
> killfile.
But I like reading up on what's going to get modified next.
You know...it would be possible to take the Queen Mary II and turn it
into a submarine at fairly low cost...all we have to do is drill a lot
of holes in the bottom of the hull, and then... :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Clark, face it, you don't know what you are talking about and your
> ideas are not workable.
You know, it would be possible to convert a 747 into a earth-boring
machine at fairly low cost also.
All we have to do is make the wings jettisonable...add a LOX-kerosene
rocket engine to its tail...
Pat
Robert Clark
> ...
> This is just more BS from Clark. When his non viable ideas are nixed
> on one forum, he goes and posts the same crap on another forum.
Actually I post them all at the same time. ;-)
Bob Clark
Jonathan
"Robert Clark" <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:411e6624-7064-46ff...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> This article describes the plan to sell the orbiters minus engines
> for $42 million:
>
> For sale: Used space shuttles. Asking price: $42 million apiece
Hmm, could a business be built around using an orbiter as a tourist
attraction? Use it like a simulator and sell 'stick time' to wannabe
astronauts and rich kids alike? Make a hellova billboard having
an orbiter sitting out front for all to see.
I bet the Smithsonian gets one of them, another ends up in someplace
weird like Abu Dhabi, and the third goes to some rich nutjob that
just has to have one to impress his friends.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Hmm......."no damned filthy human DNA"......I can see it now.
Better yet use a trained speciality version of a Gamma rated human.
Mixing my science fiction authors....................Trig
Robert Clark
> Moreover, it could also serve as the reusable first stage of a TSTO.
> I'm arguing it could be used to reduce the costs to space if used as a
> reusable first stage booster for a TSTO system. The Air Force for
> instance believes such a TSTO could cut launch costs by 50%.
> The Russian engines that would need to be added would be relatively
> low cost. According to this page, in the mid 90's Aerojet purchased 36
> of them from the Russians for only $1.1 million each(!):
>
>
> Installation of the lox/kerosene tanks and modifications to
> strengthen the body frame to carry the extra loads would also be
> relatively low cost.
> The 68,600 kg empty weight of the orbiter sans engines could probably
> be reduced also. The main system that could probably be removed would
> be the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS). This is used for final
> orbital insertion of the shuttle and changes of its orbit. This
> wouldn't be needed for a first stage vehicle or a suborbital vehicle.
> I don't trust the value given for the OMS weight however on the
> Atlantis Astronautix page. It says this:
>
> Main Engine: OME. Main Engine: 14,912 kg (32,875 lb). Main Engine
> Thrust: 53.367 kN (11,997 lbf). Main Engine Propellants: N2O4/MMH.
> Main Engine Propellants: 12,412 kg (27,363 lb). Main Engine Isp: 316
> sec. Spacecraft delta v: 700 m/s (2,290 ft/sec).
>
> The OME refers to the OMS engine. The engine does not weigh 14,912
> kg. Perhaps they are referring to the entire OMS system, both pods.
> That seems unlikely as well, unless they are including the propellant
> weight.
> In any case it's this OMS system weight that I'm trying to find out
> to subtract off.
>
Used alone without a second stage it could achieve high hypersonic
speeds. The hypersonic, subsonic, and reentry characteristics of the
orbiter are well understood. Once used as a first stage, it might lead
trade studies to be done to see if a vehicle of similar dimensions but
made of all composite construction could have a significantly better
mass ratio. Could it even reach orbit?
I would like to see a breakdown of the orbiter subsystem weights to
see which ones could be removed for this application, and which ones
such as the frame and body panels could be replaced with lightweight
composites, if anyone knows a reliable source for this. The
Astronautix page on the Atlantis gives some subsystem weights
including the airframe structural weight but their numbers can be
unreliable.
As a first guess, I'm thinking that going to an all-composite version
of the shuttle with propellant tanks in the payload bay would not
allow this reconfigured shuttle to reach orbit. However, there is a
significant amount volume in the wings, at about a 250 square meter
wing area and maximum wing thickness of 1.5 meters. This could amount
to a propellant tank volume near that of the payload bay. Note that
for aircraft it is common to hold the fuel in the wings.
The shuttle wings would need significant strengthening to hold this
higher weight however. This would add on to the dry weight. However,
again as a first guess, use of this wing volume on an all-composite
version would give you a vehicle that could reach orbit. Then you
would have a fully reusable SSTO.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
the propellant tanks. As a preliminary estimate, the wing volume may
be close to that of the payload bay based on a wing area of 250 square
meters and a maximum wing thickness of 1.5 meters. Then you could keep
the large shuttle payload bay to carry payloads while having close to
the same propellant load. You would need some strengthening of the
wings though, which would increase the dry weight.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
Using wet wings only as the propellant tanks would solve the problem
of a cryogenic-fueled upper stage's flaking insulation damaging the
wings of the orbiter. It would also allow quite large payloads, at
least in volume.
If used for space tourism, the payload bay could then carry many
passengers now, much more than what I had been envisioning as only 6
or so in the shuttle crew compartment. Quite a bit more also than the
6 passengers of SpaceShipTwo. With the 60 ft by 15 ft payload bay, say
you allowed a 3 ft by 3 ft space per passenger you could carry 100
passengers(!) You could then charge a much lower price per passenger,
and still make a profit.
With this many passengers the vehicle would be much more like an
airliner now, and the hypersonic transport market now becomes
potentially much more lucrative.
And this for an initial investment of $42 million.
Bob Clark
Me
another ends up in someplace
> weird like Abu Dhabi, and the third goes to some rich nutjob that
> just has to have one to impress his friends.
No, they aren't leaving the country or going to an individual. They
will end up at NASA centers and NASM
Pat Flannery
> No, they aren't leaving the country or going to an individual. They
> will end up at NASA centers and NASM
NASM already has one.
Pat
Me
NASM wants and will get real one (one that flew in space)
OV-101 will be sent elsewhere (MSFC, EAFB/DFRC, USAF, etc)
Me
> one source has it that Space Center Disney has been dropping strong
> hints that they specifically want Discovery so they can build a new
> addition to the Center and take advantage of the name as part of the
> propaganda effort. That leaves just one to fight over, since NASM
> doesn't need one, and somehow I doubt Marshall will get one. Best
> guess is the Cosmodrome, provided they could afford to build the
> protective structure.
>
NASM does get one to exchange with Enterprise
WPAFB, EAFB, Seattle, LA would get one before Kansas.
David Spain
> ...
> And this for an initial investment of $42 million.
Any estimate on the cost to retrofit the wings with
fuel tankage?
How does the orbiter launch? Vertically with a special
launch pad as it does now, or horizontally from an airstrip?
If the former, why not still use SRB's for assist?
Why discard the ET at all? If you're not using it for fuel
its a high volume space, that if rigid enough to handle
G loads with SRBs attached give you even MORE payload
volume (if not capacity because of structural limitations)
than the payload bay....
Dave
PS: For the rest of you, sorry for stoking the fire, but
I gotta know where this is going...
Something about being partial to very fast 57 Chevys...
;-)
Pat Flannery
>
> NASM wants and will get real one (one that flew in space)
>
> OV-101 will be sent elsewhere (MSFC, EAFB/DFRC, USAF, etc)
The Star Trek fans won't like that. :-)
If they can find a place to put it indoors, the Air Force Museum should
really have one. That's going to be a problem with finding places for
them...they are fairly big, and that TPS is going to deteriorate badly
if they are kept outdoors, particularly if one ever gets hailed on.
The Kansas Cosmosphere apparently has a replica Shuttle on display;
maybe they could replace that with a real one:
http://risleyranch.blogs.com/risleyranch/2008/10/the-kansas-cosmosphere.html
Although their's may be shy the starboard wing.
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
> PS: For the rest of you, sorry for stoking the fire, but
> I gotta know where this is going...
>
> Something about being partial to very fast 57 Chevys...
I'll bet the Eaglepanzees can take far higher g-loads than human
astronauts, and are more likely to perform outrageous hijinks and
hilarious monkeyshines while on-orbit also.
Wally Schirra simply put the lens cover on the TV camera when he became
angry on Apollo 7...an Eaglepanzee would have hurled feces straight at
that camera, and that would have been just for starters.
I want an all-mutant monkey crew to be my contribution to what is
evolving here.
I can think of few things more heartwarming than watching a beaked
Chimp-like creature hatch from an egg. ;-)
Pat
Brian Gaff
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:qfmdnR5iRcd8ydvW...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
Jorge R. Frank
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:23:55 -0800 (PST), Charlie X. Murphy, L2
> sycophant <charlie...@yahoo.com> arrogantly quiffed:
>
>> NASM does get one to exchange with Enterprise
>
<http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/11/which-museum-will-get-space-shuttle.shtml>
<http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2010/01/predictions-for-coming-year-in-space.shtml>
OM, NASM has first dibs on orbiters, period. They could, in theory, take
a flown orbiter *and keep* Enterprise, if they wanted (and if Udvar-Hazy
could fit two). NASM not only gets to choose who gets Enterprise, they
have considerable say in where the other two flown orbiters will go.
The smart money right now is on:
101 - Seattle Museum of Flight
103 - NASM Udvar-Hazy
104 - USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson
105 - KSC
JSC gets locked out due to bad blood with NASM due to the treatment of
the Saturn V, and Seattle gets Enterprise because Bonnie Dunbar is the
president and is pushing hard to get an orbiter.
David Spain
> Hmm, could a business be built around using an orbiter as a tourist
> attraction? Use it like a simulator and sell 'stick time' to wannabe
> astronauts and rich kids alike? Make a hellova billboard having
> an orbiter sitting out front for all to see.
