Author Topic: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread  (Read 228095 times)

Offline ZachS09

Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #260 on: 04/09/2017 02:01 PM »
Really? Trained astronauts aboard the shuttle have never laughed so hard or threw up during each ascent.

They remained calm and collected because they did the ground simulators for two years; that's the duration of training for each mission.

By the way, I would support an engine-less Space Shuttle Orbiter atop the Falcon Heavy as well. If they were not refurbished as museum exhibits yet.
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital-class rocket."

Offline TripD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
  • E. Clampus Launchus
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 308
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #261 on: 04/09/2017 06:08 PM »
Launching a Shuttle orbiter on top of a Falcon Heavy would be like balancing a cooked noodle on your fingertip.  Just how tall would that be anyway?

Offline ZachS09

Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #262 on: 04/09/2017 07:33 PM »
94.24 meters. The typical payload fairing for the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy is 13.1 meters tall, and you add that to the 57-meter tall rocket to get 70.1 meters.

Without the fairing, placing a 37.24-meter tall Space Shuttle Orbiter atop the second stage results in a height of 94.24 meters.
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital-class rocket."

Online John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 1284
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #263 on: 04/09/2017 09:36 PM »
You all realize that without the 3 SSME's for ballast... the damn thing won't glide worth a chit...  ???  ::)

Gonna have to strip some weight out of the nose to make that weight and balance work...  ;)

Offline CharlieWildman

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • A small island north of Seattle
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #264 on: 04/09/2017 10:06 PM »
Sadly true.  The Shuttle will not glide well without its ballast.  Buran on the other hand has about third less ballast and Elon could pick one up for less than cheap!  :o
A small amount of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Offline Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1096
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #265 on: 04/10/2017 09:21 AM »
You all realize that without the 3 SSME's for ballast... the damn thing won't glide worth a chit...  ???  ::)

Gonna have to strip some weight out of the nose to make that weight and balance work...  ;)

If removing the ballast isn't enough, just redo all the avionics with hardware made in this century and you'll strip tons of weight :)

(complex? expensive? minor details)

Offline Helodriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 5086
  • Likes Given: 530
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #266 on: 04/10/2017 01:22 PM »
You all realize that without the 3 SSME's for ballast... the damn thing won't glide worth a chit...  ???  ::)

Gonna have to strip some weight out of the nose to make that weight and balance work...  ;)

Keep S2 attached and protected with an extended orbiter body flap.  Orbiter and stage recovered together, CG and S2 resusability problems solved!

Offline TripD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
  • E. Clampus Launchus
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 308
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #267 on: 04/10/2017 04:40 PM »
Wouldn't this configuration place the center of drag way up front?  Not to be a party pooper in a party thread.

Online CraigLieb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 790
  • Dallas Fort Worth
  • Liked: 694
  • Likes Given: 797
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #268 on: 04/10/2017 04:55 PM »
Shuttle as payload..
A Milk up nose moment.
Colonize Mars!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8574
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1066
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #269 on: 04/10/2017 06:25 PM »
I still think the X-37 solution is the best option. Place the whole shuttle inside a payload fairing and be done with it. Using that approach, it may even come in under budget.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Craftyatom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Software!
  • Arizona, USA
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 1455
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #270 on: 04/10/2017 07:59 PM »
I still think the X-37 solution is the best option. Place the whole shuttle inside a payload fairing and be done with it. Using that approach, it may even come in under budget.

While some might scoff at the idea, given that the space shuttle is clearly too large to fit inside a standard fairing, I believe that we can indeed fit one of the retired orbiters inside a standard Falcon 9 payload fairing.

The Falcon 9 payload fairing has a volume of 145 m^3 (111.3 m^3 in the cylindrical segment and 33.7 m^3 in the truncated cone segment, based on the F9 User's Guide).  The shuttle, without engines, weighed about 68700kg.  This gives us a minimum payload density of 473 kg/m^3 - far below aluminum (2700 or so), which made up the majority of the shuttle's structure.  The TPS materials, with an average density below 200 kg/m^3, do take up a fair bit of room (almost 50 cubic meters), but they should still fit - besides, since it's often said that silica tiles were "10% silica, 90% air" by volume, they could in theory be pressed down to a density 10x higher, which is well above our threshold.

So, if a retired orbiter were crushed and melted down, it could indeed fit into a standard Falcon 9 fairing.  Now all that's left to do is contact the KSC Visitor Center, the Udvar-Hazy Center, and the California Science Center to see who's game.
All aboard the HSF hype train!  Choo Choo!

Offline Helodriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 5086
  • Likes Given: 530
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #271 on: 04/10/2017 10:05 PM »
Go for auto sequence start!

On the pad, with no forced perspective for accurate scale.

Oh yeah, this will work. Just need Hoot Gibson to manually fly it up hill. A little touchy in pitch. ;)

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #272 on: 04/10/2017 10:39 PM »
If removing the ballast isn't enough, just redo all the avionics with hardware made in this century and you'll strip tons of weight :)

(complex? expensive? minor details)

Just to keep in the flow, all the orbiters has glass cockpits as upgrades. May not be as much weight saved with that change.

Online Skylab

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #273 on: 04/10/2017 11:55 PM »
Shuttle without engines, reusable boosters. Wouldn't this turn into Buran? ;)

Offline Shanuson

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 258
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 411
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #274 on: 04/11/2017 06:56 AM »
Shuttle without engines, reusable boosters. Wouldn't this turn into Buran? ;)
Even more so because it too will never fly into space :D

Offline Aeroman

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #275 on: 04/11/2017 07:24 AM »
What about a proposed X37C, a little larger than the X37B but smaller than the shuttle.  Or the Dreamchaser?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1435
  • Likes Given: 4478
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #276 on: 04/11/2017 04:06 PM »
The ideal vehicle would have been the HL42, a 42% lineal scaling of the HL20, the base of the DreamChaser. It would mass something like 28tonnes fully loaded. Now, an HL50 (a 50% lineal scaling of the Dream Chaser), should mass about 50 tonnes when fully loaded and offer more volume than the Shuttle.
Personally, and with perfect hindsight, NASA should have done HL20 on Titan IV with reusable segmented boosters to learn the necessary lessons about reusability before going full throttle on the Shuttle program. But that's just me that like incremental, cheap and simple steps rather than Manhattan projects.

Offline Shanuson

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 258
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 411
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #277 on: 04/11/2017 04:49 PM »
AS for a silly thing to launch: How about the submersible James Bond car Musk bought a while back? As it is a submersible, it is already airtight, only needs a heat shield and can even drive back to shore after splashdown :D

Offline Rei

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Iceland
  • Liked: 186
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #278 on: 04/11/2017 04:59 PM »
Okay, I've got one for "silly things to launch"... or actually, more like "trolling things to launch":

.... A full-scale mockup of the New Shepard.  Nothing that actually flies, just something that looks suspiciously similar;)

It's 20,5 tonnes, easily within the FH's payload range. FH could launch it to GTO   ;)
« Last Edit: 04/11/2017 05:04 PM by Rei »

Online cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Reply #279 on: 04/11/2017 05:22 PM »
Okay, I've got one for "silly things to launch"... or actually, more like "trolling things to launch":

.... A full-scale mockup of the New Shepard.  Nothing that actually flies, just something that looks suspiciously similar;)

It's 20,5 tonnes, easily within the FH's payload range. FH could launch it to GTO   ;)
I actually had this exact same thought just a little bit ago. Great minds...

It would be pretty funny to put another LV's sub-orbital launcher into orbit.

Tags: