Space shuttle for space tourism and first stage of a TSTO.

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
I can't for the life of me figure out why Robert Clark is constantly
coming up with ideas for so radically modifying something that already
exists that it effectively becomes a entirely different spacecraft, but
without the advantages that a whole new design would offer.

I don't know, but I solved the problem long ago by putting him in my
killfile.


But I like reading up on what's going to get modified next.
You know...it would be possible to take the Queen Mary II and turn it
into a submarine at fairly low cost...all we have to do is drill a lot
of holes in the bottom of the hull, and then... :-)

Pat

On Jan 6, 3:02*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
...

I can't for the life of me figure out why Robert Clark is constantly
coming up with ideas for so radically modifying something that already
exists that it effectively becomes a entirely different spacecraft, but
without the advantages that a whole new design would offer.

Pat

There are several other options that could be used at relatively low
cost. I still believe though retrofitting already existing but unused
airframes would be much cheaper.
For instance on another forum someone suggested using the Russian
Burans instead. Likewise you could use the Shuttle Enterprise. This
didn't have engines or heat shield, but you would need to use
different engines anyway, and for the first stage use you could use
much more lightweight and maintenance-free thermal protection.
The Russian Burans have been ill treated since the cancellation of
that program. The Buran that made the orbital flight was destroyed in
a hangar collapse in 2002. The Buran that was used only for subsonic
flight tests had been attempted to be sold over the internet for $6
million - with no takers. According to the Wikipedia page on it, it
currently resides at a German museum:

OK-GLI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK-GLI

There are several other Burans that were only partially completed
that also could be used:

Buran program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle...Current_status

According to this video report, there are some Russian and American
scientists who want to revive the Buran, with the American shuttle
being retired:

Soviet space shuttle could bail out NASA.
"The Soviet-era Buran space programme, mothballed 20 years ago, may be
revived. With NASA about to retire its aging fleet of space shuttles,
there is a pressing need for viable space transport."
Published 15 November, 2008, 09:44
http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2008-11-15...ml?full story

Additionally other airframes intended for supersonic speed could also
be used. These would be for example supersonic fighters or bombers, or
passenger craft such as the Concorde with delta-shaped wings. DC-9's
or Boeing or Airbus type jets would not be suitable because the wings
are designed for subsonic flight. Airframes with short-stubby wings
such as the hypersonic, X-15 and X-34 would also work.

See the examples of delta-winged craft he

Delta wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_wing

Then mothballed versions of use probably could be purchased at low
cost. The jet engines would be removed and replaced with rocket
engines. With the rocket propellant contained only in the wing tanks,
they could probably reach sufficient delta-V for suborbital space
tourism or hypersonic transport. And if most of the fuselage volume
previously used for cargo, payload, or bomb bays, was also used now to
hold propellant, it is *possible* these could become fully orbital
vehicles. If similar sized craft were made of all-composite
construction they almost certainly could become fully orbital,
reusable, SSTO's.


Bob Clark

On Jan 8, 10:45*am, Robert Clark wrote:
...
*There are several other options that could be used at relatively low
cost. I still believe though retrofitting already existing but unused
airframes would be much cheaper.
* For instance on another forum someone suggested using the Russian
Burans instead. Likewise you could use the Shuttle Enterprise. This
didn't have engines or heat shield, but you would need to use
different engines anyway, and for the first stage use you could use
much more lightweight and maintenance-free thermal protection.
The Russian Burans have been ill treated since the cancellation of
that program. The Buran that made the orbital flight was destroyed in
a hangar collapse in 2002. The Buran that was used only for subsonic
flight tests had been attempted to be sold over the internet for $6
million - with no takers. According to the Wikipedia page on it, it
currently resides at a German museum:

OK-GLI.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK-GLI

*There are several other Burans that were only partially completed
that also could be used:

Buran program.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle...Current_status

...

This page has links to images of the other Burans that can give you
an idea of
their level of completion:

Soviet Buran Space Shuttle.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ft/q0153.shtml


Bob Clark

And no SRB's?

