#61
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Kyle wrote: "http://yarchive.net/space/shuttle/launch_abort.html" Oh, that's pleasant! Did they tell the crew about the little fire problem? Pat |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Kyle wrote: Kliper, proposed as a Soyuz replacement, but able to carry up to six, is projected to weigh 13-15 tons, but its propulsion system will not be recovered (Lockheed has proposed to make the CEV hardware recoverable). NASA has listed the maximum liftoff mass of CEV, including escape systems and fairings that would not go into orbit, to be 20 tons. CEV doesn't have to weigh that much, of course. Kliper was too heavy for a Soyuz booster, and was to use an uprated Onega booster- a Soyuz booster with a new LOX/LH2 upper stage. This was later changed to the Zenit booster, which means you could theoretically launch Kliper from a modified Sealaunch pad. Pat |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Flannery wrote:
Still, how long would one have to get it all stuck together? Days or weeks? The Soviet's did a stage (Block D) that used an insulation sunshade for it LOX/Kerosene propellant on Proton-Zond and N-1: http://www.myspacemuseum.com/l1s_2.jpg But do we have any experience with this sort of thing? The closest we came was the canceled Shuttle boosted Centaur stage. I read somewhere that the original Saturn C-1 S-IV stage internal insulation design was selected so that the stage could eventually be used for earth orbit rendezvous missions, where it would be parked fueled in orbit for up to 30 days. The S-IV stage was to have been the Saturn C-2 third stage and the Saturn C-3 third or fourth stage. The internal insulation design carried over to the Saturn V S-IVB stage. - Ed Kyle |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Flannery wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote: "http://yarchive.net/space/shuttle/launch_abort.html" Oh, that's pleasant! Did they tell the crew about the little fire problem? I'm almost certain they did, since emergency crew evacuation (slide wire and all) was being considered. But the potential seriousness of the whole event was understated so much that I'm not even sure the news media picked up on it. The abort itself was news enough, because it fed into the "shuttle isn't working - NASA isn't able to get it off the ground - can't meet schedule" story of the time. (Which turned into the "NASA is too schedule-driven" story after Challenger disentegrated.) - Ed Kyle |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 10 May 2005 09:19:45 +0800, in a place far, far away, "Neil
Gerace" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: " wrote in message ups.com... the DIV has to fly an odd trajectory (due to structural concerns) that means that there are points in the ascent when abort is *not* survivable. Is that bad? Seems to me that it happens to STS as well. Which is one of the several reasons that STS (to the surprise of many) is not "human rated." |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Anderson wrote: Yes. So? A lot of launches is not a problem. It's a *goal*. It leads to a lot of assembly in orbit, more expense due to having to design the vehicle in smaller pieces, and greater odds one component won't make it to orbit, botching the whole assembly process- then there is the turn-around time of the launchpad to consider. Their is also the problem of how to get all the parts successfully rendezvoused and docked in orbit- each must have its own guidance and RCS systems to bring everything together in one spot in orbit- that means that the assembled multipart spacecraft will have excessive guidance and RCS systems and their weight attached to it...or at least carried with it into orbit, like the way the Soviet Kvant module was brought to Mir via the jettisonable FGB space tug: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kvant.htm Pat |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Flannery wrote: Ed Kyle wrote: Kliper, proposed as a Soyuz replacement, but able to carry up to six, is projected to weigh 13-15 tons, but its propulsion system will not be recovered (Lockheed has proposed to make the CEV hardware recoverable). NASA has listed the maximum liftoff mass of CEV, including escape systems and fairings that would not go into orbit, to be 20 tons. CEV doesn't have to weigh that much, of course. Kliper was too heavy for a Soyuz booster, and was to use an uprated Onega booster- a Soyuz booster with a new LOX/LH2 upper stage. This was later changed to the Zenit booster, which means you could theoretically launch Kliper from a modified Sealaunch pad. It's about time Russia accepted Zenit for what it is - maybe the world's most perfectly conceived (if not perfectly executed) space launcher. It is the rocket that NASA would like to have for CEV - kind of like an Atlas V on steroids - able to boost a 14-15ish ton payload to low earth orbit with no solid booster augmentation. It is the capability Russia is trying, unneccessarily, to copy with its Angara program. China and Japan would like to have such a rocket, but they don't. Europe had to work hard to get its Zenit (Ariane 5G) working. Ukraine and Russia have had the perfect machine for nearly 20 years. They just haven't used it. - Ed Kyle |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Kyle" wrote in news:1115700375.069758.129750
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: It's about time Russia accepted Zenit for what it is - maybe the world's most perfectly conceived (if not perfectly executed) space launcher. It is the rocket that NASA would like to have for CEV - kind of like an Atlas V on steroids - able to boost a 14-15ish ton payload to low earth orbit with no solid booster augmentation. It is the capability Russia is trying, unneccessarily, to copy with its Angara program. China and Japan would like to have such a rocket, but they don't. Europe had to work hard to get its Zenit (Ariane 5G) working. Ukraine and Russia have had the perfect machine for nearly 20 years. They just haven't used it. The Zarya 'super-Soyuz' would have been a great complement. The FSU blew its budget on Buran instead. --Damon |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Kyle wrote: It's about time Russia accepted Zenit for what it is - maybe the world's most perfectly conceived (if not perfectly executed) space launcher. It is the rocket that NASA would like to have for CEV - kind of like an Atlas V on steroids - able to boost a 14-15ish ton payload to low earth orbit with no solid booster augmentation. It is the capability Russia is trying, unneccessarily, to copy with its Angara program. China and Japan would like to have such a rocket, but they don't. Europe had to work hard to get its Zenit (Ariane 5G) working. Ukraine and Russia have had the perfect machine for nearly 20 years. They just haven't used it. I think it got sort of sidetracked when Energia went down the tubes, followed by the Soviet Union going down the tubes. It's a very impressive rocket looking for a very impressive payload to carry. Meanwhile, from far-off Hawaii, Jeffrey Bell looks at the CEV plan- surprisingly, he doesn't like it ;-) : http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zl.html Pat |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 10 May 2005 10:14:53 +0800, in a place far, far away, "Neil
Gerace" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message .. . Which is one of the several reasons that STS (to the surprise of many) is not "human rated." Well, it happens to airliners too. An abort (all engines out, no control surfaces responding) is often not survivable. But they are still allowed to fly. Because, unlike a vehicle that has to be essentially rebuilt each time, and only flies a few times a year (if that), they are reliable. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|