A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shuttle lift-off footage



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 4th 14, 02:28 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 411
Default Shuttle lift-off footage

In article om,
says...

On 14-07-27 22:22, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

The problem with this (and NASA was offered this after Endeavour) is you now
have a fleet of 4 different vehicles, which gets costly.




However, in a realistic scenario where the vehicle is still in
development (as opposed to decloaring the beta "Shuttle" in production),
you want to evolve the vehicle until you get something you are generally
happy with.

If Shuttle #4 has significant improvements over Shuttle #1 which result
in Shuttle #4 costing far less to operate, it may compensate for the
added costs of not having commonality within all 4 vehicles.

Not evolving the shuttle and building them all the same is fine of paper
when you have a vehicle ready for production. But doesn't work well for
a vehicle that is still in development.

Consider airraft, the roughly 5 prototypes built for the test flights
have significant differences in them, and as the test flights progress,
they are retrofitted with improvements, and once they are happy with the
design, they can then build production aircraft with all the
enhancements they learned from during the test phase.

Shiuttle should have worked the same way.


Columbia was essentially the orbital prototype, which is why its
structure massed more than later orbiters. The big visible differences
between it and later orbiters were the "scars" for ejection seats, the
"pod" on top of the vertical stabilizer (contained cameras for test
flights), and some TPS differences.

Also, for quite some time, Columbia also contained lots of extra wiring
which was used on the initial flights to collect data. Later orbiters
lacked that as well.

When Challenger was lost, there was a proposal to build two new orbiters
with updated structures and other systems. NASA turned the proposal
down for the reasons Greg mentions.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where to get space shuttle footage? SpaceCat Space Shuttle 3 August 4th 05 09:33 AM
Looking for HD Mpeg or Divx Footage of Shuttle Launch Jav Atar Space Shuttle 0 July 26th 05 08:17 PM
Where could I get Shuttle PPOV landing footage? Dan Foster Space Shuttle 6 June 27th 05 08:14 AM
shuttle to lift off oct. 15 , 2004 thisisatest thisisatest thisisatest thisisatest th Policy 10 September 4th 04 11:18 PM
shuttle to lift off oct. 15 , 2004 thisisatest thisisatest thisisatest thisisatest th History 13 September 4th 04 11:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.