Creative 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!

"Hallerb" wrote:
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?

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
--
Roger 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.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Nick Hull ) writes:
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).

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.

In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

Nick Hull ) writes:
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).

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 ?

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...

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,
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 ?

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.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Nick Hull ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

Nick Hull ) writes:
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).

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.

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 ?

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...

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,
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 ?

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.

Non sequitur. Your " idea " requires a *new launch vehicle*, namely
Shuttle-C.

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
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.

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.

In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

Nick Hull ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

Nick Hull ) writes:
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).

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.

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...

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.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Nick Hull ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

Nick Hull ) writes:
In article ,
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

Nick Hull ) writes:
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).

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.

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...

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.

Nick Hull writes:

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).

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
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Nick Hull writes:
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
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.