Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu (Commander Krugannal) (03/17/90)
I know that work is being done on the Shuttle-C but has
thought ever been given to other uses of the SRB's? Perhaps
as a launcher by themselves. Would extra segments have to be
added to increase burntime?
Just a thought.
Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu
Disclaimer: Why do I need one? everyone else has one!henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/18/90)
In article <10556.1440.forumexp@mts.rpi.edu> Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu (Commander Krugannal) writes: > I know that work is being done on the Shuttle-C but has > thought ever been given to other uses of the SRB's? Perhaps > as a launcher by themselves... By itself, an SRB couldn't make it into orbit. There have been proposals for SRB-based launchers using two or three stages, however. It could be done, but there are some technical issues with segmented solids as upper stages (or so I'm told), and nobody has been sufficiently impressed with the idea to pursue it. I've heard SRB-X (one of the SRB-based concepts) described as "the single worst shuttle-derived launcher ever proposed". -- MSDOS, abbrev: Maybe SomeDay | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology an Operating System. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
andre@cix.UUCP (03/18/90)
> launch now!) you will here the comment "1 engine PRESTEMCO" > and "2 engine PRESTEMCO". These signify the point at which > the orbiter could safely make it to a stable orbit (once > around or even a full orbit) if 1 or 2 engines failed. Surely that should read "Press to MECO" ...? Where MECO refers to the Main Engine Cut Off point? (ie: Shuttle is now high enough to press on to the normal Main Engine cutoff point with only 2 or 1 engines working - before that come the various abort landing sites at Kennedy, Africa, etc.) Perhaps someone could confirm this? Being from the UK I don't get to see too many shuttle launches ... :-) (Did get to see one, though, when on hols in Flordia last May. Wow!) Andre
Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu (Commander Krugannal) (03/18/90)
Thanks Henry, figured you would have the answer.
To get back to failure of a SSME, if you listen to the
commentary, (which they don't do as much on the networks
anymore, you're lucky if they break the soap operas for the
launch now!) you will here the comment "1 engine PRESTEMCO"
and "2 engine PRESTEMCO". These signify the point at which
the orbiter could safely make it to a stable orbit (once
around or even a full orbit) if 1 or 2 engines failed.
As Henry pointed out, a few years ago, (early '85 I think)
a shuttle orbited to orbit. As a result, its inclination was
not as planned and was more northerly than planned. I could
see the shuttle with the naked eye in CT.
Final question, think NASA can be talked into rescusing
INTELSAT VI after launching Hubble?
Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu
Disclaimer: Why do I need one? everyone else has one!sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) (03/20/90)
> INTELSAT VI after launching Hubble? > > Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu Unlikely; not only would that require adding some kind of structural support to hold the satellite down (Discovery is on the pad), but Discovery will use almost all of its maneuvering fuel* to get the HST up into its 610km high orbit. Chasing another satellite in a different orbit seems out of the question. Then there are the problems associated with actually holding on to the satellite ( no grappel fixtures) and the sheer size of the bird. * See _Sky_&_Telescope_, April 1990 - an HST special issue. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM | Pretentious? Moi? -------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------