Thoughts about Retiring the Space Shuttle.

[TopCatGr58]

Hey Folks,

As I understand it, this is to be the last year of the space shuttles activities!

Allegedly they(NASA) are going back to disposable rockets for putting other satellites and such into space, as well as using the Apollo type reentry capsules for sending folks to and from the space station!

I thought the Shuttle idea was a good one. But I thought the use of those massive disposable rockets and all of that fuel to get the thing up off the ground and into space seemed rather wasteful.

I thought I had seen where they had used a 747 to transport a shuttle from one coast to the other. I realize that the shuttle was empty when they did that, and that they used cranes to load and remove the shuttle from the 747.

But that's what had me wondering? It takes a lot less energy, fuel to take off into flight horizontally than to go straight UP! I don't know what the capacity of a 747 is, perhaps the empty Shuttle IS it, but I wondered why they couldn't design a 747 with stronger engines, or just add a few more to provide additional carrying capacity, so that it could carry the SHUTTLE with it's FULL PAYLOAD AND FUEL needed to get it from 30+K feet up in the atmosphere up into outerspace? It would need some quick release machanism to be able to "LAUNCH" it from the 747 once it got it up to that altitude, but I would think that it would have been much cheaper in fuel and materials(disposable rockets) costs to do it this way!?

OR...design a shuttle/PLANE with the capabilities to take off normally and then just fly out into outerspace with additional rockets. I know there is a program/contest that's been going on for a few years in trying to find such a craft so that space flight can become commercial, just can't remember the name right now?

Anyways, just wondering what other folks think?
T.C.

[nate]

Just stay out of space? They put emissions laws in to effect for motor vehicles.But yet they send shuttles threw the crust of the earth and all the other layers,but now that wouldn't do any damage now would it.

[The Lorax]

Yeah, that was the X prize, some guy won it a year or two ago by flying a vehicle into outer space, landing and being able to repeat the feat inside of 3 days or something like that. I don't know whether or not NASA intends to make use of his design but I found it to be promising. yes, I know, I am a bit of a nerd, I watch a lot of documentaries and can watch them over and over. Subject matter is seemingly irrelevant as I will watch documentaries about nature, space, religion, serial killers and pretty much anything in between. anyway, it was the X prize, it's been won, the rest of the info either never got into my brain, or I lost it, it was after all a few beers ago. have a nice day and ride safe

[crazy steve]

Yeah, unfortunately the poor things are just worn out, plus the technology is now 20+ years old. But they don't have the money to step up to the plate and build what's needed, so it's back to the disintegrating totem poles for launches.

Too bad the no-nuke people and various treaties rule out the Orion design. You can put just about anything you want into orbit with that.

'78E original owner

[Montreux_Blue]

Why don't they just do it like USAF Colonel Joe Kittinger did back in 1960 and go to space in a helium balloon? You got to watch the video, long but worth it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81gn2oLeC_U

[latexeses]

Lorax,

Burt Rutan won the x prize by putting his craft into space and returning to earth and repeating the feat in 14 days. His crew made the turn-around in 5 days.
The man is a design genius in aeronautical design.

TC,

I think the Shuttle has reached a point where tecnology has passed it by.
I envy the people in Florida who get a chance to see the launches.
Imagine being a witness to the Saturn V rocket launch. Said it was the loudest man made sound except for the atomic bomb.
I would like to see them update or put a new generation of craft out there that has the heavy lifting capabilities as the shuttle. We will be a long time getting off of this rock without something like the shuttle.
I saw a blip on the Nasa channel abou the space elevator. Something about carbon nanofibers. Essentially a carbon rope that would be held in place by centrifical force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

http://www.spaceelevator.com/index.p...he_Universe%3F

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sp...eelevator.html

Rodger

[DJinNH]

I thought I had seen where they had used a 747 to transport a shuttle from one coast to the other. I realize that the shuttle was empty when they did that, and that they used cranes to load and remove the shuttle from the 747.

But that's what had me wondering? It takes a lot less energy, fuel to take off into flight horizontally than to go straight UP! I don't know what the capacity of a 747 is, perhaps the empty Shuttle IS it, but I wondered why they couldn't design a 747 with stronger engines, or just add a few more to provide additional carrying capacity, so that it could carry the SHUTTLE with it's FULL PAYLOAD AND FUEL needed to get it from 30+K feet up in the atmosphere up into outerspace? It would need some quick release machanism to be able to "LAUNCH" it from the 747 once it got it up to that altitude, but I would think that it would have been much cheaper in fuel and materials(disposable rockets) costs to do it this way!?


Anyways, just wondering what other folks think?
T.C.

