|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago
"Bruce Hoult" wrote in message ... Could you please give an example of an SRB segment that has been reused, including the flight on which it was first used, and the flight on which it was reused. Odd request, considering that SRB segment reuse is the norm, not the exception. One bit of trivia. The parachutes for the SRB's have to be washed between flights, due to their being dunked in salt water at the end of every flight. That task must require the world's largest washing machine. ;-) Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
... "Bruce Hoult" wrote in message ... Could you please give an example of an SRB segment that has been reused, including the flight on which it was first used, and the flight on which it was reused. Odd request, considering that SRB segment reuse is the norm, not the exception. One bit of trivia. The parachutes for the SRB's have to be washed between flights, due to their being dunked in salt water at the end of every flight. That task must require the world's largest washing machine. ;-) There are pictures of it on the net, but I forget where. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago
Jeff Findley included:
"Bruce Hoult" wrote in message ... Could you please give an example of an SRB segment that has been reused, including the flight on which it was first used, and the flight on which it was reused. Odd request, considering that SRB segment reuse is the norm, not the exception. So give the requested example. I'm curious too. The norm is not established by zero examples, nor by NASA statements that say reuse is possible but nowhere that it has happened. --- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan Boron: internal combustion, nuclear cachet http://tinyurl.com/4xt8g |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago
Derek Clarke wrote:
The DC-X approach still needs the mass equivalent of the wheels unless you plan to use an aerospike engine and land on the plug... But in the vertical landing approach, the "wheels" don't have to roll, and the landing gear can be sized for a touchdown at a few m/s rather than 100 m/s. As others have said, the mass tradeoff is between (wings plus wheels) for horizontal landing versus (propellant plus parachute plus landing skids) for vertical. I don't think it's entirely obvious how this tradeoff comes out, though I'd guess it probably favors vertical landing. To make things even more complicated, there are other tradeoffs to be made besides mass. One example is required cross-range capability. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another Solution of the Fermi Paradox | Alfred A. Aburto Jr. | SETI | 53 | October 19th 05 06:34 AM |
Ted Taylor autobiography, CHANGES OF HEART | Eric Erpelding | Policy | 3 | November 14th 04 11:32 PM |
Ho! Ho! HUMBUG! | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 14th 04 01:34 PM |
Three aerospace innovators Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Orbital Sciences Combine strengths to design and build NASA's Orbital Space Plane | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 1 | October 15th 03 12:21 AM |
Three aerospace innovators Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Orbital Sciences Combine strengths to design and build NASA's Orbital Space Plane | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | October 14th 03 03:31 PM |