Space Shuttle External Tank Launchers

(Kelly St) writes:

Manfred Bartz wrote in message :

I referred to the ET only. You claim 33% for ET + SSMEs,
structures, retrofits. How much of those 33% do you think can be
attributed to the ET only? Maybe 1% ?

If memory serves, the ET's weigh about 30 tons.

We are talking about the design effort, not the mass.

On the other hand if you want to build a expendable, the ET tank adn
tank sections can be built on a existing facility adn gigs, and are
inreasonable strung.

It may be strong, but it is designed to take the thrust on the
inter-tank cross-beam, not on the bottom end of the O2 tank.
That is why I suggest a redesign based on the ET is a non-starter.

--
Manfred Bartz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is here it is just not evenly distributed -- William Gibson

In article ,
Manfred Bartz wrote:
On the other hand if you want to build a expendable, the ET tank adn
tank sections can be built on a existing facility adn gigs, and are
inreasonable strung.

It may be strong, but it is designed to take the thrust on the
inter-tank cross-beam, not on the bottom end of the O2 tank.

You mean the bottom end of the H2 tank. (The O2 tank is on top, above the
intertank ring.)

As was noted some time back, pressurized tanks are inordinately strong
against compressive loads, and provided you have a bit of thrust structure
to spread the load over the base of the tank, this is not likely to be an
issue.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |