henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/22/90)
In article <494@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >OV-105 Endoever - (Still Under Construction) Ick. The worst misspelling yet. It's "Endeavour". >USSR >?? Buran Summer 1988 >?? ?? ?? At one point the second Soviet orbiter was reported to be named Ptichka, "Birdie". I have seen no more recent info on that. >Both Challenger and Buran have been retiered. ... Well, it would be more correct to say that Challenger has been buried with full honors... Enterprise and Buran have been retired, for similar-sounding reasons (too far below the definitive flight standard), despite original intents to continue flying them. (Pathfinder, by the way, was a mockup, not a functional orbiter, so there was no question of ever flying it.) >... I am also not sure whether Buran is >the name of one shuttle, or if it refers to the whole program. Originally it was just the name of one orbiter, with some impossible-to- remember acronym :-) for the whole program (shades of NASA...), but now the Soviets are displaying a tendency to use "Buran" to refer to the entire program. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
eric@abode.UUCP (Eric C. Bennett) (10/23/90)
In article <1990Oct22.051612.799@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Well, it would be more correct to say that Challenger has been buried with >full honors... Enterprise and Buran have been retired, for similar-sounding >reasons (too far below the definitive flight standard), despite original >intents to continue flying them. (Pathfinder, by the way, was a mockup, >not a functional orbiter, so there was no question of ever flying it.) Well, the Enterprise was never intended to be launced into space. It didn't even have real engines in it. Eric -- Eric C. Bennett uucp: {elroy|cit-vax}!wciu!abode!eric El Monte, Ca Internet: eric@abode.wciu.edu If you can read this you aren't looking through the hubble space telescope!
dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) (10/23/90)
In article <100@abode.UUCP>, eric@abode.UUCP (Eric C. Bennett) writes: > In article <1990Oct22.051612.799@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >Well, it would be more correct to say that Challenger has been buried with > >full honors... An apt description. > Well, the Enterprise was never intended to be launced into space. It didn't > even have real engines in it. > > Eric Enterprise WAS supposed to be the first flight article. In testing, the structural wear became excessive, and someone got the bright idea of taking the structural test article, turning it into a flight orbiter, and keeping Enterprise on the ground. Which is just what happened. OV-099 Challenger The first structure 101 Enterprise The first orbiter to fly 102 Columbia The first orbiter to orbit 103 Discovery 104 Atlantis 105 Endeavour For the record, what is now Endeavour was known as OV-105 even in the days before it was supposed to be a flight article. In the old days, it was known as the structural spares program. -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu We've looked at clouds from ten sides now, And we REALLY don't know clouds, at all.
berger@eps.enet.dec.com (Michael P. Berger) (10/23/90)
In article <100@abode.UUCP>, eric@abode.UUCP (Eric C. Bennett) writes... > >Well, the Enterprise was never intended to be launced into space. It didn't >even have real engines in it. > >Eric The Enterprise was originally intended to be the first shuttle to go into space. After the Glide tests were conducted in the late 70's it was determined that it would be cheaper to modify Challenger and make it space worthy, than to do the same for Enterprise. -Mike
v071pzp4@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) (10/23/90)
In article <100@abode.UUCP>, eric@abode.UUCP (Eric C. Bennett) writes... >Well, the Enterprise was never intended to be launced into space. It didn't >even have real engines in it. Not quite true - Enterprise (OV-100) was originally to be converted for space duty after drop testing. Challenger (STA-99) was to replace Enterprise as the droptester. NASA realized later that Challenger, if refit, would be a lot lighter than Enterprise, meaning it could carry a heavier payload. Since NASA couldn't afford both, they went with Challenger. That explains why Challenger's serial number is Structual Test Article-99 while the others are Oribtal Vehicles-10x. >If you can read this you aren't looking through the hubble space telescope! Groan. Craig Cole V071PZP4@UBVMS.BITNET V071PZP4@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
eric@abode.UUCP (Eric C. Bennett) (10/23/90)
In article <5852@mace.cc.purdue.edu> dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: >OV-099 Challenger The first structure > 101 Enterprise The first orbiter to fly > 102 Columbia The first orbiter to orbit > 103 Discovery > 104 Atlantis > 105 Endeavour > >For the record, what is now Endeavour was known as OV-105 even in the >days before it was supposed to be a flight article. In the old days, >it was known as the structural spares program. Wasn't there supposed to be five (5) shuttles in the first place? I thought they cut it down to 4 because of budget problems. I could be wrong but that sounds correct. Also, I thought Challenger was a shuttle that was a test vehicle (or something along those lines) that was converted to a operational shuttle. Though it was never used like the Enterprise. With a name like 'Enterprise' I think they should have made it a 'real' orbiter. Space... The final frontier..... (No jokes folks!) Eric -- Eric C. Bennett uucp: {elroy|cit-vax}!wciu!abode!eric El Monte, Ca Internet: eric@abode.wciu.edu If you can read this you aren't looking through the hubble space telescope!
