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

"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 24th 07, 07:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy
gaetanomarano
external usenet poster
 
Location: Italy
Posts: 493
Default "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"

..

I've UPDATED my "Ares-1 can't fly" article...

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

....with an interesting thing found on the web:

Two years ago, when I've FIRST remarked on a Space forum the problem
of the lack of a "safe lift-off abort mode" in the upcoming Ares-1, I
was (literally) submerged by lots of critics and insults, but, now,
surfing the web, I've found and SAVED (a "disliked" web page can
disappear overnight...) a very interesting June 12, 1997 Boeing's News
Release titled "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For
NASA"...

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...se.970612.html

....where the Boeing LFBB Program Director Ira Victer said that...
"LFBB will use liquid propellants and will be fully throttleable and
capable of safe shutdown. SRBs, which use a solid propellant, cannot
be turned off once ignited... "The result is a booster system [the
LFBB] more tolerant of engine failure and less likely to require
mission aborts," Victer said. "In addition, hazardous booster
operations in NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Vehicle Assembly
Building are eliminated, since LFBB fueling operations would occur on
the launch pad, much the way the Shuttle's external tank is loaded
today".

Then, in this ten-years-old document, BOEING (clearly) seems agree
with me...

However, I'm not against the SRBs used as 1st stage of a rocket for
manned launches... my only concern is that, this solution, needs many
safety, structure and acceleration tests made NOW (not in 2009+) then,
BEFORE any "final decision" about the Ares-1.

..

Hey Google, the Moonrovers Prize was MY idea!!!
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html

..
  #2  
Old November 24th 07, 08:09 PM posted to sci.space.policy
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"

gaetanomarano wrote:

a very interesting June 12, 1997 Boeing's News
Release titled "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For
NASA"...

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...se.970612.html


Ah, those were the days, weren't they. Soon I will be busy flying back
those SpaceX kerosene powered boosters to the cape, after they deliver
my SSME powered hydrogen core through the lower parts of the atmosphere.
  #3  
Old November 24th 07, 09:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"

On Nov 24, 2:09 pm, kT wrote:
Soon I will be busy flying back
those SpaceX kerosene powered boosters to the cape, after they deliver
my SSME powered hydrogen core through the lower parts of the atmosphere.


Again you don't know squat. Spacex does not supply components to
other organizations, just as they don't use other organizations
hardware. Spacex is a vertically integrated company that only raw
materials go in and finished products go out. They do everything
inhouse and keep all there hardware inhouse. They won't even look at
a backup LV for Dragon

  #4  
Old November 24th 07, 10:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"

Why not use "fly back" LRBs instead of those absolutely pathetic SRBs
to start with?
--
Brad Guth


gaetanomarano wrote:
.

I've UPDATED my "Ares-1 can't fly" article...

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

...with an interesting thing found on the web:

Two years ago, when I've FIRST remarked on a Space forum the problem
of the lack of a "safe lift-off abort mode" in the upcoming Ares-1, I
was (literally) submerged by lots of critics and insults, but, now,
surfing the web, I've found and SAVED (a "disliked" web page can
disappear overnight...) a very interesting June 12, 1997 Boeing's News
Release titled "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For
NASA"...

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...se.970612.html

...where the Boeing LFBB Program Director Ira Victer said that...
"LFBB will use liquid propellants and will be fully throttleable and
capable of safe shutdown. SRBs, which use a solid propellant, cannot
be turned off once ignited... "The result is a booster system [the
LFBB] more tolerant of engine failure and less likely to require
mission aborts," Victer said. "In addition, hazardous booster
operations in NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Vehicle Assembly
Building are eliminated, since LFBB fueling operations would occur on
the launch pad, much the way the Shuttle's external tank is loaded
today".

Then, in this ten-years-old document, BOEING (clearly) seems agree
with me...

However, I'm not against the SRBs used as 1st stage of a rocket for
manned launches... my only concern is that, this solution, needs many
safety, structure and acceleration tests made NOW (not in 2009+) then,
BEFORE any "final decision" about the Ares-1.

.

Hey Google, the Moonrovers Prize was MY idea!!!
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html

.