As far as selling simulated 'stick time' to would be astronauts I think
the answer is known and is 'yes' even without an orbiter and spending
$42 million.
http://www.spacecamp.com/details.php?cat=Space&program=Adult+Programs
Dave
Jorge R. Frank
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:05:20 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
> <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>
>> OM wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:23:55 -0800 (PST), Charlie X. Murphy, L2
>>> sycophant <charlie...@yahoo.com> arrogantly quiffed:
>>>
>>>> NASM does get one to exchange with Enterprise
>>> ...Care to cite source? Or is that only available with an L2 purchase?
>> <http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/11/which-museum-will-get-space-shuttle.shtml>
>> <http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2010/01/predictions-for-coming-year-in-space.shtml>
>
> with no credibility in my book.
>
>> OM, NASM has first dibs on orbiters, period.
>
>
>> They could, in theory, take a flown orbiter *and keep* Enterprise,
>
> Considering that JSC has a higher visitor flow than Seatlle does, last
> I looked, and JSC's place in the public eye, for them not to get a
> Shuttle would take a *lot* of explaining. An old high school buddy is
> my rep in the state legislature, and I may ask her about this at our
> next reunion planning meeting.
Well, the decisions have not been made, so there is still time for local
efforts to result in something. But if the State Leg really wants an
orbiter, they will get much better results if they appropriate a few
million to replace the temporary building housing the Saturn V at JSC
with a nicer permanent building that happens to be large enough to house
an orbiter as well, rather than just trying to put political pressure on
NASM. Oh, and they could also pony up a few million more to dredge out
Clear Lake and restore the barge landing at NASA Parkway near the Hilton
so that an orbiter could be barged in. (It *would* fit under the Kemah
bridge; I was skeptical until I went on a boat ride under it and
eyeball-measured it.)
>> The smart money right now is on:
>>
>> 101 - Seattle Museum of Flight
>
> ...Arguments against that are cost. Last I heard. SMF's having some
> financial difficulties. Nothing door-closing yet, but enough to rule
> out building a special extension for something like a Shuttle.
Last I heard, their building is large enough. That carries a lot of
weight with NASM - they want to send orbiters to facilities that have
permanent accommodations *now*. They don't want to send them to
temporary facilities where they will languish for years while a
permanent building is being constructed. And yes, I know that's
hypocritical since the NASM did the exact same thing with Enterprise at
Dulles before Udvar-Hazy was built. Unfortunately, they hold the high
cards and they can do that.
>> 104 - USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson
>
> ...Considering how the Air Farce regarded the shuttle, I'd be *really*
> surprised if they even got Pathfinder.
Trust me, if *NASA* was making the decision, they wouldn't get one. If
it were *me* making the decision, I'd send Enterprise to Dryden/Edwards
since 1) it has historical ties there, 2) it still gives the USAF "half
an orbiter" and 3) it puts an orbiter on the West coast within driving
distance of tens of millions of people, which in my mind makes it a
better site than Seattle (which is within driving distance of nothing
but Seattle) or Wright-Patterson (which is within driving distance of
Udvar-Hazy).
Nevertheless, the USAF is pushing for an orbiter and their museum at
Wright-Patt is both large enough and well-equipped to preserve one, so
odds are they will get one.
>> JSC gets locked out due to bad blood with NASM due to the treatment of
>> the Saturn V, and Seattle gets Enterprise because Bonnie Dunbar is the
>> president and is pushing hard to get an orbiter.
>
> ...AIUI, much of the "bad blood" was really more NASM not willing to
> help with any of the upkeep since the stack first wound up at JSC in
> the mid 70's. At least that's what some of the guys involved in the
> fundraising for the enclosure were telling people during the hat
> passings.
While that might be true, that's not the NASM's view of things, so it
won't matter. Victory gets written by the historians, or history gets
written by the victors, something like that.
> As for Bonnie, there's more Astronauts in and around JSC
> than there are Seattle, and I suspect if it came down to throwing
> "astropower" around, Bonnie for all her credibility would still lose
> the toss.
She does have a building, which is a pretty strong trump card.
> ...On a side note, does the NASM also have "bad blood" with Marshall
> over the outdoor nature of their stack?
The stack at MSFC is the Dynamic Test Vehicle, while the one at JSC is
the only Saturn V made up *completely* of honest-to-god flight-rated
stages. (The first stage at KSC was a test stage, the last real stage
having gone to Michoud). The DTV also has an interesting history in that
it never went through the hands of NASM thanks to some machinations of
Von Braun.
Still, you'll notice MSFC isn't even on the short list of facilities
with a shot at getting an orbiter. Again, if it were *my* decision, MSFC
*would* get one - they'd get the Challenger debris, accompanied by a
note telling them if they'd done their fracking jobs, they'd have
*gotten* an intact orbiter.
> Or with Michoud over their
> S-IC just above the hurriflood line?
Michoud won't get an orbiter, either. At best they will get to keep one
of the leftover ETs.
Pat Flannery
> What you all been taking today?
It's not easy crossing a omnivorous simian with a large carnivorous
bird. This is a _lot_ more challenging than crossing the Venus Fly-Trap
with the redwood tree, and all that led to was a bonsai tree with the
personality of Godzilla rather than something that could eat small
aircraft as I intended.
