![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:37:47 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote: Charles Buckley wrote: NASA has a good rundown of the whole decision process at: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/sp4221.htm Thanks for the link, Charles. I've taken a look at that. There are dangers in comparing the real shuttle hardware that's in place with hypothetical other approaches. Still, I found the idea of a titanium stubby winged orbiter quite compelling. The objections to this seem to have been: a) Not so much knowledge in the industry of titanium manufacture. Well, how many of these things did they intend to build anyway? My understanding was that the USAF wasn't too keen on NASA going with a Titanium shuttle due to supply concerns. This was at a time when the USAF was planning thousands of F-15's and hundreds of B-1's which were expected to put large demands on the nations production of Titanium. Sharing it with a Shuttle program was a concern and the situation that NASA was in to get the shuttle funded meant that they were over a barrel when it came to USAF demands. (The Shuttle needed the USAF, but the USAF didn't need the Shuttle) b) Cross range limits. Could have been lived with. c) Transition from deep stall descent into normal flight. Aviation has rightly been concerned with deep stalls, and it has caused a few crashes, but these were aircraft that were never intended to operate in that region. There was also concern that you have a craft that is presumably travelling in a fairly steep path at the point where it has to start flying, so it will accelerate, downward, quite quickly. But this is just physics, and should be manageable. On the plus side, you have a much smaller area to protect from heating. More energy is dumped into the shock wave, and less has to be lost from heating. Lower structural weight. And the aerodynamics are of a craft operating in the subsonic region - not even transsonic. You don't have to build a hypersonic glider with acceptable subsonic characteristics. Will this be revisited now? Or will the next shuttle also be a delta wing? I doubt there will be a next shuttle for a while. Although wings are sexy they are pretty much dead weight for %95 of the flight. The Shuttle system launches as much payload into orbit as the Saturn V, its just that most of it is the shuttle itself, the wings of which are only good for the last 10 minutes of flight. Kelly McDonald Sylvia. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why We Shouldn't Go To Mars | Jon Berndt | Space Shuttle | 11 | February 18th 04 03:07 AM |
NASA to Start From Scratch in New [Moon/Mars Exploration] Effort | Tom Abbott | Policy | 14 | January 19th 04 12:12 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
Space review: The vision thing | Kaido Kert | Policy | 156 | December 3rd 03 06:30 PM |