It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
in the main link
"I already have a heavy-lift vehicle," NASA administrator Michael Griffin told reporters at an informal briefing last week at the Kennedy Space Center.
in the main link
Additional lift capacity could be achieved with multiple solid rocket boosters, coupled with shuttle main engines in various configurations. Griffin has commissioned a study team to consider the various options and report back later this summer.
Originally posted by MickeyDee
Personally i dont really see a problem keeping the existing SRB's and external tank.
Although these components have been to blame for both the Challenger and Columbia disasters (Challenger due to human error), i feel that the external tank has been sufficiently upgraded to launch the new shuttle into orbit, as long as the CEV is less likely to be damaged by falling foam insulation etc...
Originally posted by Valhall
Move the launch facilities and landing facilities offshore and away from population centers. That or tell the American population to buck up, we're going to being launching nuclear-powered vehicles over your head. Then go to nuclear propulsion. That's the next big step.
Originally posted by rufi0o
Hhmmm. Well i guess this idea to keep the shuttle lifters is a good cost effective idea, however its still quite old technology from the 80's. Developments in new technology and techniques should be applied for lifting the CEV in the future so NASA doesn’t suffer the same faults it’s had with the shuttle.
Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
There was an illustration in Aviation Week about three weeks ago that portrayed a CEV concept diretly atop one of the solid fuel boosters. Rather than being strung on the side of the boosters -- like the shuttle is -- the CEV is intended to be placed atop the tip of the booster (like a 60s capsule or Dyna-Soar design).
onlyinmydreams
There was an illustration in Aviation Week about three weeks ago that portrayed a CEV concept diretly atop one of the solid fuel boosters. Rather than being strung on the side of the boosters -- like the shuttle is -- the CEV is intended to be placed atop the tip of the booster (like a 60s capsule or Dyna-Soar design).
rufi0o
The solar sail being launched in the next couple of weeks or so I think, is by a private company. NASA has no plans with solar sails set out in the future.
Originally posted by Murcielago
Valhall - Yeah, I knew the shuttle used its own 3 engines, but they are only doing 50% thrust while the SRB's are firing...So I was just trying to emphasis that they do the majority of the work.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by Murcielago
Valhall - Yeah, I knew the shuttle used its own 3 engines, but they are only doing 50% thrust while the SRB's are firing...So I was just trying to emphasis that they do the majority of the work.
??? Are you saying 50% of the total thrust being developed (i.e. that 1/2 the thrust is coming from the SRBs and 1/2 from the main engines?), it's more like 1/3 from the main engines and 2/3 from the SRBs.
Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
There was an illustration in Aviation Week about three weeks ago that portrayed a CEV concept diretly atop one of the solid fuel boosters. Rather than being strung on the side of the boosters -- like the shuttle is -- the CEV is intended to be placed atop the tip of the booster (like a 60s capsule or Dyna-Soar design).