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/23/90)
In article <5852@mace.cc.purdue.edu> dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: >For the record, what is now Endeavour was known as OV-105 even in the >days before it was supposed to be a flight article. In the old days, >it was known as the structural spares program. Actually, you can probably add an unnamed OV-106 to the list. NASA got approval a while ago to replace the structural spares used to build Endeavour. (This also keeps the option of another orbiter open a bit longer, in much the same way that the original structural spares kept production facilities going long enough for a Challenger replacement to be possible when it turned out to be needed.) -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) (10/23/90)
In article <101@abode.UUCP>, eric@abode.UUCP (Eric C. Bennett) writes: > > Wasn't there supposed to be five (5) shuttles in the first place? I thought > they cut it down to 4 because of budget problems. I think that was something like Pad 39-C and the Nova. Somebody's pipe dream about what they wanted. > With a name like 'Enterprise' I think they should > have made it a 'real' orbiter. OV-101 was originally to have been called "Constitution", after the ship. In the nick of time, a sufficient number of Trekkies pressured the right people and the name was changed to "Enterprise", also, ostensibly, after the ship, but really after the starship. Due to the concerted efforts of "Enterprise" fans everywhere, that name now sits in the hanger. Moral: Be careful of what you ask for. You might get it. And you may not like the results. Henry Spencer mentioned that they are now working on OV-106, a new set of structural spares. It's worth noting that it takes years just to build the spare parts for an orbiter. (57 months is the number I remember for the aft thrust structure.) Keeping the production up is absolutely essential if they ever want to fix or replace orbiters. This kind of stuff can't be found on the shelf at K-Mart. -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu We've looked at clouds from ten sides now, And we REALLY don't know clouds, at all.
yun@eng.umd.edu (Dragon Taunter) (10/23/90)
dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: > >OV-099 Challenger The first structure > 101 Enterprise The first orbiter to fly > 102 Columbia The first orbiter to orbit > 103 Discovery > 104 Atlantis > 105 Endeavour Okay, someone has to ask. Why not an OV-100? Was Pathfinder given an OV number? -- yun@wam.umd.edu zwy0c@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov (code 926) yun@eng.umd.edu zwy0c@charney.gsfc.nasa.gov 5 hrs 10' 39" W 39 deg 2' 9.7" N A milihelen is the amount of beauty required to launch one ship.
etxenke@juno20.ericsson.se (Andrei Lenkei TM/JU 95712) (10/23/90)
In article <101@abode.UUCP>, eric@abode (Eric C. Bennett) writes: [...stuff deleted ...] >Though it was never used like the Enterprise. With a name like 'Enterprise' >I think they should have made it a 'real' orbiter. Space... The final >frontier..... (No jokes folks!) > >Eric > >-- > Eric C. Bennett uucp: {elroy|cit-vax}!wciu!abode!eric > El Monte, Ca Internet: eric@abode.wciu.edu > >If you can read this you aren't looking through the hubble space telescope! As a great fan of Star Trek and of space exploration I fully agree with you whe it comes to the 'Enterprise'. :-( And no, I`m not looking through the Hubble space telescope :-). I really liked that one! Here in Sweden we have a tv channel named... Discovery. They show documentaries on various topics. Last night they had a program about space exploration and they siad that it was possible for private persons to buy space (even to fly) on the shuttle. Could tht be correct ?!?!?
