A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

could a shuttle have flown propelled into orbit on a space X booster?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 19th 17, 02:40 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default could a shuttle have flown propelled into orbit on a space X booster?

strictly for fun could that have been done?


Ads
  #2  
Old October 19th 17, 02:51 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,768
Default could a shuttle have flown propelled into orbit on a space X booster?

bob haller wrote:


strictly for fun could that have been done?


No. Even if there was some way to attach it that wouldn't destroy the
booster (which isn't designed to have loads hung on the side of it) it
wouldn't work. If you remove the engines (and you might as well,
since you'd have no fuel for them) the Orbiter weighs over 75 tons.
Falcon 9 maxes out at 25 tons or so to LEO. Even Falcon Heavy can
only lift 70 tons, so it can't boost a Shuttle Orbiter, either.


--
"Adrenaline is like exercise, but without the excessive gym fees."
-- Professor Walsh, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
  #3  
Old October 19th 17, 08:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default could a shuttle have flown propelled into orbit on a space X booster?

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 9:51:35 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


strictly for fun could that have been done?


No. Even if there was some way to attach it that wouldn't destroy the
booster (which isn't designed to have loads hung on the side of it) it
wouldn't work. If you remove the engines (and you might as well,
since you'd have no fuel for them) the Orbiter weighs over 75 tons.
Falcon 9 maxes out at 25 tons or so to LEO. Even Falcon Heavy can
only lift 70 tons, so it can't boost a Shuttle Orbiter, either.


--
"Adrenaline is like exercise, but without the excessive gym fees."
-- Professor Walsh, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"


strap 2 or 3 falcon heavys together..........
  #4  
Old October 20th 17, 12:36 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,768
Default could a shuttle have flown propelled into orbit on a space X booster?

bob haller wrote:

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 9:51:35 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


strictly for fun could that have been done?


No. Even if there was some way to attach it that wouldn't destroy the
booster (which isn't designed to have loads hung on the side of it) it
wouldn't work. If you remove the engines (and you might as well,
since you'd have no fuel for them) the Orbiter weighs over 75 tons.
Falcon 9 maxes out at 25 tons or so to LEO. Even Falcon Heavy can
only lift 70 tons, so it can't boost a Shuttle Orbiter, either.


strap 2 or 3 falcon heavys together..........


Musk isn't even sure he can make one of them work...........


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #5  
Old October 20th 17, 12:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,768
Default could a shuttle have flown propelled into orbit on a space X booster?

JF Mezei wrote:



since you'd have no fuel for them) the Orbiter weighs over 75 tons.
Falcon 9 maxes out at 25 tons or so to LEO. Even Falcon Heavy can
only lift 70 tons, so it can't boost a Shuttle Orbiter, either.


If the orbiter became an inert part of the vehicle at launch, you could
then remove the 3 SSMEs, saving some 23,000 pounds. That is 11 tons (at
2000 US pounds per US ton).


That's the 75 ton figure I gave; with the engines removed, which was
obvious before you clipped off the front of the paragraph.


That would bring the orbiter (without payload) down to 64 tons, so
within Falcon Heavy's capability.


No, you can't remove the engines twice. The Orbiter is 151,419 lbs at
rollout and 171,000 lbs with main engines installed. In other units,
that's 75.7 tons without engines and 85.5 tons with engines. In other
words, WITHOUT ENGINES the Orbiter is 5.7 tons too heavy for Falcon
Heavy to get it to LEO.


You could lessen weight in the back (no thrust from SSMEs) but would
need to have stronger structures where it attaches to the Falcon Heavy
since those attach points would bear full weight of orbiter during
launch/acceleration.


Note that the weights given for the Orbiter are DRY WEIGHT. If you
want to add things like people and a way to keep them alive, the
weight goes way up. I suppose you could redesign the Orbiter into
being Dragon and that would solve the problem...


And the Falcon Heavy would need redesign so that its attach points to
the shuttle would also be load bearing instead of pushing a payload that
sits on top of it.


So if you redesign the Orbiter so it is something else and you
redesign Falcon Heavy so it is something else you think you could do
it. But you couldn't. You're adding structure which adds dry mass
which reduces payload.

Like I've said before, you should let someone else do the thinking...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #6  
Old October 23rd 17, 02:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default could a shuttle have flown propelled into orbit on a space X booster?

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 2:40:15 PM UTC+13, bob haller wrote:
strictly for fun could that have been done?


