A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Is anything on this new launch system reusable?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 20th 05, 03:30 AM
Ron Bauer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 20th 05, 03:51 AM
S. Wand
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 20th 05, 10:48 AM
Monte Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old September 20th 05, 03:34 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 20th 05, 04:14 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 20th 05, 10:24 PM
Ed Kyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #7  
Old September 20th 05, 11:34 PM
Andrew Nowicki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

Because SSTO is a religion, not science,
engineering, or technology.


True.

It is easy to make a reusable first stage of a rocket
launcher because its reentry velocity and temperature
are low. The economic benefits of a truly reusable first
stage are enormous because the first stage has more weight
than all the other stages combined.

The Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters are salvageable
rather then reusable parts of its first stage. A truly
reusable, liquid propellant first stage would be far
more economical.

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).
Unfortunately, the wing and the engine contribute to
the weight and drag of the Baikal. Russia is a nearly
land-locked country, so it cannot use much more economical
first stage of a rocket launcher that descends on
parachutes and splashes down on an ocean.

It is rather easy to make a reusable second stage.

It is difficult to make a reusable third (last) stage
because it has to survive enormous reentry temperatures.
The economic benefits of the reusable third stage are
dubious because the third stage is a very small part of
the rocket launcher. This is why the Space Shuttle is an
economic disaster.
  #8  
Old September 21st 05, 12:31 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 22nd 05, 03:59 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.