So far all I've got is a baby winged "something" that looks like a
reject from "The Wizard Of Oz", and is going to have a hard time working
the flight controls by poking at them with the stunted wings it has
where the arms should be.
The horrifying results of its attempts to nurse from its mother's
breasts with its beak I will leave to your imagination.
She won't go anywhere near it now, and I doubt she ever will
again...even after all the stitches are removed.
You know, it would be possible to convert a Smart Car into a main battle
tank at fairly low cost if your opponents were, say, squirrels.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> As far as selling simulated 'stick time' to would be astronauts I think
> the answer is known and is 'yes' even without an orbiter and spending
> $42 million.
>
I wonder how much you could get for cutting one up for parts and selling
them on eBay?*
There are a lot of tiles on one, and you could probably sell those for a
nice price each.
In fact, you could just replace the tiles with display ones and still
sell them while keeping the orbiter intact.
Moving the orbiters from KSC to their final destinations is going to be
a real pain also. You are either going to have to fly them there on the
747 (and how do you get them off of it once they arrive? That's how they
got Enterprise to Washington DC), or disassemble them for rail or truck
shipment.
Since NASA is in a cash crunch, do they really want to spend money on
this? Flying a orbiter back to KSC from Edwards costs around $1.8
million, and they have a mate-demate frame at either end of the flight.
Simplicity says keep one at KSC and one at Edwards AFB.
In fact they could land one at Edwards on the last flight and just leave
it there. It certainly is a major part of the history of Edwards.
* Space fans are screaming right now. :-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Well, the decisions have not been made, so there is still time for local
> efforts to result in something. But if the State Leg really wants an
> orbiter, they will get much better results if they appropriate a few
> million to replace the temporary building housing the Saturn V at JSC
> with a nicer permanent building that happens to be large enough to house
> an orbiter as well, rather than just trying to put political pressure on
> NASM. Oh, and they could also pony up a few million more to dredge out
> Clear Lake and restore the barge landing at NASA Parkway near the Hilton
> so that an orbiter could be barged in. (It *would* fit under the Kemah
> bridge; I was skeptical until I went on a boat ride under it and
> eyeball-measured it.)
Removing the vertical fin for transport would simplify things a lot in
that regard.
BTW, one of the things that crippled the Soviet space program was their
spending large amounts of money on space-related displays and monuments
for propaganda purposes that could have been going towards actual space
exploration.
Let's not go down that route.
Pat
Pat Flannery
>
> I wonder how much you could get for cutting one up for parts and selling
> them on eBay?*
> There are a lot of tiles on one, and you could probably sell those for a
> nice price each.
Let's see...27,000 tiles per orbiter, each one framed and including a
map of where it came from on the orbiter and a certificate of authenticity.
Should be able to whip that up for around $25.00 per tile if we ship
them off to China for enclosure in their display frames.
Can get $200.00 per tile easy, maybe as much as $500.00* as they are all
flown space hardware, so we'll call it $300.00, of which $275.00 is
profit (S&H extra).
So $300.00 x 27,000 = $7,425,000 just for the tiles.
* Some flown ones have gone for nearly $10,000 dollars:
http://www.astronautscholarship.org/2009_auction.py?lot=41
...and even unflown ones go for $350.00-$500.00:
http://www.mkjassociates.com/cgi-bin/ilgvulot.pl?site=1&sale=49&lot=254
But of course this is going to flood the market.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> So $300.00 x 27,000
$275.00 x 27,000.
Pat
Brian Gaff
worst.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"OM" <o...@sci.space.history> wrote in message
news:7vtck551jdq7rdvn2...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:09:40 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
> <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>What you all been taking today?
>
> ...I'd rather Pat be on his halluciongenics and post than Charlie
> Murphy posting with that ten-foot corncob up his ass and his nose up
> the L2 trolls' collective asses.
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> ]=====================================[
> ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
> ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
> ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
> ]=====================================[
Me
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:23:55 -0800 (PST), Charlie X. Murphy, L2
>
> >NASM does get one to exchange with Enterprise
>
>
>
My work
Me
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:09:40 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
>
> Murphy posting with that ten-foot corncob up his ass and his nose up
> the L2 trolls' collective asses.
>
You are just jealous
Me
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:09:40 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
>
> <Bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Murphy posting with that ten-foot corncob up his ass and his nose up
> the L2 trolls' collective asses.
>
Again, you demonstrate the reasons that you were rightly banned.
Once an asshole, always an asshole
Me
> David Spain wrote:
> > As far as selling simulated 'stick time' to would be astronauts I think
> > the answer is known and is 'yes' even without an orbiter and spending
> > $42 million.
>
> I wonder how much you could get for cutting one up for parts and selling
> them on eBay?*
> There are a lot of tiles on one, and you could probably sell those for a
> nice price each.
> In fact, you could just replace the tiles with display ones and still
> sell them while keeping the orbiter intact.