  #5  
Old November 24th 07, 10:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"

On Nov 24, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote:
Why not use "fly back" LRBs instead of those absolutely pathetic SRBs
to start with?
--
Brad Guth


We could even sell off a few passenger seats, possibly even
incorporate one seat for a human pilot that'll fly each of those
spendy boosters back to the local tarmac.
--
Brad Guth
  #7  
Old November 25th 07, 01:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"

BradGuth wrote:

On Nov 24, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote:
Why not use "fly back" LRBs instead of those absolutely pathetic SRBs
to start with?


We could even sell off a few passenger seats, possibly even
incorporate one seat for a human pilot that'll fly each of those
spendy boosters back to the local tarmac.


We thought of that already, you could put a passenger on both of the
shuttle SRBs too, what a ride that would be. You'd definitely want to
bail out of that one somewhere along the way.
  #8  
Old November 25th 07, 03:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"

On Nov 24, 4:23 pm, kT wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 24, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote:
Why not use "fly back" LRBs instead of those absolutely pathetic SRBs
to start with?

We could even sell off a few passenger seats, possibly even
incorporate one seat for a human pilot that'll fly each of those
spendy boosters back to the local tarmac.


We thought of that already, you could put a passenger on both of the
shuttle SRBs too, what a ride that would be. You'd definitely want to
bail out of that one somewhere along the way.


However, if those pathetic SRBs were replaced with the far better
LRBs, as then landing such fully reusable LRBs at the local tarmac
seems quite doable.
-- Brad Guth
  #9  
Old November 25th 07, 06:33 PM posted to sci.space.policy
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"

BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:23 pm, kT wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 24, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote:
Why not use "fly back" LRBs instead of those absolutely pathetic SRBs
to start with?
We could even sell off a few passenger seats, possibly even
incorporate one seat for a human pilot that'll fly each of those
spendy boosters back to the local tarmac.

We thought of that already, you could put a passenger on both of the
shuttle SRBs too, what a ride that would be. You'd definitely want to
bail out of that one somewhere along the way.


However, if those pathetic SRBs were replaced with the far better
LRBs, as then landing such fully reusable LRBs at the local tarmac
seems quite doable.


That too would be quite a ride. I don't see why sub orbital space
tourism couldn't be incorporated into the liquid flyback boosters for
those who want to plonk down a quarter million for a chance to die in a
fiery explosion just for a few minutes of zero gee ballistic flight.

But that is far off in the distant future. I'm just trying to get my
launcher version of the DC-3 era flown for the very first time, the
infamous 'Delta V' - a ground started 5 meter cryogenic SSME core in a
SSTO or liquid hydrocarbon booster assisted stage and a half to orbit.

Quite frankly, any American that does *NOT* want to fly out the post
shuttle retirement SSMEs in this manner, is out of their ****ing mind.

Really, that it is incumbent upon myself to do this is pretty pathetic.
  #10  
Old November 25th 07, 06:39 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default "Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA"

On Nov 24, 6:29 pm, kT wrote:
wrote:



1. So you've got the inside knowledge, eh? I don't want to launch
Dragons,
I want to enhance the payload capacity of my SSTO hydrogen core with
their boosters. Consider my hydrogen core as my 'payload'. Get it?

2. SpaceX is in the business of launching payloads, right?


1. Informed customer and spacex policy

2. Correct, but not in the business of helping competitors. They want
all the business and not be a supplier.
..

 




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
"Scientific" Dreams Of Travel To Stars Shattered: Mysterious Force Pulls Back NASA Probe In Deep Space Sound of Trumpet Policy 354 November 10th 06 02:48 AM
PINKU'S BACK! (was "BoY GeOrgy?!?!?!,...., speaks fOr all the RAMD'sters!!!..." ( Vince the punk is back again.)) [email protected] Misc 2 September 5th 06 04:18 PM
"VideO Madness" "WhO did yOu VOte fOr, back in the day?!?!?!..." Colonel Jake TM Misc 0 August 31st 06 05:03 PM
Full Text PDFs of "NASA Exploration Systems (CEV) Architecture Study Final Report - Oct 05" - available online Rusty Policy 0 December 29th 05 07:53 AM
Full Text PDFs of "NASA Exploration Systems (CEV) Architecture Study Final Report - Oct 05" - available online Rusty History 0 December 29th 05 07:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 AM.


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.