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.
Originally posted by JimOberg
RF, get a grip. None of the things you state the Energiya CAN do, has it ever really done. They are the claims of salesmen who want your (well, your country's) money. And you believe them?
Originally posted by JimOberg
But we're well off topic from the shuttle video... except to demonstrate again the level of reliable space expertise being offered here from different people.
Originally posted by JimOberg
added note -- couldn't resist:
Originally posted by JimOberg
"Jet engines for the Buran shuttle were also to be installed, so as to give a little added safety to the shuttle on landing, as most people know shuttle tend to glide into landing like bricks, a few engines up back certainly will be appreciated if you’re landing in adverse weather conditions."
Right, carry 30,000 pounds of engines into orbit, just remove your payload and carry a few boxes of sandwiches for the space station crew. The Russians THOUGHT about having jet engines and finally decided that it was a BAD idea, after flight testing on a modified Ilyushin showed the engines often failed to ignite during the final approach. They're only useful below Mach 1 anyway -- with about 60 seconds of air time left, little chance to make any difference in bad weather or any other contingency. So they removed them a few months before launch -- just as NASA had done in its design years earlier.
Originally posted by JimOberg
This just shows again how little you really know about space technology versus how much you are positive you do know.
Originally posted by JimOberg
What was that quotation from Will Rogers? "It ain't what you don't know what'll make you look like a fool -- it's what you DO know, what ain't so."
Meet RF, the poster child of Will Rogers' joke.
Originally posted by RFBurns
I will buy the Russian sales pitch ANY DAY OF THE WEEK to our tilted salesmen pitches.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by JimOberg
"Jet engines for the Buran shuttle were also to be installed, so as to give a little added safety to the shuttle on landing, as most people know shuttle tend to glide into landing like bricks, a few engines up back certainly will be appreciated if you’re landing in adverse weather conditions."
Right, carry 30,000 pounds of engines into orbit, just remove your payload and carry a few boxes of sandwiches for the space station crew. The Russians THOUGHT about having jet engines and finally decided that it was a BAD idea, after flight testing on a modified Ilyushin showed the engines often failed to ignite during the final approach. They're only useful below Mach 1 anyway -- with about 60 seconds of air time left, little chance to make any difference in bad weather or any other contingency. So they removed them a few months before launch -- just as NASA had done in its design years earlier.
If you bother to even comprehend the article as it is written, the jets were to be used for LANDINGS!! Oh I guess I need to put it in "A-B-C-D" terminoligy for you....in other words..spell it out for you.
The jets are to supplement the landing sequence during adverse weather conditions. It allows that craft to have some engine power for forward motion..critical to flight ability. Without forward motion applied to an airfoil or wing, no lift is produced, hence no flight. With the added room of not needing main engines on the craft itself because the Energia lift vehicle puts that craft at intended orbital altitude, installing two jets takes up less room than the main engines on our shuttles as well as weight. And if you want to compare apples to oranges, there is never 30,000 pounds of food carried by any shuttle for the astronauts. You show us a jet engine or combination of jet engines that weigh 30,000 pounds.
Their idea Jim, was to add extra safety margins to the landing sequence. Simply relying on gliding is a 50/50 chance at best. One thing that the Soviet engineers considered was its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Something NASA has yet to understand.
Apparently I know a hell of a lot more than you do..you seem to think that jets will be used to launch a shuttle into orbit. You said that, not me, nor does the article.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by RFBurns
I will buy the Russian sales pitch ANY DAY OF THE WEEK to our tilted salesmen pitches.
Since it's about 'Buran', don't you mean the 'Soviet' sales pitch??
Glad to get this calibration of your sympathies out on the table, tovarishch.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Anything done after the fall of the Soviet Union, is then decalred otherwise..or in this case.."The Russian Deomcratic Republic".
Originally posted by JimOberg
My point, RF, is that if you use them for landings, you carry them dead weight for launchings. Or do you imagine you find them lying about somewhere in orbit?
Originally posted by JimOberg
The jets are to supplement the landing sequence during adverse weather conditions. It allows that craft to have some engine power for forward motion..critical to flight ability. Without forward motion applied to an airfoil or wing, no lift is produced, hence no flight. With the added room of not needing main engines on the craft itself because the Energia lift vehicle puts that craft at intended orbital altitude, installing two jets takes up less room than the main engines on our shuttles as well as weight. And if you want to compare apples to oranges, there is never 30,000 pounds of food carried by any shuttle for the astronauts. You show us a jet engine or combination of jet engines that weigh 30,000 pounds.
