Inferno

Why can't you launch a fuel tank into orbit with solid fuel boosters that
the shuttle or other transport could dock with? What about to moon orbit?.
If you can, why don't they do it to use the shuttle engines to slow the
craft down before entering the atmosphere to avoid the inferno of reentry
and all that fireproofing tile work.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004

Rodney Kelp wrote:
Why can't you launch a fuel tank into orbit with solid fuel boosters that
the shuttle or other transport could dock with? What about to moon orbit?.
If you can, why don't they do it to use the shuttle engines to slow the
craft down before entering the atmosphere to avoid the inferno of reentry
and all that fireproofing tile work.

This has been addresses many, many times. Think about it
for a while. It takes a lot of rocket fuel to get something
as large as the Shuttle into orbit. It will take the same
amount to slow it down enough to allow for a mild heat
environment during reentry. Logically, the ratio of the
mass of fuel used to launch the Shuttle to the mass of the
orbiter will be the same as the ratio of the mass of fuel
needed to launch a fueled, safe-reenty Shuttle stack would be
to the mass of that fueled Shuttle stack. This ratio is
about 7 to 1, meaning that with the resources we use
currently we could launch perhaps one Shuttle per year, maybe
less. This is not including the incredible difficulties of
building a new vehicle that could do all this, which is not
easy. The amount of fuel needed on orbit for this task is so
large that its mass is several times greater than the largest
objects ever launched on a single rocket.

Meanwhile, despite accidents and mishaps, aerodynmic
reentry has a very strong safety and reliability record.
Heat shields have shown that when properly cared for they
can be relied upon.

there is a simple answer to that question.
COST
Nasa long ago determined that it was cheaper to use fricition to slow a
returning vehical down than engines.

Rodney Kelp wrote:
Why can't you launch a fuel tank into orbit with solid fuel boosters that
the shuttle or other transport could dock with? What about to moon orbit?.
If you can, why don't they do it to use the shuttle engines to slow the
craft down before entering the atmosphere to avoid the inferno of reentry
and all that fireproofing tile work.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004

a better question is why didn't they make the shuttle out of titanium
rather than aluminium.

Rodney Kelp wrote:

Why can't you launch a fuel tank into orbit with solid fuel boosters that
the shuttle or other transport could dock with? What about to moon orbit?.
If you can, why don't they do it to use the shuttle engines to slow the
craft down before entering the atmosphere to avoid the inferno of reentry
and all that fireproofing tile work.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004

In article PzNsd.141967$V41.95361@attbi_s52,
Tommy wrote:
a better question is why didn't they make the shuttle out of titanium
rather than aluminium.

NASA did in fact consider it, with the higher cost and greater weight of
titanium structure almost completely balanced out by the ability to relax
the requirements on the tiles a little. The decision was ultimately made
on secondary issues, notably the US's limited titanium supply.

It would not have made any great difference to Columbia. Titanium is not
*that* much better; the conditions in Columbia's wing were far beyond the
working limits of *any* reasonable structural metal.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article PzNsd.141967$V41.95361@attbi_s52,
says...
a better question is why didn't they make the shuttle out of titanium
rather than aluminium.

Because it wouldn't have made any difference, and they knew it. Aluminum
was and remains the correct decision.

Marc

Tommy wrote:
a better question is why didn't they make the shuttle out of titanium

rather than aluminium.

Because titanium wouldn't have done much good.

Whatever Hollywood (or advertising) hype you hear, titanium isn't the
be-all, end-all super metal. When the shuttles were built, titanium did
not have much (if any) strength advantage over aluminum on a weight
basis. Its heat resistance would not have helped Columbia; much more
temperature resistant components melted and evaporated during the
Columbia incident. Titanium was relatively rare and expensive. And
titanium is a bugger to machine and shape.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

wrote:

Titanium was relatively rare and expensive.

Titanium the element is not rare. Common white paint pigment
is titanium dioxide.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
wrote:

Titanium was relatively rare and expensive.

Titanium the element is not rare. Common white paint pigment
is titanium dioxide.

But titanium the metal was fairly rare, and unfortunately concentrated in
other places (the Soviet Union, South Africa, etc.) where it was not easy
for the United States to get it at a reasonable price.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"Thomas Schoene" wrote:

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
wrote:

Titanium was relatively rare and expensive.

Titanium the element is not rare. Common white paint pigment
is titanium dioxide.

But titanium the metal was fairly rare, and unfortunately concentrated in
other places (the Soviet Union, South Africa, etc.) where it was not easy
for the United States to get it at a reasonable price.

And what little the US could get at a reasonable price was already
'budgeted' for the F-14 and F-15 projects.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL