Argosy - 21/1/2007 8:40 AMHow about storing some extra fuel in the cargo bay(that would be burned also)?
nathan.moeller - 21/1/2007 9:43 AMHey Jim. That reminds me of another question. Including those currently installed on the orbiters, how many useable SSMEs are currently in existence?
Jim - 21/1/2007 8:48 AMQuotenathan.moeller - 21/1/2007 9:43 AMHey Jim. That reminds me of another question. Including those currently installed on the orbiters, how many useable SSMEs are currently in existence?there is a list on L2
mkirk - 20/1/2007 7:33 PMQuoteJorge - 20/1/2007 2:54 PMQuoteArgosy - 20/1/2007 2:40 PMHere a question I've been interested in for some time...What is the maximum achievable delta-v of the shuttle if all the fuel would be burnt out during it's climb, and the shuttle would be empty(no cargo whatsoever, just the skeleton crew)?Only about 500 fps more than a nominal HST launch. The resulting orbital altitude would be around 600 n.mi.-- JRFYeah, but your use of the word "skeleton crew" may be a poor- although very acurate - choice of words in this case.
Jorge - 20/1/2007 2:54 PMQuoteArgosy - 20/1/2007 2:40 PMHere a question I've been interested in for some time...What is the maximum achievable delta-v of the shuttle if all the fuel would be burnt out during it's climb, and the shuttle would be empty(no cargo whatsoever, just the skeleton crew)?Only about 500 fps more than a nominal HST launch. The resulting orbital altitude would be around 600 n.mi.-- JRF
Argosy - 20/1/2007 2:40 PMHere a question I've been interested in for some time...What is the maximum achievable delta-v of the shuttle if all the fuel would be burnt out during it's climb, and the shuttle would be empty(no cargo whatsoever, just the skeleton crew)?
Don't let that pesky little desire to come back home get in the way of a maximum performance altitude record. Heck lets really go for broke and use up all the gas in the RCS by using the +x and -x jets as well. Of course we can save just enough propellant for one more attitude change to a right wing forward orientation (i.e. along the velocity vector) which would allow us to blow the hatch and get just one more burst of Delta V as the cabin vents every ounce of remaining O2 and N2 in the ECLSS (environmental control and life support system) out through the open hatch...that would be cool Mark Kirkman
elmarko - 21/1/2007 7:38 AMI would be interested in that! I'm also tempted to run a sim in Orbiter too To clarify the rules, are we going for the highest circularised orbit, or can we just shoot upwards at 90deg pitch and burn out every propellant available? :p
mainengine - 21/1/2007 8:01 AMA list ? Where is it ?
joebacsi - 22/1/2007 9:34 AMWhat was the highest orbit the Shuttle was ever sent up to?
elmarko - 22/1/2007 11:41 AMFor the record I just sent up a shuttle in Orbiter at 90deg pitch and burned out every single propellant there is and attained a maximum altitude of about 7,500m/s (I forget the exact figure). That was with errors in the path though, sometimes my flight path wasn't pointing straight up. Also the shuttle in Orbiter does seem to be a bit more powerful in the first stage than the real life one.Ground speed coming through the atmosphere was a slightly toasty 8,000 m/s.I know this has no bearing on real world applications, but it was brought up, and Mark gave me the idea with his post
TJL - 1/2/2007 9:05 PMWhat was the first shuttle mission to use 104.5% thrust on the SSME's?Any talk of increasing the thrust before the program ends for one of the heavier payload missions?For the 50,000 + pound payload on Columbia's STS-93 mission, was the thrust level 104.5%?Thanks!