Yes.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnshuttle.html

http://www.astronautix.com/s/shuttle.html

http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytw...lvs/sld036.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy

The Falcon Heavy puts out 5.13 million pounds of thrust. The Saturn V used for the Saturn Shuttle - puts out 7.65 million pounds of thrust from three Falcon Common Core Boosters. Adding two more Falcon boosters, a total of Five - would boost total thrust to 8.55 million pounds of thrust and permit putting a fully loaded External Tank atop the central booster - to which the ET is affixed. The Space Shuttle is attached to the side as shown in the Saturn Shuttle. The 0.9 million pound increase permits added propellant (stretched ET) and added payload aboard the Shuttle.

Recovery of all the parts and pieces (using the ET on orbit as a space station) is a dramatic improvement over the SRBs actually used.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexte...nkstation.html


* *
*
* *

A Falcon 9 could put a DynaSoar (X20) or X-37 in orbit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

The Falcon Heavy could place highly reusable space plane on orbit as well - this paper also discussed the advantages of liquid fueled rocket booster to replace the SRBs.

https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedfiles/a...sfinalaiaa.pdf




  #7  
Old October 28th 17, 05:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default could a shuttle have flown propelled into orbit on a space X booster?

The BFR - Big Falcon Rocket has 4,400 t take off weight, second stage 1,185 t and payload of 150 t - fully reusable. It has 1,100 t capacity in the second stage, and 85 t of structure. 7 added launcher of BFR freighter, fills the 1,100 t propellant tanks on the BFR and can place 125 t one way on the lunar surface, with return of the empty vehicle.

Land on Moon, Drop Payload, Return Empty

So, 64 launches, with 8 lunar flights, puts 1,000 t on the moon.

Land on Moon, Drop Payload, Return Full after refuelling

With a source of carbon and water - and even silver!

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/sci...le15788109.ece

Size of initial station;

Following a thorough survey of lunar resources, mine sites are chosen. Using the BA-330 inflatable module as a reference, 288 people can be supported by 1000 t of hardware. A group of 72 people with equipment, can mine lunar materials for carbon and water - to produce methane and oxygen propellant to refuel the BFR upper stage on the moon.

In this case, 150 t can be brought to the moon and 150 t of silver taken away. At $1 million per ton it pays for the highly reusable launches.

Build a Mass Drive to send Lunar Propellant to LEO.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publication...063/GaTech.pdf

A mass driver on the moon, sending chemical propellants to LEO at very low costs, provides a means to reduce the number of Earth bound launches to 1.

(1) Launch filled BFR derived tanker stage to LEO from the moon with mass driver followed by aerobraking - contains 1320 t and masses 30 t empty.
(2) Launch BFR upper stage to LEO from Earth with booster, arrive at LEO empty.
(3) Transfer 1,100 t propellant from lunar BFR to terrestrial BFR
(4) Lunar BFR boosts back to moon with 320 t propellant, lands empty, refilled and reused.
(5) Terrestrial BFR does TLI and lands on moon empty, for reuse after refill.

Also, the lunar sourced BFR sends materials to Earth Orbit, and even to Earth, as it refuels an outbound BFR.


On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 2:10:34 PM UTC+13, William Mook wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 2:40:15 PM UTC+13, bob haller wrote:
strictly for fun could that have been done?


Yes.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnshuttle.html

http://www.astronautix.com/s/shuttle.html

http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytw...lvs/sld036.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy

The Falcon Heavy puts out 5.13 million pounds of thrust. The Saturn V used for the Saturn Shuttle - puts out 7.65 million pounds of thrust from three Falcon Common Core Boosters. Adding two more Falcon boosters, a total of Five - would boost total thrust to 8.55 million pounds of thrust and permit putting a fully loaded External Tank atop the central booster - to which the ET is affixed. The Space Shuttle is attached to the side as shown in the Saturn Shuttle. The 0.9 million pound increase permits added propellant (stretched ET) and added payload aboard the Shuttle.

Recovery of all the parts and pieces (using the ET on orbit as a space station) is a dramatic improvement over the SRBs actually used.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexte...nkstation.html


* *
*
* *

A Falcon 9 could put a DynaSoar (X20) or X-37 in orbit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-20_Dyna-Soar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

The Falcon Heavy could place highly reusable space plane on orbit as well - this paper also discussed the advantages of liquid fueled rocket booster to replace the SRBs.

https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedfiles/a...sfinalaiaa.pdf



 




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
Privately flown Shuttle? Brian Gaff Space Shuttle 14 October 29th 10 02:02 PM
Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state TC Technology 0 November 15th 05 01:15 PM
NASA reaches Space Shuttle solid rocket booster milestone Jacques van Oene News 0 November 24th 04 04:29 PM
NASA reaches Space Shuttle solid rocket booster milestone Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 November 24th 04 04:29 PM
NASA reaches Space Shuttle solid rocket booster milestone Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 November 24th 04 04:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.