 |
 | 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 / March 2004Creative thinking if we had another shuttle problem.
Lets imagine for a moment our shuttle making it to orbit but because of some trouble not being able to make ISS or deorbit. Now the shuttle will cross ISS path in 3 days but be unable to revendous or dock:( Just what could they do with such a problem? Take soyuz over and tether the shuttle crew to the outside of soyuz and bring them back to the station? NASA should really look at some of these sorts of troubles just in case they ever occur. In the same vien as imaging shuttles in orbit! > Lets imagine for a moment our shuttle making it to orbit but because of some > trouble not being able to make ISS or deorbit. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Take soyuz over and tether the shuttle crew to the outside of soyuz and bring > them back to the station? Bob... "creative thinking" does not equal "real-world orbital mechanics reality". As we've told you multiple times (several times recently on .history), "crossing paths" does not mean that a) the vehicles are close by (they could have a completely different true anomaly) b) the vehicles are even at the same altitude (different speeds) c) the vehicles are even in the same inclination (vastly different speeds, due to the angular velocity differences) If an Orbiter was close enough to ISS to allow a Soyuz to go to it and retrieve crewmen, then they would have had to *STOP* their rendezvous approach short of the station. Shuttle/ISS rendezvous profiles require active maneuvering to attain target rendezvous. If nothing is done, the Shuttle will "fly right past" the station and continue opening in front downrange. > NASA should really look at some of these sorts of troubles just in case they > ever occur. It's really amazing that you think that these sort of things *aren't* thought about. Just because you *think* something is easy or can be done, does not mean that it really *CAN* be done. There are physical rules that must be followed. > In the same vien as imaging shuttles in orbit! No it's not. Vehicle imaging can be done. It doesn't go against the very laws of nature. Imaging of Columbia was not performed due to human errors denying permission to activate assets to perform said imaging. That's completely different than only having a disposable camera on the ground and thinking that it's good enough to image Columbia as it "crosses my path" on the ground. Roger  SignatureRoger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ How about this as a different type of solution to Shuttle problems: Make a small sled (maybe 1 engine) to hitch on the ET instead of a Shuttle. When there is trouble inorbit, launch the sled on a full ET with normal solid boosters. Because the sled is so small & light, it will get to orbit with a lot of fuel left. Then the Shuttle can be attached to the ET for a long de-orbit burn, slowing it down so much that re-entry is at a much slower speed (ideally, stop it over the cape & let it drop). OK, there are a few tricky problems such as re-attaching the shuttle and the Lh2 and LOX lines, but the sled can come complete with EVA gear and a perpetual supply of O2 foe EVA and the H2 to warm it enough for use. It could also contain a lot of spare heat shield parts and repair gear, and enough expendables so the Shuttle could be kept aloft for weeks while repaire are being made. The concept is to launch a cheap vehicle using mostly existing boosters. The rescue sled could be unmanned asa long as the shuttle can catch it, or it could have a single pilot to catch the shuttle and the pilot would come back in the repaired shuttle. Signaturefree men own guns - slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ > How about this as a different type of solution to Shuttle problems: > Make a small sled (maybe 1 engine) to hitch on the ET instead of a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that re-entry is at a much slower speed (ideally, stop it over the cape > & let it drop). So, you would have the shuttle carry a *loaded tank full of cryogenic rocket fuel*, during re-entry.... ? What part of " Boom ! " doesn't this suggest to you ? > OK, there are a few tricky problems such as re-attaching the shuttle and > the Lh2 and LOX lines, but the sled can come complete with EVA gear and > a perpetual Ah, the use of Star Trek Unobtanium.... Now, returning to this universe... > supply of O2 foe EVA and the H2 to warm it enough for use. > It could also contain a lot of spare heat shield parts and repair gear, > and enough expendables so the Shuttle could be kept aloft for weeks > while repaire are being made. While we're at it, why not simply launch up the Queen Mary II, so that the astronauts can lounge by the lanai pool deck ? > The concept is to launch a cheap vehicle using mostly existing boosters. Non sequitur. Your " idea " requires a *new launch vehicle*, namely Shuttle-C. > The rescue sled could be unmanned asa long as the shuttle can catch it, > or it could have a single pilot to catch the shuttle and the pilot would > come back in the repaired shuttle. So, now you want to develop a *new manned spacecraft*.... Goodbye, " cheap "... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. > > How about this as a different type of solution to Shuttle problems: > > Make a small sled (maybe 1 engine) to hitch on the ET instead of a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So, you would have the shuttle carry a *loaded tank full of cryogenic > rocket fuel*, during re-entry.... ? No, burn the ET dry during deorbit and drop it and the sled before re-entry. > What part of " Boom ! " doesn't this suggest to you ? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Now, returning to this universe... OK, not perpetual but the ET carries a huge amount of LOX. > > supply of O2 foe EVA and the H2 to warm it enough for use. > > It could also contain a lot of spare heat shield parts and repair gear, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > While we're at it, why not simply launch up the Queen Mary II, so > that the astronauts can lounge by the lanai pool deck ? It would need a bigger booster > > > The concept is to launch a cheap vehicle using mostly existing boosters. > > Non sequitur. Your " idea " requires a *new launch vehicle*, namely > Shuttle-C. Not Shuttle C. A cheap tiny light substitute > > The rescue sled could be unmanned asa long as the shuttle can catch it, > > or it could have a single pilot to catch the shuttle and the pilot would > > come back in the repaired shuttle. > > So, now you want to develop a *new manned spacecraft*.... It would be unmanned at first, but a more expensive manned version might be possible later, possibly using a Mercury. > Goodbye, " cheap "... A lot cheaper than loosing a shuttle or letting the Hubble fail for lack of pre-paid upgrades. Signaturefree men own guns - slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ >> > How about this as a different type of solution to Shuttle problems: >> > Make a small sled (maybe 1 engine) to hitch on the ET instead of a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No, burn the ET dry during deorbit and drop it and the sled before > re-entry. In which case, with *no fuel to burn after deorbit*, whats different about that from whats done now ? Your " idea " seemed to be one where a *constant* SSME firing would change the shuttle's return flight path from an aerodynamically assisted ballistic falling trajectory, where the speed of the shuttle at any moment past deorbit is a function of that ballistic trajectory, to a *powered descent*. Well, by jettisoning the ET prior to reentry, you have NO powered descent. Thus... nothing changes... >> What part of " Boom ! " doesn't this suggest to you ? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > OK, not perpetual but the ET carries a huge amount of LOX. Burned dry in *nine minutes*. You can't empty your car's fuel tank from full to dry in nine minutes. Does that mean that your car has a " perpetual " fuel supply ? Words have... *meanings*... >> > supply of O2 foe EVA and the H2 to warm it enough for use. >> > It could also contain a lot of spare heat shield parts and repair gear, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It would need a bigger booster Note that Test Ban Treaties prohibit Orion... >> > The concept is to launch a cheap vehicle using mostly existing >> > boosters. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not Shuttle C. A cheap tiny light substitute Back to Unobtanium.... >> > The rescue sled could be unmanned asa long as the shuttle can catch it, >> > or it could have a single pilot to catch the shuttle and the pilot would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It would be unmanned at first, but a more expensive manned version might > be possible later, possibly using a Mercury. Non sequitur. No *designed as unmanned* spacecraft CAN be later made manned. The requirements for each are too divergent. >> Goodbye, " cheap "... > > A lot cheaper than loosing a shuttle or letting the Hubble fail for lack > of pre-paid upgrades. Lunacy. Losing a shuttle loses a couple of billion. Ditto for Hubble. Two billion won't even get you past the RFP stage for a manned space vehicle... I hope you let someone else do your taxes each year... Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. > >> > How about this as a different type of solution to Shuttle problems: > >> > Make a small sled (maybe 1 engine) to hitch on the ET instead of a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Well, by jettisoning the ET prior to reentry, you have NO powered > descent. Thus... nothing changes... There is a great difference between powered descent outside the atmosphere and unpowered descent at near orbital speed. The ET would be empty in about 5 min and jetisoned outside the atmosphere, but the Shuttle would be going a lot slower and have less heat stress upon re-entry. Signaturefree men own guns - slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ >> >> > How about this as a different type of solution to Shuttle problems: >> >> > Make a small sled (maybe 1 engine) to hitch on the ET instead of a [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > There is a great difference between powered descent outside the > atmosphere and unpowered descent at near orbital speed. Not really, no. As the altitude where a deorbit burn has to be done is well outside the atmosphere, then the ceasing of the firing would result in the acceleration of the vehicle by means of *falling* ( Jump off a building sometime, if you doubt that falling=acceleration ) and said falling acceleration would continue until the vehicle hit a terminal speed, relative to what tiny whisps of top of atmosphere > The ET would be > empty in about 5 min and jetisoned outside the atmosphere, At which point, accceleration due to *falling* would reassert itself... 