TC,

It makes me wonder what the possibilities are as well. NASA does use a version of the 747 for transport whenever the Shuttle has to land in CA or TX instead of FL due to weather or whatever.



Remember when the Shuttle was first going through tests? It was the "Enterprise" that was launched from the back of that plane but it never fired up any engines...rather, it was a test to see how well it could glide back and land on a runway. Enterprise never went into Space.

I think back to those Chuck Yeagar flights when he launched that plane from a cradle under the wing of a B-52 I think. They dropped him, he glided a safe distance from the other aircraft, then fired off the engines. I wonder if the Shuttle could do that same. You did bring up one very important issue though, when the Shuttle piggybacks, it sure as heck is not loaded with fuel and cargo. Another thing, they mount the cone over the exhaust to cut down on drag. Maybe a break away cone along the same idea as them breaking away from the booster rockets now.

Don

[Big Daddy Funk]

No Matter what

NASA will always build cool stuff and continue to amaze us. Being an astronaught would be better than being a rock star.

[DJinNH]

NASA will always build cool stuff and continue to amaze us. Being an astronaught would be better than being a rock star.

I'd go on a mission in a heartbeat....if they'd only ask me to.

Don

[DJinNH]

Back in 1984, the Coast Guard cutter I was on pulled into New Orleans for the World's Fair. We had public tours of our cutter.



The Enterprise was on display just up the dock from us.



Until then, I hadn't realized how big the shuttle is until I walked up to it.

Don

[BigDick]

But that's what had me wondering? It takes a lot less energy, fuel to take off into flight horizontally than to go straight UP! I don't know what the capacity of a 747 is, perhaps the empty Shuttle IS it, but I wondered why they couldn't design a 747 with stronger engines, or just add a few more to provide additional carrying capacity, so that it could carry the SHUTTLE with it's FULL PAYLOAD AND FUEL needed to get it from 30+K feet up in the atmosphere up into outerspace? It would need some quick release machanism to be able to "LAUNCH" it from the 747 once it got it up to that altitude, but I would think that it would have been much cheaper in fuel and materials(disposable rockets) costs to do it this way!?

OR...design a shuttle/PLANE with the capabilities to take off normally and then just fly out into outerspace with additional rockets. I know there is a program/contest that's been going on for a few years in trying to find such a craft so that space flight can become commercial, just can't remember the name right now?

Your second point is the more viable of the two T.C. the shuttle itself works like a regular airplane once it's in the atmosphere. That means it could fly up to the point where there is no air but then it would need to "slingshot" out of the atmosphere with the rocket motors. Read about the SR-71 here. A very impressive airframe. It was capable of achieving those altitudes but no more because it's engines need the oxygen present in air to function.

The only problem I could foresee with your second point is the additional physics involved in doing the "slingshot" firing of the rocket motors to go beyond the atmosphere. Also then the crew/shuttle would be fighting a horizontal pull down towards the earth as well as fighting to go forward to their objective.

Just my thoughts.

[TopCatGr58]

Hey Dick,

I wasn't thinking about a SLINGSHOT type launch. I was just talking about launching it OFF of the lift vehicle..being able to separate from the 747 or whatever, and THEN like you said, use booster rockets to finish it's trajectory into space.

I know in WWII they used to haul gliders behind other planes, so aside from mounting the shuttle on top of the lift vehicle, wondering if it might be easier, safer to haul it on a tow cable or such? The Jet Wash might be a problem for the trailing glider/shuttle, but might be easier to disengage the cable vs. having to remove the shuttle from hard fastenings on top of the 747/lift vechicle.

The other problem I now see is that due to the payload bay, there isn't any room for an fuel storage. That big red tube on the belly of the SHUTTLE during the launches with the 2 side boosters is what it uses to push it up into space one the massive booster is dropped. SO....they would need to redesign the fuel storage tank to a more flat design to act like an additional airfoil during the towing flight stage before it could separate and fire rockets!?

Oh well, guess the engineers thought about all of this already, and that's why it had the system it had!?
T.C.

[BigDick]

It wouldn't have enough fuel either way, but assuming they had some supercompact fuel to make it feasable. . . these would be the two options. The bottom "aircraft" (used loosely, I'm not an artist ) is what I meant by "slingshotting" the shuttle would detach from the tow vehicle and immediately engage the rocket motors to go to the moon (or whatever) that way. The other "aircraft" would be a vertical launch direct from the aircraft, in this one though the tow vehicle would likely have to be a disposable one time remote operated operation. and to have the shuttle in the correct orientation to be headed to the moon would create extreme amounts of drag.


(thanks for the opportunity to do the geek talk tc I need these outlets once in a while! )