shuttlelegs - 4/9/2007 6:53 PMWould it not just be easier to design a stronger leading edge or something other than foam on the external tank. Or give the tank internal piping and a outer body over the foam.
nacnud - 4/9/2007 8:06 PMPut the insulation inside the tank? But then you have engine ingestion problems...
stockman - 4/9/2007 3:29 PMInteresting idea however my first thought on it if I am picturing it correctly is that you would NOT have access to the payload bays once the shuttle was stacked. You would have to fully integrate the payload prior to rollover to the vehicle assembly building and would loose all access once stacked.
luke strawwalker - 5/9/2007 3:24 AMQuite true... didn't think about that much before... how much of the payload stuff is done in the RSS? For that matter are any of the payloads installed in the bay before the orbiter is added to the stack or is it ALL done in the RSS?? If it were 72 again it could probably be designed around... Dunno... OL JR
luke strawwalker - 4/9/2007 9:24 PM1. how much of the payload stuff is done in the RSS? 2. For that matter are any of the payloads installed in the bay before the orbiter is added to the stack or is it ALL done in the RSS?? 3. If it were 72 again it could probably be designed around..)
Jim - 4/9/2007 5:01 PMDebris hitting the windows. Payload bay access is the killer
Jim - 4/9/2007 8:35 PMQuoteluke strawwalker - 4/9/2007 9:24 PM1. how much of the payload stuff is done in the RSS? 2. For that matter are any of the payloads installed in the bay before the orbiter is added to the stack or is it ALL done in the RSS?? 3. If it were 72 again it could probably be designed around..)1. most. even when the payload was installed horizontal, there were requirements to still access the payload bay at the pad2. None since spacelab is gone. Spacelab was about the only payload* installed horizontal. Less than 20%3. nope, payload installation at the pad is a hard requirement, just like all other US LV's* there were a few exceptions
nacnud - 4/9/2007 7:06 PMPut the insulation inside the tank? But then you have engine ingestion problems...
luke strawwalker - 4/9/2007 9:41 PM1. About number three... I guess you're referring to EELV's with that comment, and of course shuttle since that's what we're talking about, 2. but the Saturn V moon missions were all integrated in the VAB were they not?? I don't remember seeing any LEM's being winched up the tower, or the CM/SM or LES either for that matter... 3. so if it were 72 again and that 'hard requirement' hadn't been invented yet.... Hmmmm...
yinzer - 5/9/2007 1:28 AMSoviet LVs all transferred their payloads to the pad with the rocket. It's not like it can't be done. Even today, the Atlas V and Ariane V both have payloads fully integrated off the launch pad and then roll the entire vehicle out to the pad on a mobile launch platform. I think access to the payloads requires the vehicle to be rolled back; however this can happen in a manner of hours rather than days.It may be noteworthy that Soyuz-from-Kourou will integrate the payload on the launch pad, as opposed to the off-pad integration done at Baikonur and Plesetsk. This could be either out of a desire to avoid the loads from horizontal transfer, or due to longer on-pad processing times for the Soyuz rocket.
luke strawwalker - 4/9/2007 6:41 PMI don't remember seeing any LEM's being winched up the tower, or the CM/SM or LES either for that matter...
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a410/ap7-68-HC-465.jpg" width="640" border="0" />
jeff122670 - 15/9/2007 11:45 PMOr, how about this: We just never fly the shuttle again. That is about the same idea. It seems to me that these vehicles are, by virtue of what they do, dangerous.
Remember, the only way for a ship to be safe is to stay in the harbor, but that isnt what they are designed to do.Just my $.02Jeff