BTW, unless Vandenberg can be recomissioned with minimal $$$, how does this
help the Air Force? Seems like a pricey option as far as ground support
goes as opposed to flying ELVs in the orbits most favored.

The cost isn't in the orbiter, it's in the ground support and prep.

As far as a hypersonic transport you'd need 3 orbiters or a crew
compartment capable of flying 7 people, unless they're riding in
a can atop the thing. Not to mention that unless you build duplicated
launch facilities at the destination, you either have to send only the
can and return the orbiter to launch point, *or worse*, fly the thing back on
the back of a 747, thus ticketed passengers are also paying for the
dead head subsonic return flight, unless you're planning on putting
passengers in the transport 747 for the return flight. Plus with all
that extra drag, what it the range of that 747? Refueling stops needed
along the way?

If the can (2nd stage) is resuable it always has to be returned somehow,
even if the flyback 'orbiter' portion does not. How's that done economically?
FexEx? DHL? UPS?

Any handle on the cost to prep the shuttle for flight minus the SSMEs?
I'm skeptical that you could keep the cost low enough to be able to
provide reasonable ticket charges. Not to mention the fact that hardware
upgrades/replacements are out of the question w/o expensive retooling...

Dave

David Spain writes:

As far as a hypersonic transport you'd need 3 orbiters or a crew
compartment capable of flying 7 people, unless they're riding in
a can atop the thing.

Oops, I meant *next to* the thing...

Dave

David Spain wrote:

As far as a hypersonic transport you'd need 3 orbiters or a crew
compartment capable of flying 7 people, unless they're riding in
a can atop the thing.

Oops, I meant *next to* the thing...

Now picture a SR-71...now picture a SR-71 with a SRB strapped to its
back, a big LOX tank attached under either of its engine nacelles, and a
SSME converted to LOX/JP-7 in its tail...now picture that riding on a
giant take-off trolley, with a trained Chimpanzee in the cockpit...but
not just any Chimpanzee...a Chimpanzee that has been genetically
modified with Bald Eagle DNA to give it an intuitive ability to
understand flight... ;-)

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

take-off trolley, with a trained Chimpanzee in the cockpit...but not just any
Chimpanzee...a Chimpanzee that has been genetically modified with Bald Eagle
DNA to give it an intuitive ability to understand flight... ;-)

Is that Chimpanzee over-caffinated too?

:-)

Dave

On Jan 6, 12:49*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
David Spain wrote:
As far as a hypersonic transport you'd need 3 orbiters or a crew
compartment capable of flying 7 people, unless they're riding in
a can atop the thing.

Oops, I meant *next to* the thing...

Now picture a SR-71...now picture a SR-71 with a SRB strapped to its
back, a big LOX tank attached under either of its engine nacelles, and a
* SSME converted to LOX/JP-7 in its tail...now picture that riding on a
giant take-off trolley, with a trained Chimpanzee in the cockpit...but
not just any Chimpanzee...a Chimpanzee that has been genetically
modified with Bald Eagle DNA to give it an intuitive ability to
understand flight... ;-)

Pat

Hmm......."no damned filthy human DNA"......I can see it now.
Better yet use a trained speciality version of a Gamma rated human.

Mixing my science fiction authors....................Trig

David Spain wrote:
And no SRB's?

BTW, unless Vandenberg can be recomissioned with minimal $$$, how does this
help the Air Force? Seems like a pricey option as far as ground support
goes as opposed to flying ELVs in the orbits most favored.

Maybe it's supposed to fly off of a runway?

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

David Spain wrote:
And no SRB's?

BTW, unless Vandenberg can be recomissioned with minimal $$$, how does this
help the Air Force? Seems like a pricey option as far as ground support
goes as opposed to flying ELVs in the orbits most favored.

Maybe it's supposed to fly off of a runway?

Pat

I think we're bordering into this realm...

http://tinyurl.com/ygqzzud

;-)

Dave