> Moving the orbiters from KSC to their final destinations is going to be
> a real pain also. You are either going to have to fly them there on the
> 747 (and how do you get them off of it once they arrive? That's how they
> got Enterprise to Washington DC), or disassemble them for rail or truck
> shipment.
> Since NASA is in a cash crunch, do they really want to spend money on
> this?
That is what part of the 42 million pays for
Robert Clark
>...
>
> I can't for the life of me figure out why Robert Clark is constantly
> coming up with ideas for so radically modifying something that already
> exists that it effectively becomes a entirely different spacecraft, but
> without the advantages that a whole new design would offer.
>
> Pat
There are several other options that could be used at relatively low
cost. I still believe though retrofitting already existing but unused
airframes would be much cheaper.
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_Buran_program#Current_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/Soviet_space_shuttle_could_bail_out_NASA.html?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 use 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. And 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
Pat Flannery
> That is what part of the 42 million pays for
When they took the Enterprise up to DC, how did they get it off of the
747? IIRC, they have some sort of air transportable version of the
mate/demate crane assembly in case the Shuttle ever had to land at a
place other than Kennedy or Edwards; did they use that?
Pat
Robert Clark
>...
> There are several other options that could be used at relatively low
> cost. I still believe though retrofitting already existing but unused
> airframes would be much cheaper.
> 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:
>
>
> There are several other Burans that were only partially completed
> that also could be used:
>
> Buran program.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Buran_program#Current_status
>
This page has links to images of the other Burans that can give you
an idea of
their level of completion:
Soviet Buran Space Shuttle.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0153.shtml
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
A troll is when you post something you don't believe in just to start
an argument or to be controversial. I think you've seen enough of my
posts to know that's not something I'm into. It's possible of course
that it's wrong. All that means, of course, is that the idea is just
wrong. All this rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth is really
over the top.
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.
I'm not a fan of solid rockets for manned missions. The shuttle SRB's
are also expensive also. It had been thought that reusing the casings
would cut costs, but it turned out, retrieving them, cleaning them,
and refilling them costs nearly as much as using new solid motors on
each flight.
The problem with the ET is that it is disposable. I want a fully
reusable vehicle to cut costs. If I recall the cost of the ET is $100
million per flight, another quite expensive item.
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 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
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Yes, I believe so.
They've used the portable Mate/Demate device several times. In addition they
used it in Paris and at White Sands.
That said, I think it would have been FAR cooler if they'd done a drop from
the back of the 747 and let it glide in.
"Dulles this is Enterprise on final approach".
"Roger Enterprise, this is Dulles. You're cleared on runway 1L. Please be
advised there's a 747 in your same traffic pattern, they're cleared on 1R
approximately 1 minute after you're wheel's down."
"Thank you Dulles. BTW, we'll need a tow at wheels stop, we're without power
and gliding in."
"Without power? Are you declaring an inflight emergency? Please confirm."
"That's a big negatory Dulles, we always land this way."
"Roger that. At wheels stop contact Dulles ground control for taxiway and
tow information."
"Roger that, we're over the runway now and main gear down in 4, 3, 2, 1...."
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Jeff Findley
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:98SdnYTVr6ovP9vW...@giganews.com...
> OM wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:05:20 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
>> <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>>> 104 - USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson
>>
>> ...Considering how the Air Farce regarded the shuttle, I'd be *really*
>> surprised if they even got Pathfinder.
>
> Trust me, if *NASA* was making the decision, they wouldn't get one. If it
> were *me* making the decision, I'd send Enterprise to Dryden/Edwards since
> 1) it has historical ties there, 2) it still gives the USAF "half an
> orbiter" and 3) it puts an orbiter on the West coast within driving
> distance of tens of millions of people, which in my mind makes it a better
> site than Seattle (which is within driving distance of nothing but
> Seattle) or Wright-Patterson (which is within driving distance of
> Udvar-Hazy).
>
> Nevertheless, the USAF is pushing for an orbiter and their museum at
> Wright-Patt is both large enough and well-equipped to preserve one, so
> odds are they will get one.
The USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB is definitely a world class facility
(I'd knock the location, but it's within an hour's drive of my house). No
doubt a shuttle orbiter would get center stage inside a brand spanking new
building, I'd guess the one which is going to go up on the other side of the
space missiles building. A quick web search seems to confirm this (and
Jorge's view that they're *really* pushing for OV-104, which is Atlantis)...
This article appears on the front page of the USAF Museum website:
Vital Partnership, NASA and the USAF, Preserving a Legacy (on top of a
picture of the shuttle at the launch pad)
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100104-030.pdf
Check out the picture of what the inside of the building would look like
(page 9), which is prominently displaying Atlantis in the middle of the huge
Space Gallery. Impressive, no?
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:37:26 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
> <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Well, I've no idea about all that, so I'll sit here smiling and assume the
>>worst.
>
> demanding that everyone smell it and comment on how fragrant it is.
> Which is what most of his posts consist of.
>
And most of yours are slinging similar material around and expecting people
to thank you for making the place smell better.
OM, you just keep digging your reputation a deeper and deeper hole. Really,
just stop. You have a problem with Charlie and everyone else at L2, great.
I'm down with that. But don't go dragging it around all the place. The
only person you're hurting is yourself.
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:eb2dnfbhc9j789rW...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
This has been discussed here before. If the shuttle lands anywhere but
Edwards or KSC, it has to be mated or de-mated to the 747 without the usual
mate-demate facility. Dim memory says the hardware to do this can be
transported on a big cargo aircraft (something like a C-141, C-5, or C-17).
I'd think it was used for STS-3 after landing at White Sands, but I can't
seem to connect to the JSC Image Archive.
Here's a (big) picture of that landing:
http://www.holloman.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090330-F-9999X-001.jpg
Can't seem to find pictures of the mating operation...
Me
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:54:36 -0800 (PST), Me <charliexmur...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Again, you demonstrate the reasons that you were rightly banned.
>
> bitch. I broke not *one* *single* *rule* on NSF. You and Dwayne led a
> smear campaign, and I was tried by a kangaroo court. Had a real judge
> been presiding over this case, you bastards would have wound up having
> the book thrown at you.
>
> >Once an asshole, always an asshole
>
> jerk*off*.
Not in the real world. Asshole is lower than a jerk.
There was no smear, just the truth.
Derek Lyons
>>> 101 - Seattle Museum of Flight
>>
>> ...Arguments against that are cost. Last I heard. SMF's having some
>> financial difficulties. Nothing door-closing yet, but enough to rule
>> out building a special extension for something like a Shuttle.
>
>Last I heard, their building is large enough.
If they dump the rest of their collection, sure - the building they
have is stuffed to the gills. Otherwise, no. (Based on the
conditions at the SMF last time I was there, about three years ago. I
haven't heard of any construction effort.)
In fact, they've started parking aircraft across Marginal Way west of
the museum.
They may be banking on borrowing hangar space from Boeing, but I can't
see that happening. The southern hangar area is stuffed with
classified military aircraft and the northern is a major industrial
operation - neither conducive to preservation or tourist acess.) So
that leaves the currently unused Boeing parking area to the south of
museum, the SMF has borrowed it in the past.
As to financial troubles that OM aludes to, he may be confusing (as
many do) the troubled Future Of Flight museum up at Paine Field in
Everett with the Seattle Museum of Flight. (The SMF was going to step
in and take over the Future Of Flight museum some years back, but the
deal fell through.)
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Alain Fournier
> ...Greg, the fact remains that I was wronged in this case, and I'll be
> damned if Charlie's going to get off scott free for it. As long as he
> continues to swagger around here and throw his ego around, I'll be
> there to ram it back down his throat. He's a pathetic lying bastard,
> and deserves the derision.
We don't care whether he deserves the derision or not. I feel that
I don't deserve seeing your incessant rants. You have been told
this numerous times be many people. I am very slow at putting
someone in my killfile, that is the reason why you aren't there
yet.
Alain Fournier
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:05:20 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
>
>
> ...They do have the room.
>
Not really. Last time I was there, there's definitely room at one end of
the main hall, but that's all airplane stuff, not space stuff.
And right now the location of the Enterprise is pretty impressive. That and
the SR-71 are in a great spot.
BUT, they are adding on over time, so there could be room in the future.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:06:08 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>>OM, you just keep digging your reputation a deeper and deeper hole.
>>Really,
>>just stop. You have a problem with Charlie and everyone else at L2,
>>great.
>>I'm down with that. But don't go dragging it around all the place. The
>>only person you're hurting is yourself.
>
> damned if Charlie's going to get off scott free for it. As long as he
> continues to swagger around here and throw his ego around, I'll be
> there to ram it back down his throat. He's a pathetic lying bastard,
> and deserves the derision.
>
>
Fine, If you think he's committed a crime as alluded to in you prior post,
take it up with the authorities.
As for derision, the more you act like this, the more YOU get, whether you
want to or not. The only person you're making look bad is yourself. So
even if your goal were right, you're going about it the wrong way.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 19:53:08 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>As for derision, the more you act like this, the more YOU get, whether you
>>want to or not. The only person you're making look bad is yourself. So
>>even if your goal were right, you're going about it the wrong way.
>
> wrong way", what, in *your* opinion, is the "right" way? The one that
> would guarantee results? All I hear is "you're going about it the
> wrong way" and "you're damaging your reputation". Well, fine. If
> there's another way, then let's hear it. I'll wait.
>
Well let's see, you already deleted the one suggestion I made.
Secondly act like an adult. If Charlie is so terrible he'll hang himself.
Put yourself above the fray and you'll earn people's respect.
But that's probably too high-faluting for you.
Let's put it this way, have you seen a single person in this newsgroup cheer
you on? Suggest you're doing the right thing?
Now compare your style to say Henry's or dare I say Mary's. People who are
well respected for reasons in addition to their knowledge.
Pat Flannery
> Vital Partnership, NASA and the USAF, Preserving a Legacy (on top of a
> picture of the shuttle at the launch pad)
> http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100104-030.pdf
>
> Check out the picture of what the inside of the building would look like
> (page 9), which is prominently displaying Atlantis in the middle of the huge
> Space Gallery. Impressive, no?
