 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / December 2007Shuttle C with recoverable engines?
Has anyone considered a version of the shuttle C but where the SMEs, pumps, and avionics, etc. are placed behind a "small" heat shield and recovered from orbit? The SRBs would be recovered as usual. The drop tank would be expended, as usual. A payload canister would replace the orbiter and be delivered to orbit. (Perhaps to be handled by Parom.) The SMEs, pumps, and other valuables would be packaged much like the Ares design for Mars Direct but be recovered and reused. Recovery systems would be smaller and less massive since less is to be brought back. The cargo to orbit would be larger since it all stays there. On Dec 28, 10:47 am, jones...@emporia.edu wrote: > Has anyone considered a version of the shuttle C but where > the SMEs, pumps, and avionics, etc. are placed behind a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > brought back. The cargo to orbit would > be larger since it all stays there. That idea is as old as the shuttle > Has anyone considered a version of the shuttle C but where > the SMEs, pumps, and avionics, etc. are placed behind a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > valuables would be packaged much like the Ares design > for Mars Direct but be recovered and reused. Yes. Take a look at Dennis Jenkin's book "Space Shuttle" for a more in-depth discussion. But it's definitely been considered. Too late now though. NASA seems hellbent on repeating the mistakes it learned from the current shuttle and building a new boondoggle. > Recovery systems would be smaller and less massive since less is to be > brought back. The cargo to orbit would > be larger since it all stays there.  SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html > > Recovery systems would be smaller and less massive since less is to be > > brought back. �The cargo to orbit would > > be larger since it all stays there. > > -- > Greg Moore yeah if the just removed most of the life support equiptement from the existing shuttle it could lift more and quit being a death risk......... for crew. shuttle C should be built for large cargo hauling. elminate the hydradizine and upgrade everythiung else can produce a nice versatile cargo vehicle for heavy lifting and returning big stuff from orbit On Dec 28, 4:15 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Recovery systems would be smaller and less massive since less is to be > > > brought back. �The cargo to orbit would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > existing shuttle it could lift more and quit being a death > risk......... for crew. Let it go. It is no different than other vehicles > > yeah if the just removed most of the life support equiptement from the > > existing shuttle it could lift more and quit being a death > > risk......... for crew. > > Let it go. �It is no different than other vehicles maybe not, converting to shuttle C fills a bunch of needs. it continues the pork to existing contractors indefinetely it has the unique ability to return large loads from orbit it could continue servicing and upgrading ISS it allows the existing workers to stay together untill and if a new maned vehicle is available it can haul very large loads On Dec 28, 7:08 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote: > it has the unique ability to return large loads from orbit No it doesn't. Shuttle-C has no wings. And there isn't any need to return payloads. There is no money to "upgrade" the ISS. Inline is better than sidemount I think what is really going to be needed is a way to take fairly large 'stuff' back to earth safely, myself. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Has anyone considered a version of the shuttle C but where > the SMEs, pumps, and avionics, etc. are placed behind a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > brought back. The cargo to orbit would > be larger since it all stays there. > I think what is really going to be needed is a way to take fairly large > 'stuff' back to earth safely, myself. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - a shuttle C could be based on existing shuttle, using current shuttles for cargo On Dec 29, 8:41 am, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote: > a shuttle C could be based on existing shuttle, using current shuttles > for cargo Not viable. The current shuttles need a crew. The onorbit operations of an orbiter are not automated. A substantial design of the avionics would be required On Dec 30, 3:33�am, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 29, 8:41 am, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of an orbiter are not automated. �A substantial design of the avionics > would be required they already bulilt a patch cable for autoland, nasa could do it if they wanted. you can automate anything, if the money ios available must be more pork in new system. On Dec 30, 1:41 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote: > they already bulilt a patch cable for autoland, nasa could do it if > they wanted. > > you can automate anything, if the money ios available > > must be more pork in new system. Very minor change that allowed the landing gear to be deployed. On orbit ops are a different animal. "you can automate anything" but it doesn't always make sense to, especially if it is a complete redesign |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.