A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

STS total burn rate/mass



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 9th 07, 07:42 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Monte Davis Monte Davis is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Sep 2005
Posts: 466
Default STS total burn rate/mass

At http://www.cdli.ca/CITE/sts_ascent.htm , Jim Cornish writes:

"By the end of the eighth second, the shuttle has traveled only twice
it own length in distance [and] has already accelerated to 161
kilometers per hour (100 mph.) During this short time, the orbiter's
three main engines and two solid rocket boosters have consumed more
than 680,000 kilograms (1.5 million pounds) of fuel."

That's 1/3 of GLOW, and can't be correct. The 2 SRBs are about 2.6M
pounds at ignition and a bit under 400K pounds empty, so the back of
my envelope says they must average (yes, I know it's not constant) aa
bit less than ten tons a second over their 2-minute burn period. And
ISTR the SSMEs go through about half a ton a second.

That would suggest the stack actually gets down to 3M pounds (2/3 of
GLOW) at about 70 seconds. Is that in the right ballpark?

And when would it be at 1.5M pounds (~1/3 of GLOW) -- presumably after
SRB separation, but at roughly what time, velocity and altitude?
  #2  
Old August 10th 07, 01:48 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
John[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default STS total burn rate/mass

On Aug 9, 2:42 pm, Monte Davis wrote:
Athttp://www.cdli.ca/CITE/sts_ascent.htm, Jim Cornish writes:

"By the end of the eighth second, the shuttle has traveled only twice
it own length in distance [and] has already accelerated to 161
kilometers per hour (100 mph.) During this short time, the orbiter's
three main engines and two solid rocket boosters have consumed more
than 680,000 kilograms (1.5 million pounds) of fuel."

That's 1/3 of GLOW, and can't be correct. The 2 SRBs are about 2.6M
pounds at ignition and a bit under 400K pounds empty, so the back of
my envelope says they must average (yes, I know it's not constant) aa
bit less than ten tons a second over their 2-minute burn period. And
ISTR the SSMEs go through about half a ton a second.

That would suggest the stack actually gets down to 3M pounds (2/3 of
GLOW) at about 70 seconds. Is that in the right ballpark?

And when would it be at 1.5M pounds (~1/3 of GLOW) -- presumably after
SRB separation, but at roughly what time, velocity and altitude?


WHOOOOAAAA . . .. on topic thread . . . *S*

  #3  
Old August 10th 07, 12:20 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Monte Davis Monte Davis is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Sep 2005
Posts: 466
Default STS total burn rate/mass

John wrote:

That would suggest the stack actually gets down to 3M pounds (2/3 of
GLOW) at about 70 seconds. Is that in the right ballpark?

And when would it be at 1.5M pounds (~1/3 of GLOW) -- presumably after
SRB separation, but at roughly what time, velocity and altitude?


WHOOOOAAAA . . .. on topic thread . . . *S*


Thanks.
 




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
How Total is a Total Solar Eclipse ?? G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 26 September 12th 06 12:53 PM
Yes, REAL suspected Black Holes can RiP you APART.!! But NOT in GR gtr Tivity.!! Because in GR Tivity you would be a POiNT ..and if you COULD have a mass, in GR, you would be a POiNT-mass. POiNT-mass CANNOT *STRETCH* with TOP & BOTTOM ROCKETs att brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 16th 05 08:54 AM
Yes, REAL suspected Black Holes can RiP you APART.!! But NOT in GR gtr Tivity.!! Because in GR Tivity you would be a POiNT ..and if you COULD have a mass, in GR, you would be a POiNT-mass. POiNT-mass CANNOT *STRETCH* with TOP & BOTTOM ROCKETs attache brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 15th 05 12:22 PM
Causation - A problem with negative mass. Negastive mass implies imaginary mass brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 1st 05 08:36 PM
a first rate, second-rate composer Mike Amateur Astronomy 1 March 16th 05 10:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:21 PM.


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.