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) (10/24/90)
In article <42125@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v071pzp4@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >Enterprise (OV-100) was originally to be converted >for space duty after drop testing. I just read this as "crop dusting," which gave me a very amusing mental image... Barnstorming in a shuttle orbiter? :-). -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- A seminar on time travel will be held two weeks ago.
joefish@disk.UUCP (joefish) (10/24/90)
Articles posted repeatedly refer to the Soviet Buran shuttle launch in 1988 as in the same class as the U.S. shuttles........ It is not, simply because the Buran launch was a vehicle without life support systems, and without the ability to permit adding life support systems in the future. AW & ST magazine reported this and the launch of a manned mission Soviet shuttle is still to be sometime in the future. The Soviet Buran launch was just a test of the flight and control dynamics. Joe Fischer
gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) (10/24/90)
In article <1990Oct23.153515.6794@ericsson.se> etxenke@juno20.ericsson.se (Andrei Lenkei TM/JU 95712) writes: > >Here in Sweden we have a tv channel named... Discovery. They show documentaries > on various topics. Last night they had a program about space exploration and >they siad that it was possible for private persons to buy space (even to fly) > on the shuttle. Could tht be correct ?!?!? Here in the US we also have a channel named Discovery that shows science programs. I don't know if it's the same program or not. Anyway, before the Challenger accident, a private person could purchase shuttle space called Getaway Specials or GAS for as little as $10,000. This was a canister in the payload bay about the size of a large garbage can. Included in the price was activation of your payload by the Mission Specialist. Other major payloads were also for hire and one actually flew with a private company's engineer in attendance (some sort of drug manufacturing experiment). After Challenger, the plug was pulled on all this. As NASA regains confidence in the shuttle, if they ever do, this program may restart. Gary
v071pzp4@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct23.150628.407@eng.umd.edu>, yun@eng.umd.edu (Dragon Taunter) writes...> >Okay, someone has to ask. Why not an OV-100? Was Pathfinder given an >OV number? Enterprise is OV-100. And yes, I had always wished NASA followed through on the refit of Enterprise for space duty. Seems like it would be a good time top do it, since Endeavour has gotten all of the assembly lines running again... Craig Cole v071pzp4@ubvms.bitnet v071pzp4@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) (10/25/90)
Not quite accurate. NASA is not presently accepting new reservations for GAS payloads (those $ 10,00 canisters) but there are estimated to be over 400 "inactive" reservations which could be transfer$red to students or researchers who have a bona fide use for them. If anybody has a specific idea for a GAS please send me e-mail, and I will try and find an inactive reservation which could be transferred to you. My voice telephone is 805-684-6641 8 - 5 mon - fri Pacific Time.
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (10/25/90)
In article <100@abode.UUCP> eric@abode.UUCP (Eric C. Bennett) writes: > In <1990Oct22.051612.799@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > Enterprise and Buran have been retired, for similar-sounding > Well, the Enterprise was never intended to be launced into space. It didn't > even have real engines in it. Enterprise was fully intended to go up into space. After the glide tests, it was to be refitted for space flight. It turned out that it was a bit overweight. As a result, one of the test bed frames was fitted for flight and named Challenger. That is why Challenger had the number 99 rather than a number in the 100 series. Although it never went into space, Enterprise played a very important part in the development of the Space Shuttle by helping to verify many of the shuttle turn-around procedures, stacking, pad procedures, and landing. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (10/27/90)
