|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is anything on this new launch system reusable?
The Saturn V was replaced by a reusable space shuttle. This was a big
selling point of the shuttle system. Now we have this shuttle derived exploration vehicle and nothing is reusable! I assume they will still refurbish the solid rockets, but what about the main engines? Will they be dumped into the ocean like the Saturn V first stage engines? Will the CEV capsule be reusable? Why not use a lifting body instead of a capsule? I think it's great that we're going back to the moon, but I don't think we'll be seeing SSTO for the foreseeable future. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On the Stick/CEV launcher:
The first stage SRB will be reusable. The CEV command module will be reusable perhaps 5-10 times. The second stage with it's single SSME is discarded. The CEV service module is discarded. On the Heavy lifter The SRBs are reusable. Everything else is trashed. One reason I like the RS-68 for this vehicle - lower cost with higher thrust, without needing man-rated capability. "Ron Bauer" wrote in message news:YuKXe.5865$GK2.5388@lakeread07... The Saturn V was replaced by a reusable space shuttle. This was a big selling point of the shuttle system. Now we have this shuttle derived exploration vehicle and nothing is reusable! I assume they will still refurbish the solid rockets, but what about the main engines? Will they be dumped into the ocean like the Saturn V first stage engines? Will the CEV capsule be reusable? Why not use a lifting body instead of a capsule? I think it's great that we're going back to the moon, but I don't think we'll be seeing SSTO for the foreseeable future. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Bauer" wrote:
The Saturn V was replaced by a reusable space shuttle. This was a big selling point of the shuttle system. Now we have this shuttle derived exploration vehicle and nothing is reusable! Why is it so hard to understand that maximum payload (a good thing) is in direct physical and mathematical conflict with reusability (another good thing)? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article YuKXe.5865$GK2.5388@lakeread07, Ron Bauer wrote:
...Will the CEV capsule be reusable? In principle it could be. In practice, well, there was interest in reusing Gemini and Apollo capsules too, but nothing ever came of it -- the launch rate was too low and the total numbers too small, and there were problems with reuse after water landing in particular. Why not use a lifting body instead of a capsule? Lifting bodies are very heavy for the payload capacity (mass and internal volume) that they provide. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:30:31 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Ron
Bauer" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: The Saturn V was replaced by a reusable space shuttle. This was a big selling point of the shuttle system. Now we have this shuttle derived exploration vehicle and nothing is reusable! I assume they will still refurbish the solid rockets, but what about the main engines? Will they be dumped into the ocean like the Saturn V first stage engines? Will the CEV capsule be reusable? Why not use a lifting body instead of a capsule? The SRB would be as reusable as it currently is. The Command Module may be reusable--that's still being traded. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
S. Wand wrote:
On the Heavy lifter The SRBs are reusable. Everything else is trashed. One reason I like the RS-68 for this vehicle - lower cost with higher thrust, without needing man-rated capability. The problem is that RS-68 has much lower performance (specific impulse) than SSME. The cost savings would probably me lost because the rocket would have to be made bigger and heavier to compensate. NASA could also pursue a lower- cost expendable SSME design. - Ed Kyle |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:48:55 GMT, Monte Davis
wrote: "Ron Bauer" wrote: The Saturn V was replaced by a reusable space shuttle. This was a big selling point of the shuttle system. Now we have this shuttle derived exploration vehicle and nothing is reusable! Why is it so hard to understand that maximum payload (a good thing) is in direct physical and mathematical conflict with reusability (another good thing)? Because SSTO is a religion, not science, engineering, or technology. -- Roy L |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Nowicki wrote The proposed russian Baikal reusable first stage has a foldable wing, turbojet engine, and aircraft landing gear, so that it can land like an airplane (http://www.airshow.ru/expo/110/prod_1716.htm). That landing gear looks a bit on the heavy side- I'd of used skids like on Dyna-Soar. Ever see Winged Titan BTW?: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/wintitan.htm http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/t/titnwing.gif If that's supposed to be a Titan, it is a very odd-looking Titan. It looks like it has four F-1 engines on the first stage. pat |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - May 26, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 0 | May 26th 05 04:47 PM |
Space Calendar - April 28, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 28th 05 05:21 PM |
Space Calendar - March 25, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 0 | March 25th 05 04:46 PM |
Space Calendar - June 25, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 25th 04 04:37 PM |
Space Calendar - May 28, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 28th 04 04:03 PM |