Maximum Rate Shuttle Launches

I wrote:
This has two big problems. First, it would greatly reduce the power of
Astronaut Office management, by taking a lot of the suspense and mystery
out of crew selection. And second, the astronauts hate having to let
non-astronauts into their flying clubhouses.

Oops, forgot an important one: Third, it would require a considerably
smaller astronaut corps than the current one. (Which was also a major
reason why Slayton's concept didn't get anywhere when he proposed it...)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

The one big sticky issue is that the US has no flight-proven automated or
teleoperated docking capability. Lots of lab experiments, and one or two
attempts at in-space tests, but nothing available off the shelf.

Forgetting all politics for a second, how difficult would it be to
implement Kurs on the Shuttle ?

Would getting Kurs solve more than 70% of the problem with just the
integration with shuttle computers having to be done, or would
integrating Kurs with Shuttle end up costing more work than develooping
a new system from scratch for the shuttle ?

Would the answer be the same if the question were about integrating Kurs
on the CEV thing being developped now ?

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article .com,
Charles Talleyrand wrote:


snip

+ Payload specialists, who are (horrors!) *not* professional astronauts,
for most things related to payloads.

This has two big problems. First, it would greatly reduce the power of
Astronaut Office management, by taking a lot of the suspense and mystery
out of crew selection. And second, the astronauts hate having to let
non-astronauts into their flying clubhouses.

And even beyond those horrors would be a non-degreed warrant officer
from the US army flying as a payload specialist. What's the point
in 4 BS degrees, 3 MS degrees, and 2 PhD's on the resume then?

On 11 Jun, 21:50, Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
On 11 Jun, 15:22, Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
This is simply because computer power is so cheap and lots
of people have versions of the NASA design software.
The "NASA design software" huh? You have no idea what you're talking
about.

What I am talking about specifically are aerodynamic simulation. You
can put a shape in and know more or less exacly how it will behave.

Subsonic aerodynamics is pretty straightforward. Remember, planes have
been designed with sliderules, for Christ's sake. Hypersonic
aerodynamics are NOT simple and CFD doesn't get it right nearly as often
as you think it will. But I'm sure you know that already, right?

Intrinsicly CFD of hypersonic flows is actually more straightforward.
The reason why the opposite appears to be the case is that most
commercial programs are optimized for subsonic flow. Hypersonic drag
(and heating) is predomenantly due to shock waves and compression.
Subsonic drag is due to turbulence.

In the hypersonic/supersonic case there is a field at infinity, this
is the familiar sonic boom of aircraft like Concorde. Some CFD
programs take a box and a cut off, if you do this without allowing for
waves going to infinity you get errors. The precise amount of heating
depends on tubulence.

Now NASA I presume has programs that will take account of the field at
infinity. If they don't I would be surprised. The program, will
perform finite elements to the point where a propagting wave can be
assumed.

ProEngineer does not contain software for ANY aerdynamic, thermal or
stress calculations. To get these you need other programs. ProEngineer
does have extensive link facilities. I still claim it is possible to
simulate a hypersonic descent on a PC or a cluster.

There is one very interesting area that CFD programs are just
beginning to touch on, and that is the effect of active airflow
control (only really possible at subsonic speeds) here the turbulence
can be reduced. It is well known that sucking air from a leading edge
(the leading edge is full of holes and looks transparent) reduces
drag. I find this a fascnating field.


- Ian Parker

On Jun 12, 5:58 am, "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)"
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:03:33 -0700, in sci.space.policy Len

wrote:

technology. As I understand it, even a complicated
beast like the SR-71--with hydraulic "fluid" that was
solid at room temperature--was flown twice in the
same day. IIRC, they only did it once, because of
cost considerations--not techinical difficulties.

I thought the SR-71 used its JP-7 fuel for hydraulic fluid? JP-7 isn't
anywhere near a solid even at winter temps in Hampton, VA where we have
several drums of if out back behind our facilities.

IIRC, it used NaK, sodium/potssium, which is solid
at room temperatures. I'm not saying it was a good
idea.

Len

--
Ed Ruf )

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article .com,
This has two big problems. First, it would greatly reduce the power of
Astronaut Office management, by taking a lot of the suspense and mystery
out of crew selection. And second, the astronauts hate having to let
non-astronauts into their flying clubhouses.

And even beyond those horrors would be a non-degreed warrant officer
from the US army flying as a payload specialist. What's the point
in 4 BS degrees, 3 MS degrees, and 2 PhD's on the resume then?

Obviously there's not any point in this. The current batch of astronauts
are, in general, vastly over qualified. For example, you don't need all
those degress to "fly" the RMS. Commercial crane operators arguably have
much the same job requirements, and often lift extremely expensive pieces of
hardware, but you'd be hard pressed to find people doing those jobs who have
multiple MS degrees and/or PhD's.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On Jun 12, 12:58 pm, "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)"
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:03:33 -0700, in sci.space.policy Len
wrote:

technology. As I understand it, even a complicated
beast like the SR-71--with hydraulic "fluid" that was
solid at room temperature--was flown twice in the
same day. IIRC, they only did it once, because of
cost considerations--not techinical difficulties.

I thought the SR-71 used its JP-7 fuel for hydraulic fluid? JP-7 isn't
anywhere near a solid even at winter temps in Hampton, VA where we have
several drums of if out back behind our facilities.
--
Ed Ruf )

A quick web search shows it had two hydraulic systems: one for the
engines which used the fuel as working fluid and another using
something solid at room temperature. Len suggests it may have been NaK
but a eutectic is liquid at STP (mp -12.6 C). Perhaps it was straight
sodium?

Oren

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 11, 9:53?pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
Charles Talleyrand:

Can the shuttle fly with no one on board? Takeoff, dock, land, the
whole shebang?

No, but the ability to allow it to do so is trivial,

Perhaps for launch and landing. Not so for docking. That would be a
distinctly non-trivial upgrade.

soyuz could ferry trained pilots to handle final docking

Maybe Progress could be up-rated to take up a single pilot. It could
automatically dock with Station, then the pilot could hop over to the
unmanned Shuttle to dock it since automated docking is too complicated.

Hmmm.....

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

John Doe wrote:
Would getting Kurs solve more than 70% of the problem with just the
integration with shuttle computers having to be done, or would
integrating Kurs with Shuttle end up costing more work than develooping
a new system from scratch for the shuttle ?

I suspect the latter.

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

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

On Jun 12, 1:21 pm, Oren T wrote:
On Jun 12, 12:58 pm, "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)"

wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:03:33 -0700, in sci.space.policy Len
wrote:

technology. As I understand it, even a complicated
beast like the SR-71--with hydraulic "fluid" that was
solid at room temperature--was flown twice in the
same day. IIRC, they only did it once, because of
cost considerations--not techinical difficulties.

I thought the SR-71 used its JP-7 fuel for hydraulic fluid? JP-7 isn't
anywhere near a solid even at winter temps in Hampton, VA where we have
several drums of if out back behind our facilities.
--
Ed Ruf )

A quick web search shows it had two hydraulic systems: one for the
engines which used the fuel as working fluid and another using
something solid at room temperature. Len suggests it may have been NaK
but a eutectic is liquid at STP (mp -12.6 C). Perhaps it was straight
sodium?

NaK would be solid on a cool day, but otherwise
liquid and more practical. Solid sounds more
interesting--and perhaps worth stretching a point
when people want to talk about an unusual plane?
:-)

Len


Oren