In article <4374@disk.UUCP> joefish@disk.UUCP (joefish) writes: >Articles posted repeatedly refer to the Soviet Buran shuttle launch in >1988 as in the same class as the U.S. shuttles........ It is not, simply >because the Buran launch was a vehicle without life support systems,... >AW & ST magazine reported this and the launch of a manned mission Soviet >shuttle is still to be sometime in the future. By this, you do mean that the soviet shuttle #1 (ie buran) does not have a LSS, but NOT that the entire fleet will be without. Then, I'd say that this 'launch' is in the same class as the US dropping a shuttle to test the aerodyn & systems. BTY, what was the reported max altitude, and displacement down range of the Buran 'launch'. Any idea on the actual expected date ? It seems to me, that the development time of the Buran shuttle system, has been rather lengthly, especially given the amount of data and devopment that the soviets did NOT need to pioneer. al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/28/90)
In article <1990Oct26.205937.25383@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: > Then, I'd say that this 'launch' is in the same class as the US dropping >a shuttle to test the aerodyn & systems. An orbital flight is just a wee bit more ambitious than dropping an orbiter off a 747. The Buran launch was a stage of testing that the US skipped completely: an unmanned orbital flight by a prototype orbiter. This tested many more systems than the US glide tests did. > BTY, what was the reported max altitude, and displacement down range of >the Buran 'launch'. Any idea on the actual expected date ? Sustained altitude circa 300 km, displacement downrange unlimited -- that was a real live orbital launch, not a ballistic hop. They are talking about a test flight next year, although the details are vague. It's pretty clear that the program is on the back burner and is not moving nearly as quickly as it could. > It seems to me, that the development time of the Buran shuttle system, >has been rather lengthly, especially given the amount of data and devopment >that the soviets did NOT need to pioneer. Uh, what "amount of data and development"? Contrary to popular misconception, the Soviets did not just Xerox the plans for the US orbiter. The overall layout is similar, but many details are different. They'd have had to do most of the development and test work from scratch. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
lydick@freezer.it.udel.edu (William Lydick) (10/28/90)
In article <5860@mace.cc.purdue.edu> dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: >I think that was something like Pad 39-C and the Nova. Somebody's pipe >dream about what they wanted. What exactly are Pad 39-C and the Nova? I think I've heard of them, but I'm not sure William M. Lydick wmlydick@brahms.udel.edu lydick@freezer.it.udel.edu
megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) (10/29/90)
In article <1990Oct27.220840.3756@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Uh, what "amount of data and development"? Contrary to popular misconception, >the Soviets did not just Xerox the plans for the US orbiter. The overall >layout is similar, but many details are different. They'd have had to do >most of the development and test work from scratch. Well, we had a guest here at WPI last year. He was one of the first westerners to visit the aerospace institute in Moscow. (Sorry, I don't remember his name.) Anyway, when He was taken on a tour of the wind tunnel there were many models of the orbiter laying around. They were marked with a certain four letter acronym? Can you guess it? Give up? NASA. It seems nasa sold its wind tunnel models when it was done testing and the Russians bought 'em all up, along with anything els NASA wanted to sell. That's a major reason for the resemblence. ############################################################################### # "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu # # MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry. # ###############################################################################
dean@pro-canaveral.cts.com (Dean K. Fick) (10/30/90)
In-Reply-To: message from joefish@disk.UUCP In a recent magazine article, Gen. Alexei Leonov, Chief of Cosmonaut Training at Star City, admitted that it would be quite some time before Buran would fly again. The General conceded that domestic re-appraisal of his nation's Space Program is underway. The primary concern: money! Welcome to the club, tovarichi! Plans for the Buran to dock with the Kristall module on Mir would therefore be indefinitely suspended. ProLine: dean@pro-canaveral GEnie: d.fick1 Internet: dean@pro-canaveral.cts.com ARPA: crash!pro-canaveral!dean@nosc.mil UUCP: crash!pro-canaveral!dean Modem: 407/264-0807 (300-2400 baud)
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (10/30/90)
>It seems nasa sold its wind tunnel models when it was done testing and the >Russians bought 'em all up, along with anything els NASA wanted to sell. I wonder who got the better deal? It doesn't look like Buran is going anywhere. Might as well have bought HOTOL models.
joefish@disk.UUCP (joefish) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct27.220840.3756@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Oct26.205937.25383@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: >> Then, I'd say that this 'launch' is in the same class as the US dropping >>a shuttle to test the aerodyn & systems. > >An orbital flight is just a wee bit more ambitious than dropping an orbiter >off a 747. The Buran launch was a stage of testing that the US skipped >completely: an unmanned orbital flight by a prototype orbiter. This tested >many more systems than the US glide tests did. > >> BTY, what was the reported max altitude, and displacement down range of >>the Buran 'launch'. Any idea on the actual expected date ? > >Sustained altitude circa 300 km, displacement downrange unlimited -- that >was a real live orbital launch, not a ballistic hop. > >They are talking about a test flight next year, although the details are >vague. It's pretty clear that the program is on the back burner and is >not moving nearly as quickly as it could. > >> It seems to me, that the development time of the Buran shuttle system, >>has been rather lengthly, especially given the amount of data and devopment >>that the soviets did NOT need to pioneer. > >Uh, what "amount of data and development"? Contrary to popular misconception, >the Soviets did not just Xerox the plans for the US orbiter. The overall >layout is similar, but many details are different. They'd have had to do >most of the development and test work from scratch. >-- >The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry While I see the original Buran launch vehicle as a great accomplishment, I don't see where it is comparable to the first shuttle orbit launch. The original Buran orbiter is not scheduled to fly again. It carried no life support systems. It was never designed to add the life support systems, so it can never fly a manned mission. I don't understand all the shuttle bashing. The system has performed better than I have ever dreamed (if a launch in temperatures for which it was not designed is not counted). The fact is that the shuttle has flown dozens of manned missions over the last ten years, and the Buran program has not flown any manned missions and can not fly any manned missions until another orbiter is built with designed in manned life support systems. I see the shuttle as capable of any type of space flight if enough fuel and provisions are attached to it in orbit. I see very little that could be done to the shuttle itself that would be much of an improvement. When a horizontal launch vehicle, or a heavy lift system is operational, it should be used in conjunction with the shuttle. The shuttle launch system is already the best system in percentage of successful launches. It is a full 10 or 12 years ahead of the Buran launch system if it ever flies manned. There are three manned rated vehicles in the shuttle fleet, and none in the Buran fleet. The talk of a liquid fueled booster stage fails to realize that the at least three or four of the largest liquid fuel engines made would be needed to replace each of the solid fuel boosters. This would be an enormous project when you consider that the support structure has several million pounds of dynamic loading to contend with. The horizontal launch system is the next major (logical) step along with a shuttle C, and both these systems are in some stage of planning. A vertical launch system cannot compete with a vertical launch system in orbital weight vs launch weight. It looks like the manned programs are on track, although they are massive and complicated. Joe Fischer joefish@disk.UUCP
n8035388@unicorn.wwu.edu (Worth Henry A) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Oct29.062306.4543@wpi.WPI.EDU> megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) writes: >In article <1990Oct27.220840.3756@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Uh, what "amount of data and development"? Contrary to popular misconception, >>the Soviets did not just Xerox the plans for the US orbiter. The overall >>layout is similar, but many details are different. They'd have had to do >>most of the development and test work from scratch. > >Well, we had a guest here at WPI last year. He was one of the first westerners >to visit the aerospace institute in Moscow. (Sorry, I don't remember his name.) >Anyway, when He was taken on a tour of the wind tunnel there were many models >of the orbiter laying around. They were marked with a certain four letter >acronym? Can you guess it? Give up? > >NASA. Given that Brezhnev commanded a shuttle clone and that the usual Soviet-US paranoia would have demanded the capability to bring down anything that the US shuttle was capable of putting into orbit; their interest in the US shuttle and the resulting vague resemblence in shape, size, and payload should hardly be surprising (form follows function...). However, spacecraft systems and the launch method do differ (for example -- no SSME's and unmanned operation). BTW, does anyone know what they use for onboard power? I hope they have not continued their obsession with RTG's and other forms of nuclear power for orbital use!