100 miles UP down to zero is a *loooong* way... > but the > Shuttle would be going a lot slower and have less heat stress upon > re-entry. Feel free to *prove* that it was the " heat stress " of the last, say, 200 MPH of velocity of Columbia that caused the break up... Please take a basic physics course and... pass it this time. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. > >> >> > How about this as a different type of solution to Shuttle problems: > >> >> > Make a small sled (maybe 1 engine) to hitch on the ET instead of a [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > At which point, accceleration due to *falling* would reassert > itself... 100 miles UP down to zero is a *loooong* way... Oh, pleeese, do the numbers, OK? Going from orbital (7.9km/s?) and say 160km up is a tiny bit different then going from 0m/s at 160km, looong falling notwithstanding. Using my rusty elementary school physics formula mgh=mv^2/2 and putting h=160km you get v cca 1800m/s for free fall from 160km, ignoring air resistance. That is tiny bit less then 7900+m/s from full orbit. Nothing like your 200mph (90m/s) difference mentioned below. Of course, getting the big tank and the engines up there to give you that 7.9m/s delta v for breaking above the athmosphere is not realistic. But you look silly insisting on your poor counterargument. There are much better ones. > > but the > > Shuttle would be going a lot slower and have less heat stress upon [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Please take a basic physics course and... pass it this time. Uh, oh. Applies really well. ;-) Stefan > Andre >> >> >> > How about this as a different type of solution to Shuttle problems: >> >> >> > Make a small sled (maybe 1 engine) to hitch on the ET instead of a [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> itself... 100 miles UP down to zero is a *loooong* way... > Oh, pleeese, do the numbers, OK? Why ? They don't chang the fact that this is both an undoable and silly " idea "... All you're doing is arguing degrees of silliness. > Going from orbital (7.9km/s?) and say 160km up is a tiny bit different > then going from 0m/s at 160km, looong falling notwithstanding. Using > my rusty elementary school physics formula mgh=mv^2/2 and putting > h=160km you get v cca 1800m/s for free fall from 160km, ignoring air > resistance. That is tiny bit less then 7900+m/s from full orbit. > Nothing like your 200mph (90m/s) difference mentioned below. A couple of klicks per second isn't a help, relative to the shuttle's protective systems. And, the lunacy of giving an orbiting shuttle a *loaded ET* remains... lunacy. > Of course, getting the big tank and the engines up there to give you > that 7.9m/s delta v for breaking above the athmosphere is not > realistic. But you look silly insisting on your poor counterargument. > There are much better ones. So, offer them. Sheesh. You got a problem with people saying things *differently* from your way ? >> > but the >> > Shuttle would be going a lot slower and have less heat stress upon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Please take a basic physics course and... pass it this time. > Uh, oh. Applies really well. ;-) Really ? Was I wrong about the lunacy of " giving " an *orbiting shuttle* a loaded ET ? I don't think so, ergo, you're... wrong. HTH. > Stefan Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green. ... > >> >> Well, by jettisoning the ET prior to reentry, you have NO powered > >> >> descent. Thus... nothing changes... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> > >> Not really, no. ... > >> > The ET would be > >> > empty in about 5 min and jetisoned outside the atmosphere, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why ? To see that your statements 'nothing changes' and 'Not really, no.' are simply wrong. > They don't chang the fact that this is both an undoable and > silly " idea "... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > A couple of klicks per second isn't a help, relative to the shuttle's > protective systems. Its more then 4x the difference. About the difference of having a car crash at 50km/h and 200km/h. Not a help, yes? > And, the lunacy of giving an orbiting shuttle a > *loaded ET* remains... lunacy. Yes, for different reasons. > > Of course, getting the big tank and the engines up there to give you > > that 7.9m/s delta v for breaking above the athmosphere is not > > realistic. But you look silly insisting on your poor counterargument. > > There are much better ones. > > So, offer them. Have been offered in similar threads many times, better then I can do. Besides, it is boring. > Sheesh. You got a problem with people saying things > *differently* from your way ? I have a problem with people persistently and self-righteously arguing using arguments which are plainly wrong. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong on the issue. If you don't know what you are talking about AND still want to make a point (why not, this is usenet and everybody wants to vent itself ;-)), at least don't insist on being right. Looks foolish. > >> > but the > >> > Shuttle would be going a lot slower and have less heat stress upon [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Really ? Well, a person with a basic physics course would choose an argument which is indeed correct, insead of using an argument that can be easily proven wrong using basic physics. > Was I wrong about the lunacy of " giving " an *orbiting > shuttle* a loaded ET ? > I don't think so, ergo, you're... wrong. If you say so... Stefan > HTH. > > > Stefan > > Andre Major question is, what if the Shuttle came down over a LARGE population area, or maybe worse, it is not in the US? Shuttle crashes into Iraq? Not likely, but you get the idea. What is being done to bring the different space groups, agencies and like together? Will there be a space race, but not the normal 1960s sort, but one where the teams races their ships up to Orbit then around the earth or ... and then back down? Mike > >> >> >> > How about this as a different type of solution to Shuttle problems: > >> >> >> > Make a small sled (maybe 1 engine) to hitch on the ET instead of a [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " > The Man Prayer, Red Green. > Major question is, what if the Shuttle came down over a LARGE population > area, or maybe worse, it is not in the US? Shuttle is abandoned. US pulls out of ISS shortly thereafter. >Major question is, what if the Shuttle came down over a LARGE population >area, or maybe worse, it is not in the US? > >Shuttle crashes into Iraq? Not likely, but you get the idea Some pieces landed on the Dallas Fort Worth area. And several medium-sized cities were in the debris fields. Not that much damage was done. The shuttle is about the size of a commuter jet, and the debris field extends over more than 100 miles.... ***** Tim Horrigan <horrigan@aol.com> ***** >>Major question is, what if the Shuttle came down over a LARGE population >>area, or maybe worse, it is not in the US? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > done. The shuttle is about the size of a commuter jet, and the debris > field extends over more than 100 miles.... From the CAIB report, page 213-214: Debris fell on a relatively sparsely populated area of the United States, with an average of about 85 inhabitants per square mile. Orbiter re-entry flight paths often pass over much more populated areas, including major cities that average more than 1,000 inhabitants per square mile. For example, the STS-107 re-entry profile passed over Sac-ramento, California, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Board-sponsored study concluded that, given the unlikely event of a similar Orbiter breakup over a densely populated area such as Houston, the most likely outcome would be one or two ground casualties. Space Flight Risk Compared to Aircraft Operations A recent study of U.S. civil aviation accidents found that between 1964 and 1999, falling aircraft debris killed an average of eight people per year.8 In comparison, the National Center for Health Statistics reports that between 1992 and 1994, an average of 65 people in the United States were killed each year by lightning strikes. The aviation accident study revealed a decreasing trend in the annual number of “groundling” fatalities, so that an average of about four fatalities per year are predicted in the near future.9 The probability of a U.S. resident being killed by aircraft debris is now less than one in a million over a 70-year lifetime.10 Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- R. Feynman, Appendix F. > > Non sequitur. Your " idea " requires a *new launch vehicle*, namely > > Shuttle-C. > > Not Shuttle C. A cheap tiny light substitute Sorry, Shuttle C is about as cheap and light as you can get for a shuttle derived vehicle (since it means few, if any, changes to shuttle hardware such as the ET, MLP's, pads, and etc.). Jeff SignatureRemove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. > How about this as a different type of solution to Shuttle problems: > Make a small sled (maybe 1 engine) to hitch on the ET instead of a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that re-entry is at a much slower speed (ideally, stop it over the cape > & let it drop). The "sled" would cost billions of dollars and years to develop (might as well develop the CEV and ditch the shuttle). The SSME's can't be restarted in orbit. The ET can't be reattached to the shuttle after separation (explosive bolts/nuts and other non-reversable procedures prevent this from happening). > OK, there are a few tricky problems such as re-attaching the shuttle and > the Lh2 and LOX lines, but the sled can come complete with EVA gear and > a perpetual supply of O2 foe EVA and the H2 to warm it enough for > use. LH2 is colder than LOX. > It could also contain a lot of spare heat shield parts and repair gear, > and enough expendables so the Shuttle could be kept aloft for weeks > while repaire are being made. If you're sending up a "care package" use something smaller for a launch vehicle, like a Delta. > The concept is to launch a cheap vehicle using mostly existing boosters. > The rescue sled could be unmanned asa long as the shuttle can catch it, > or it could have a single pilot to catch the shuttle and the pilot would > come back in the repaired shuttle. Then use a commercial launch vehicle, not a shuttle derived monstrosity. Jeff SignatureRemove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. > Lets imagine for a moment our shuttle making it to orbit but because of some > trouble not being able to make ISS or deorbit. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > In the same vien as imaging shuttles in orbit! If the Shuttle "will cross ISS path", it means the two space craft are not in the same orbital plane and are probably at different altitudes too. Neither the Shuttle nor Soyuz have enough fuel for such rendevous maneuvers. |
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.