A pair of high-thrust jet engines, fuel tankage, thermal shielding -- what's your estimate of how much it should weigh? Whatever it comes to, it's dead weight during ascent, and is subtracted 1:1 from payload performance.
Originally posted by JimOberg
You didn't address my other issue -- the jets would only be able to operate below Mach 1, when the Buran is within 60 seconds of the airfield and already within the 'bad weather' that you're worried about. That doesn't give a whole lot of avoidance or loiter capability.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Their idea Jim, was to add extra safety margins to the landing sequence. Simply relying on gliding is a 50/50 chance at best. One thing that the Soviet engineers considered was its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Something NASA has yet to understand.
That was the original idea. Then the Soviet designers realized it was wrong, and removed the two engines from their first Buran orbiter. It flew without them. Didn't you get the memo?
Originally posted by JimOberg
Apparently I know a hell of a lot more than you do..you seem to think that jets will be used to launch a shuttle into orbit. You said that, not me, nor does the article.
Uh, no, I didn't say that. You're imagining things, again....
Originally posted by RFBurns
Dead weight....those 3 main engines on our shuttles....are completely USELESS and DEAD WEIGHT on landings. Hell, they are dead weight the second that external tank drops. So not only is there dead weight up in orbit on our shuttle, there is more DEAD WEIGHT on that thing during a glide landing!!! Sure enough.
Originally posted by JimOberg
You didn't address my other issue -- the jets would only be able to operate below Mach 1, when the Buran is within 60 seconds of the airfield and already within the 'bad weather' that you're worried about. That doesn't give a whole lot of avoidance or loiter capability.
Jim..you dont land at speeds of Mach 1. Why the hell do you even bring that up, its a moot point. The jets would be used well below any Mach speed. And again, they would be intended for supplemental thrust power when needed. You know, that added safety net that is good to have in place even though it may not be used, which is far better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Originally posted by JimOberg
RF: Their idea Jim, was to add extra safety margins to the landing sequence. Simply relying on gliding is a 50/50 chance at best. One thing that the Soviet engineers considered was its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Something NASA has yet to understand.
That was the original idea. Then the Soviet designers realized it was wrong, and removed the two engines from their first Buran orbiter. It flew without them. Didn't you get the memo?
Umm..the first spaceworthy Buran had NO jet engines on it Jim. The only Buran to have any jets was the atmospheric test model. That test model provided the data they needed to assert the effectiveness of the idea to have jets on the spaceworthy craft. Since the program was haulted, the idea was never implemented. Again, another point you make is moot.
Originally posted by JimOberg
RF: Apparently I know a hell of a lot more than you do..you seem to think that jets will be used to launch a shuttle into orbit. You said that, not me, nor does the article.
Uh, no, I didn't say that. You're imagining things, again....
Read your own post there Jim. You wrote it..not me. Your own words suggest on the onset that these jets are to be used for launching, ...
Originally posted by stealthyaroura
There is a great photo and explanation site called "DARK ROASTED BLEND" it has loads of impressive pic's of BURON.
This shuttle was very advanced really for the time, it was able to land it's self and i believe it did so on a drop from that huge carrier plane. give the site a look you will get hooked for hours like me i promise
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by RFBurns
Anything done after the fall of the Soviet Union, is then decalred otherwise..or in this case.."The Russian Deomcratic Republic".
Now THIS gets interesting. When you google
""The Russian Democratic Republic"" you find it is
not the name of the current Russian regime at all --
it's the precise name of the government Lenin set up
in Moscow in 1919 before evolving into the 'USSR'.
Lenin's precise phrase, tripping from RF's keyboard --
who wooda thunk it?
Nah, it's just an accident. No, seriously, I don't see any
deeper significance to it, just random noise.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by RFBurns
Dead weight....those 3 main engines on our shuttles....are completely USELESS and DEAD WEIGHT on landings. Hell, they are dead weight the second that external tank drops. So not only is there dead weight up in orbit on our shuttle, there is more DEAD WEIGHT on that thing during a glide landing!!! Sure enough.
Buran jet engines going uphill subtract directly from payload performance -- maybe 50%, maybe 30% -- but massively. That's somewhere betwen 12,000 and 15,000 pounds penalty.
Originally posted by JimOberg
SSMEs sitting in orbit add less than 10% to the mass of the vehicle, so increase its deorbit prop usage by about the same. That comes out to what, maybe 400 or 500 pounds of extra prop, taken off the payload performance.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Payload penalties of 12-15,000 pounds for jets engines, versus 500 pounds for SSMEs -- which one do you find preferable [let me guess]. I mean to ask, which one would a reasonable person find preferable?
Originally posted by JimOberg
We also actually LIKE 'dead weight' aft on the Orbiter, and sometimes several thousand pounds of extra ballast is loaded there when flying payloads that leave you 'nose heavy' (which is bad) during return. You probably didn't know that, but it's documented (which is another difference between the 'inside' space information I've provided, and the stuff that you've offered).
Originally posted by JimOberg
You land at speeds "below Mach 1", exactly as I wrote and you proved incapable of reading. Your statement that the jets could be used at "any Mach speed" is factually phony -- above Mach 1, both the NASA shuttle and the Buran are pitched up more than 40 degrees (to maximize aero braking forces across the belly) and there is not enough air flow across the top to sustain an air-breathing jet engine. The jet's thrust, even if could operate in that non-standard turbulent airflow regime, would then be mostly 'upwards', anyway, considering the attitude the shuttles (of both design) are in, during the supersonic flight regime. You probably didn't know that but it's documented all over the Internet.
Originally posted by JimOberg
The shuttle performs its entry with excess energy all the way down, far more than could be provided by any jet engines firing for a minute or two at the end. During descent, as the navigation confirms the runway is in range, the excess energy is bled off in wide swerving turns, banking up to 80 degrees left or right (to turn far off to the side of a ground track, you stay banked one way -- on a straighter track, you do a series of roll reversals to bleed off the no-longer-needed margin of energy). For final approach, excess energy for additional flying within the range uncertainty is also slowly bled off, so you arrive at the end of the runway with a little more -- just a little -- than needed, and land long if needed (it's why a 35,000 ft runway is preferred).
Originally posted by JimOberg
No, the idea WAS implemented, the first orbital Buran DID have jets installed, but they were removed in the year leading up to flight when the idea turned out to be bad. Photos show the thermal protection system scarring where the twin jets were removed, before the areas were later tiled over.
Originally posted by JimOberg
BTW, the atmospheric test model had four jet engines on it; only two were to be installed on the orbital version because it did not need the capability of a runway takeoff.
Originally posted by JimOberg
RF: Apparently I know a hell of a lot more than you do..you seem to think that jets will be used to launch a shuttle into orbit. You said that, not me, nor does the article.
Uh, no, I didn't say that. You're imagining things, again....
Originally posted by JimOberg
I really cannot see that interpretation in any of the words I wrote. Can anybody else help me figure out how RF got this impression?
Added: Could these be them, where I referred to the jet-engine-equipped Buran analog and the testing it performed, including RF's claims that the flight tests included 'launch'?
posted on 18-3-2009 @ 08:21 AM
...(Buran took off for space attached to an 'Energiya' super-rocket -- jet engines don't 'test' that phase).
Originally posted by JimOberg
You didn't address my other issue -- the jets would only be able to operate below Mach 1, when the Buran is within 60 seconds of the airfield and already within the 'bad weather' that you're worried about. That doesn't give a whole lot of avoidance or loiter capability.
Originally posted by RFBurns
That is just my take on it. The Russians always did things in a big way, and they always took their engineering very seriously, not saying that we dont or never have, its just that the Russians were not aiming for a "shuttle trucking company" to haul up commercial satellite cargo and sell cargo space to companies needing satellites up in orbit. Their program had a whole different intent.
Originally posted by JimOberg
RFBurns: "Thats based on your limited knowledge of the Nazi Alliance Space Agency's SRB limitations, not on Energia's capabilities. "
That's three.
We know what this gimmick means regarding the strength of logic and facts of the side that uses it.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by JimOberg
RFBurns: "Thats based on your limited knowledge of the Nazi Alliance Space Agency's SRB limitations, not on Energia's capabilities. "
That's three.
We know what this gimmick means regarding the strength of logic and facts of the side that uses it.
You just keep on presisting to attack me instead of attacking the issue.