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/03/90)
In article <1990Nov1.234640.17372@unicorn.wwu.edu> n8035388@unicorn.WWU.EDU (Worth Henry A) writes: > BTW, does anyone know what they use for onboard power? I hope they >have not continued their obsession with RTG's and other forms of nuclear >power for orbital use! I believe Buran used batteries for its brief flight, and they've mentioned interest in fuel cells for longer missions. That would actually be a bit of a departure for them, as their manned craft tend to use solar arrays. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
) (11/03/90)
In article <4405@disk.UUCP> joefish@disk.UUCP (joefish) writes: > >The horizontal launch system is the next major (logical) step >along with a shuttle C, and both these systems are in some stage >of planning. What exactly do you mean by a "shuttle C"? > A vertical launch system cannot compete with a >vertical launch system in orbital weight vs launch weight. Did I miss something here? Or did you mean horizontal vs. vertical? -- Hank Ptasinski gumby@ucsd.edu Sorry, no cute disclaimer.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/04/90)
In article <4405@disk.UUCP> joefish@disk.UUCP (joefish) writes: >While I see the original Buran launch vehicle as a great accomplishment, >I don't see where it is comparable to the first shuttle orbit launch. I never said it was. It was a preliminary, one that the US skipped. >The original Buran orbiter is not scheduled to fly again. It carried >no life support systems. It was never designed to add the life support >systems, so it can never fly a manned mission. References, please. Everything I've said says that it *was* meant to be uprated into a manned orbiter eventually, but the Soviets have decided that this is not worth the trouble any more (much as the US did with Enterprise). This myth is sometimes applied to Enterprise, but I'm surprised to see it appear so quickly for Buran. Incidentally, I've seen proposals for manned spacecraft that would rely entirely on spacesuits for life support. Buran could easily fly a manned mission that way. >I don't understand all the shuttle bashing. The system has performed >better than I have ever dreamed (if a launch in temperatures for which >it was not designed is not counted). References, please. The shuttle was supposedly designed for routine airliner-type operations, implying launches in cold weather among other things. You are confusing "not designed for" with "not tested for" or "does not work in". >... I see very little >that could be done to the shuttle itself that would be much of an >improvement. You're almost alone; not even NASA agrees with you. In hindsight it is not a very good design. Apart from anything else, it is far too costly and manpower-intensive. >The shuttle launch system is already the best system in percentage >of successful launches... Numbers, please. Its demonstrated reliability is no better than the major expendables, most of which have far more launches under their belts than it does, and several of which can launch rather more frequently. >... There are three >manned rated vehicles in the shuttle fleet, and none in the Buran >fleet. Why do you insist on comparing a vehicle early in development with one that is supposedly operational? There were no man-rated US orbiters in 1979 either. >The talk of a liquid fueled booster stage fails to realize that >the at least three or four of the largest liquid fuel engines >made would be needed to replace each of the solid fuel boosters. Nonsense. Two F-1s would do fine. You only need four if you insist on using SSMEs, a bad move for several reasons. Granted, the F-1 is no longer in production, so the biggest liquid engines now made are the core engines for Energia. They'd do fine, I think. Also, why are the numbers so significant? Von Braun clustered eight engines in the first stage of the Saturn I, and the number of nozzles sticking out of the "A" booster -- the only truly mass-produced booster on Earth --is truly ridiculous. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/05/90)
In article <1990Nov4.070304.427@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >You're almost alone; not even NASA agrees with you. In hindsight it is >not a very good design. Apart from anything else, it is far too costly >and manpower-intensive. > >"I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >"Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Given that there is room for improvement, are there any alternatives for a reusable manned vehicle with similar or enhanced capability under consideration? Ed. A. Hew XeniTec Consulting Services (519) 570-9848 edhew@xenitec.on.ca | ..!{watmath|lsuc}!xenitec!edhew (sco.opendesktop newsgroup <=> mlist gateway maintainer)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Nov05.080643.29287@xenitec.on.ca> edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes: >>You're almost alone; not even NASA agrees with you. In hindsight it is >>not a very good design. Apart from anything else, it is far too costly >>and manpower-intensive. > >Given that there is room for improvement, are there any alternatives >for a reusable manned vehicle with similar or enhanced capability under >consideration? There is a lot of talk, but no action, I'm afraid. NASA has produced pretty design sketches for a "Shuttle II", showing various approaches, but nobody is funding development or likely to fund it any time soon. (It *is* time work got started on this, but...) Even these designs typically don't qualify if you take "similar capability" literally, since they are mostly somewhat smaller than the existing shuttle -- it's over-sized for the bulk of the users, having been driven by a now-irrelevant USAF requirement. (For purposes of this discussion I ignore seriously different vehicles, like SSX and the various small spaceplanes, which are getting active attention in various places.) -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry