crosson@cam.nist.gov (Bob Crosson) (01/05/91)
Just a random thought; could the shuttle, minus the SRBs, take-off from a runway given enough fuel for the SSMEs? I would ignore any damage to the runway caused by the engine exhaust. Could the shuttle design be modified not too drastically to allow this if it's impossible now? As I said, just a random though. Bob Crosson
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/05/91)
In article <6432@fs3.cam.nist.gov> crosson@cam.nist.gov (Bob Crosson) writes: >Just a random thought; could the shuttle, minus the SRBs, take-off >from a runway given enough fuel for the SSMEs? ... Unless I'm greatly mistaken, the orbiter's wings have neither the lift nor the structural strength to carry a loaded external tank. I would also suspect -- although I'd have to push numbers around to be sure of this -- that three SSMEs do not have enough thrust to get such a beast into orbit before running out of fuel. It's also not clear to me why horizontal takeoff is a useful thing to do. There is actually an awful lot to be said for doing both takeoffs and landings vertically, a la SSX. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) (01/05/91)
Uhh...isn't the shuttle's fuel tank kinda gonna get in the way during a horizontal takeoff? What would be the point of this exercise anyway?
spcecdt@deeptht.UUCP (John DuBois) (01/07/91)
There's no way the orbiter could lift a fully loaded ET. If you put LOX/LH2 tanks in the cargo bay you might have enough fuel to get into the air :-) Don't know why you'd want to do it, though. John DuBois spcecdt@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (01/08/91)
In article <HESKETT.91Jan4123830@polymnia.titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) writes: > Uhh...isn't the shuttle's fuel tank kinda gonna get in the way during > a horizontal takeoff? You must be assuming that the shuttle would take off with it's gear down. This would not be a good way to start a flight. Since the shuttle gear cannot be retracted, the shuttle probably would not survive re-enrty with the landing gear doors open. Since we are being silly anyway, how about taking a normal shuttle stack with SRB's and setting it horizontal onto a winged dolly. The dolly would have wheels that would allow the stack to roll down a runway. The dolly would also need wings to provide lift and control surfaces to get the thing pointed towards space. The dolly would be ejected as soon as the stack was in flight pointed towards space. Kind of like the Me-163 on steriods. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
pstinson@pbs.org (01/10/91)
In article <6432@fs3.cam.nist.gov>, crosson@cam.nist.gov (Bob Crosson) writes: > > Just a random thought; could the shuttle, minus the SRBs, take-off > from a runway given enough fuel for the SSMEs? I would ignore > any damage to the runway caused by the engine exhaust. > > Could the shuttle design be modified not too drastically to allow > this if it's impossible now? This is not possible for the current shuttle, but this sounds like the actual mission profile planned for the X-30 aerospace plane and some second generation shuttles that may evolve from that design.
amcandel@eos.ncsu.edu (@roman(@huge(The Entire U.S. Congress)@beep()@beep())) (01/11/91)
I have a realated question for you. Could the shuttle take off horizontally withbout any solid rocket boosters and say, fly from California to KSC? just a dumb question...
jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty) (01/11/91)
In article <576@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: > >Since we are being silly anyway, how about taking a normal shuttle stack >with SRB's and setting it horizontal onto a winged dolly. The dolly would >have wheels that would allow the stack to roll down a runway. The dolly >would also need wings to provide lift and control surfaces to get the thing >pointed towards space. The dolly would be ejected as soon as the stack >was in flight pointed towards space. > >Kind of like the Me-163 on steriods. > >-john- > Ever see "When Worlds Collide" from the early '50s? One of the George Pal classics. He thought the way to help a big rocket "get going" was to launch it horizontally *down* into a valley (to pick up speed ya' see, kind of a Soap Box Derby approach to aerospace) then curving the track up sharply at the end. He came up with the exact same soultion for putting wheels on what is essentially a big round tank. In the climactic take off scene, you can see the dolly go flying off into the distance as the rocket leaves the track. ("Potential energy conversion losses? Don't bother me, it looks great on film!" :-) - Jack ============================================================================= ||Jack Hagerty, Robotic Midwives, Ltd. jack@rml.UUCP (smart mailers)|| ||Livermore, CA ...!uunet!lll-winken!rml!jack (dumb mailers)|| ||(415) 455-1143 jack%rml@lll-winken.llnl.gov (desperate mailers)|| ||-------------------------------------------------------------------------|| || Caution! Too many warnings may be hazardous to your credibility || =============================================================================
dbraun@cad412.intel.com (Doug Braun ~) (01/15/91)
In article <236@rml.UUCP> jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty) writes: > >Ever see "When Worlds Collide" from the early '50s? One of the George Pal >classics. This movie is sort of a riot to watch nowadays. Look out for the scene where the astronomers use the "differential analyzer" (which looks like an overgrown automobile transmission) to calculate the trajectory of the giant meteor (or whatever) that's going to destroy Earth. Joe Bob says check it out. Doug Braun Intel Corp CAD 408 765-4279 dbraun@scdt.intel.com or maybe: / decwrl \ | hplabs | -| oliveb |- !intelca!mipos3!cadev6!dbraun | amd | \ qantel /
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan10.162049.409@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> amcandel@eos.ncsu.edu (@roman(@huge(The Entire U.S. Congress)@beep()@beep()) writes: > Could the shuttle take off >horizontally withbout any solid rocket boosters and say, fly from >California to KSC? just a dumb question... Where would you drop the tank? Gulf of Mexico? :-) Peter Jarvis....
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) (01/18/91)
In article <1744@inews.intel.com>, dbraun@cad412.intel.com (Doug Braun ~) writes: > >In article <236@rml.UUCP> jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty) writes: >> >>Ever see "When Worlds Collide" from the early '50s? One of the George Pal >>classics. > >This movie is sort of a riot to watch nowadays. Look out for the scene >where the astronomers use the "differential analyzer" (which looks like >an overgrown automobile transmission) to calculate the trajectory of >the giant meteor (or whatever) that's going to destroy Earth. I have seen pictures of computers like that one. They are in essense motorised slide rules that are programmed by changing pulleys, gears, and cams. Really rather ingenious. Naturally, a programmer for these machanical monsters had be both a mathametician and a mechanical engineer (and possibly a machinist). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- About MS-DOS: "... an OS originally designed for a microprocessor that modern kitchen appliances would sneer at...." - Dave Trowbridge, _Computer Technology Review_, Aug 90 iwblsys\ rlw@ttardis uunet!rel.mi.org!cfctech!ttardis!rlw sharkey.cc.umich.edu/