Yeah, that would be a good place to display it.
I wonder where they dug up a Titan I at?
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Can't seem to find pictures of the mating operation...
My Google-Fu is powerful:
http://home.att.net/~dblawren/images5/piggyback.jpg
Pat
Pat Flannery
>>> Once an asshole, always an asshole
>> ...An asshole has class. You are just a jerk. More specifically, a
>> jerk*off*.
>
> Not in the real world. Asshole is lower than a jerk.
You do both realize that this reads like some sort of gay flirting code
talk, don't you? :-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
> My Google-Fu is powerful:
> http://home.att.net/~dblawren/images5/piggyback.jpg
Here's another shot showing preparations for the initial lifting
operation from the side, also showing the transport boat tail behind the
orbiter:
http://www.members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/NM/WhiteSands_NM_82Apr_Columbia.jpg
Here, the transport boat tail is getting ready to be attached:
http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/250/draft_lens1441896module2837598photo_1233993576WSMRShuttleSmall.JPG
And here, the orbiter is getting attached to the 747:
http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/250/draft_lens1441896module2837599photo_1233993707Shuttle747WSMR02003.jpg
It looks like all they have to do is transport the lifting strongback to
the airfield where the Shuttle is at and get a couple of high capacity
cranes to attach to it.
Pat
Robert Clark
That's one way to get the conversation back on track.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
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/space/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3a515cca66-2055-4902-bce3-400832bdc2a4&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=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/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/Reuse051409.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 sort
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/briefs/HampstenSDP%20Public%20Release.ppt
Notice the similarity of the first stage boosters to the shuttle
orbiter in the diagram on page 8.
Bob Clark
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 23:07:54 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>>Well let's see, you already deleted the one suggestion I made.
>
That is NOT what I suggested in what you clipped. Go find it for yourself.
>
>>Secondly act like an adult. If Charlie is so terrible he'll hang himself.
>
> ...I'd rather hang him myself. In this case, it's more rewarding.
Then go hang yourself. It would improve this newsgroup.
>
>>Put yourself above the fray and you'll earn people's respect.
>
> ...Respect isn't going to make up for what happened. Greg.
>
>>But that's probably too high-faluting for you.
>
> ...Taking the high road means nothing if the road ends up going
> nowhere.
>
>>Let's put it this way, have you seen a single person in this newsgroup
>>cheer
>>you on? Suggest you're doing the right thing?
>
> ...No, but to be totally honest I really could care less right now.
So you admit, basically you don't give a shit the damage you do. You just
want to be an ass. So noted.
>
>>Now compare your style to say Henry's or dare I say Mary's. People who
>>are
>>well respected for reasons in addition to their knowledge.
>
> ...Note that both of those people aren't exactly posting these days.
> Of course, I'll get blamed for that just because I'm such an easy
> target. Then again, it's always easier to find a scapegoat than
> actually go after those responsible.
>
You don't get it, you are one of the people responsible for the current
state of the newsgroup.
> Either way, you still haven't answered the question, Greg. Where's the
> alternative that works? Just shutting up and ignoring Charlie isn't an
> option that'll have produce any punitive results against the pathetic
> bastard. Let's see a course of action that *will* work, eh?
At this point, I give up OM. You've made it clear that you don't care, you
just want to be hurtful and vindictive. I'm sorry to hear that. It's your
pathetic live, not mine.
>
> OM
Robert Clark
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_center/white_papers/SpaceTourismMarketStudy.pdf
Bob Clark
J. Clarke
If the proposal here is to somehow use Space Shuttle orbiters as passenger
vehicles, can you get insurance on something that NASA considers to no
longer be flight-worthy?
Derek Lyons
> 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.
Well, $1-$2 billion is a pretty tiny market actually, even if the
numbers sound huge by individual standards. Home Depot had $77
billion dollars in sales in 2007, and they aren't even in the same
league as the Really Big Boys.
Not to mention that having a gross revenue of $1-2 billion doesn't
equate to anything like that in terms of actual income, there's a lot
of costs that will chip away at that cash flow. It's entirely
possible to end up with a negative cash flow even with that level of
revenue.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:4MOdnQa0zul_3NXW...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
That's it! I bow to your superior Google-Fu. ;-)
I'm sure doing a mate operation this way is a bit unnerving with the
supervisors in charge hoping nothing goes wrong. The appearance of the
regular mate/de-mate hardware makes it look a lot more sturdy than using the
mobile cranes with the mobile mate/de-mate hardware.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Jeff Findley
Not sure, but the current Space Missiles Gallery is quite impressive to see
in person. Displaying the missiles vertically, in close proximity to each
other, gives you an excellent sense of scale. When you're standing on the
ground (lowest level of the building), they really tower over you. I don't
quite get the same sense of scale when a missile or launch vehicle is
displayed horizontally.
Pat Flannery
> That's it! I bow to your superior Google-Fu. ;-)
>
> I'm sure doing a mate operation this way is a bit unnerving with the
> supervisors in charge hoping nothing goes wrong. The appearance of the
> regular mate/de-mate hardware makes it look a lot more sturdy than using the
> mobile cranes with the mobile mate/de-mate hardware.
I was surprised to see the transport boat tail was in multiple parts,
but I imagine that's for ease of transport.
I wonder if it comes to the landing site in the same aircraft that
carries the strongback, or by truck or rail?
To me it looks like the major challenge is parking the cranes in such a
way that they don't collide with the 747 when it moves into position
between them.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Not sure, but the current Space Missiles Gallery is quite impressive to see
> in person. Displaying the missiles vertically, in close proximity to each
> other, gives you an excellent sense of scale. When you're standing on the
> ground (lowest level of the building), they really tower over you. I don't
> quite get the same sense of scale when a missile or launch vehicle is
> displayed horizontally.
I noted in the photo that they have a Minuteman III, but do they also
have a Minuteman I & II?
I imagine this got destroyed, but the full scale mock-up of the early
DynaSoar on its Titan I booster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uId5mhxn4TE&feature=related *
...really would have looked great in that collection, as would the
Boeing full scale mock-up of the finished design.
* In part 2 of that series you get to see a large scale model Titan
I/DynaSoar being elevated out of a Titan I silo, reminding you that at
this point in its development this is still very much a strategic
weapon's system.
I posted these earlier to sci.space.history, but since this is going to
multiple newsgroups, here are the X-20 DynaSoar videos on YouTube:
Four videos about research on the design, including a full-scale Titan
I/early DynaSoar mock-up in part three, and testing of the aerodynamics
in part four:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjIvBWUQPmk&feature=PlayList&p=981AC39C776B7661&index=0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkQnOQP44dE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uId5mhxn4TE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSe9DdmZb-I&feature=related
Astronauts Grissom, Schirra, and Armstrong try the Dynasoar cockpit on
for size: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7mRXblByxo&feature=related
Boeing unveils the mock-up of the final design:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bn5A0oNpuM
Air Force progress report on X-20 project, parts one and two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drfcrl_vc8M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muNYhj9DFrM&feature=related
Plans for orbital test launch on Titan III:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_GcjJ71Tc4&feature=related
Two part USAF feature showing animated X-20/Titan I mission:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpO5q86Bqys&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1spbZ9o4N8k&feature=related
DynaSoar docking with S-IV stage based space station:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1sO8OKKFZg&feature=related
DynaSoar on recon mission:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgYSgUVYO9Q&feature=related
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> Jeff Findley wrote:
>
>> That's it! I bow to your superior Google-Fu. ;-)
>>
>> I'm sure doing a mate operation this way is a bit unnerving with the
>> supervisors in charge hoping nothing goes wrong. The appearance of the
>> regular mate/de-mate hardware makes it look a lot more sturdy than using
>> the mobile cranes with the mobile mate/de-mate hardware.
>
> I was surprised to see the transport boat tail was in multiple parts, but
> I imagine that's for ease of transport.
> I wonder if it comes to the landing site in the same aircraft that carries
> the strongback, or by truck or rail?
I'm pretty sure it comes in the C-5 with the strongback.
> To me it looks like the major challenge is parking the cranes in such a
> way that they don't collide with the 747 when it moves into position
> between them.
Yeah...
>
> Pat
Pat Flannery
>> To me it looks like the major challenge is parking the cranes in such a
>> way that they don't collide with the 747 when it moves into position
>> between them.
>
> Yeah...
Can you imagine dropping the orbiter somehow?
"Gentlemen...our NASA careers are now
officially...100%...completely...ended." :-D
And I bet they thought about that every time they hoisted the orbiter up
with that gizmo.
What's NASA got in mind for the carrier 747's after the Shuttle is
retired? They must have quite a few years on them by now.
Pat
Alain Fournier
> To me it looks like the major challenge is parking the cranes in such a
> way that they don't collide with the 747 when it moves into position
> between them.
Wasn't it you who posted just a few days ago in another thread a
picture showing what NASA employees consider to be the major challenge.
Having the proper side of the shuttle facing down :-)
Alain Fournier
Pat Flannery
>
> Wasn't it you who posted just a few days ago in another thread a
> picture showing what NASA employees consider to be the major challenge.
> Having the proper side of the shuttle facing down :-)
Trying to place it on top of the 747 on a windy day could be fun from a
tile damage point of view.
I was thinking about that lifting system earlier today, and I wondered
when they retract the landing gear on the orbiter before hanging it
under the cranes and hoisting it over the 747?
Do they get it slightly off the ground by jacks inserted into the three
747 attachment points, put the gear up, and then lift it off of the
jacks and onto the 747 with the strongback?
Pat
Me
They retract the gear after it is lifted by the cranes.
Pat Flannery
> They retract the gear after it is lifted by the cranes.
Is it done from the ground, or is someone in the Shuttle cockpit that
does it?
Pat