Why Mothball Endeavour With Only 25 Cycles ???

reply to post by C0bzz


Just to clarify, my last post was a response to the comment that Burt Rutan isn't qualified to design spacecraft.

However as i have obviously demonstrated my own lack of spacecraft design qualifications i would like to apologise if i don't have all the answers! Mr Obama, don't call me, i'm not the right guy!

Back on topic, just because that's the way most people are currently doing it doesn't mean it's the only way! Look up the Reaction Engines Skylon...

Also, and don't critisise me if the idea is crazy, what about air launching a large vehicle from something like the An 225 which has a cargo carry weight of 250 metric tons, (200 can be carried on it's back)

reply to post by uptheirons!



The shuttle is a glider, but, there are three 1.5 million pound thrust engines on the rear of the Shuttle that sets it apart, WAY apart from spaceship one! 7.5 million pounds of thrust, is alot different!

Spaceship one has no reaction control system. There by classifying it as, an aeronautical device only. I mean it does go into space, but only for real short durations, and only because of ballistics.

At this time, were the shuttle seperates from the solid boosters, the Main engines run for another 5-6 minutes to get it into orbit.

Again you cannot compare the Shuttle to this little tiny glider, in any way!

Just wait and see the greed of virgin galactic will catch up to it. You can't view space as $$$$$ only, its really dangerous! And it will kill living things as we know it.

The Shuttle was built to be a spacecraft first, then a glider.

Burts models are Gliders always, never having ability to be in space for more than a few minutes, and never under powered flight.

Originally posted by theability

Burts models are Gliders always, never having ability to be in space for more than a few minutes, and never under powered flight.

If that was true it would never get to the altitude specified in the design, and the rocket engine on the aft end would just be extra weight.

After it's released from the carry aircraft the spacecraft fires a hybrid rocket engine to get to what you could just barely call the edge of space.

After the rocket burn it becomes a glider with no further power assistance to return to the same runway it was carried off from.

To be honest, I don't even want to refer to this as a spacecraft. It really is just a high altitude plane with a lot of limitations.:shk:

I wasn't really comparing spaceship one with the shuttle!

What my point was is the Rutan built the thing off his own back and it did the job it was designed for, to get into space (even if only just), and he did it all in less than 5 years and on a budget that probably wouldn't cover NASA's stationary bill.

My point was, what would he, and other private individuals/ companies be able to do if they were given some of the money instead?

reply to post by anxietydisorder


Will it get a satalite into orbit? How a big a satalite? How high? How much will it cost?

That is what is important to the identity of this craft.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by garritynet]

Originally posted by uptheirons!

My point was, what would he, and other private individuals/ companies be able to do if they were given some of the money instead?

And that is just what NASA is doing now, to the tune of millions of dollars in grants to private sector development. On top of the money, NASA is transferring technology to companies that show promise of achieving certain goals that will benefit NASA in the long, and short term.

Take a look at the Innovative Partnership Program on their Spinoff page:
www.sti.nasa.gov...

Even more will happen here with the shuttle gone, and to date, it's been a huge boost to the commercialization of space. As a private company achieves certain goals NASA opens the cheque book to help them get to the next stage in development.

Originally posted by garritynet

Will it get a satalite into orbit? How a big a satalite? How high? How much will it cost?

The short answer on this is no.
Virgin Galactic is a tourist based company that has no intention of putting passengers into orbit, or anything else.

There is no plan other than taking people to the top of the atmosphere, a few minutes of weightlessness as it starts to fall back, and then home again.

reply to post by anxietydisorder


Have you now changed your opinion on retiring the shuttle and giving NASA cash to private industry then?

Your last post implies that both of these are good, whereas in the firts post of the thread you implied otherwise.....

Not being critical as you have brought up some very valid points in this thread, i'm just a little confused about your opinion on the topic now.

Originally posted by uptheirons!

Have you now changed your opinion on retiring the shuttle and giving NASA cash to private industry then?

I think we all know the era of the current shuttle fleet is at an end. But it's the gap that concerns me.
I'd like to see the shuttle program continue until the US has the capability to get crew to the ISS without paying $54,000,000 per seat to the Russians.

With the Atlantis launching mid-May it could easily be turned around because they have the one main tank built and the SRBs. Adding a few flights would not be that much of a hardship on the bottom line. Ordering more main tanks now would keep them flying for a few more years.

The stack that puts the shuttle in orbit could also be used for other heavy lift duties. No other system can haul that much mass into space right now, nothing the Russians have, or anyone else.

Sure, keep putting money towards the private sector, but you don't shoot a perfectly healthy horse if you can still get some work out of it.

reply to post by anxietydisorder


I think that ordering new external tanks take about a 24 months to complete one tank, so there would still be a gap in flights.

Also, others like us are discouraged about the end of the shuttle era, yet who is going to extend the airworthiness of the design? I couldn't tell you who decides that even.

Still it is a sad time is it not?

Good post, theability.

The lack of an RCS is a HUGE statement of the craft's capabilities (aka LACK of capbilities).

The means of getting a satellite into orbit from this kind of craft is through the use of an Inertial Upper Stage. Even if the spacecraft hadn't reached the necessary 17,000 MPH for obtaining a stable orbit, getting close enough would allow the IUS to accelerate a satellite into orbit. There would be an inverse proportion of the satellite mass to the degree of acceleration available through the IUS. For a geo-synchronis orbit, it probably would have to be a fairly small satellite.

However, if the purpose of the craft is to launch low-Earth orbital observation satellites, perform recon, launch possible space-to-surface weapons sytems, or other classifed mission, that craft would give you a nice package of options. It wouldn't be the range of options from the STS, but it would be a nice little package anyway.

reply to post by Truth1000


I think the X-37B is designed to fill the roll of launching LEO spy sats.
The military isn't saying much, but I'm sure it is far more capable than they want us to know.

That's why DARPA played with it, and why it's now purely under the jurisdiction of the military.

reply to post by Truth1000



Well RCS is needed to have the ability to live in space, we'd want to survive right?

Heavy payloads and lifting, hmm well I wonder what system is going to take over that ability, and it looks like no one at the time builds a great replacement.

what to do?

The lack of RCS jets is indicative of the fact that they have no intention of maneuvering in space.

Heavy lift will be continued on the Titan IVs.

reply to post by Truth1000


I thought that the Titans were retired, thought I am cannot say for sure??

As for no RCS, those space-tourists are in for a real treat when they need RCS to survive!...

HOLD ON TO YOUR SEAT!

Originally posted by theability

I thought that the Titans were retired, thought I am cannot say for sure??

As for no RCS, those space-tourists are in for a real treat when they need RCS to survive!...

HOLD ON TO YOUR SEAT!

The Titans are gone, and have been for 6-7 years since the last launch.

As for having thrusters on SpaceShipTwo, why bother ???
It does not go into orbit, it barely makes it to space, so has no reason to have them.

To define one RCS from another RCS.

RCS: Reaction Control System - Thrusters....
The shuttle has hydrazine powered steering rockets fore and aft to maneuver in space and enable an accurate docking/de-orbit burn. If you travel at 17,500 mph you need a way to slow down if you expect to get back to the ground.

RCS: Reaction Control Surface - Wings....
The Virgin craft has a tail that feathers to reduce drag on decent. This moves to become a wing as it gets more atmosphere to provide lift and maneuverability on the control surfaces.
It never gets over 2,500 mph, so no need for a heat shield.

And yes, the shuttle has both.
It needs the thrusters on orbit only.
But it needs all the attributes of an aircraft to land on a runway, like rudder control, flaps, ailerons, spoilers, etc....


EDIT: They both deploy a drogue to pull a main chute when they touch down.




[edit on 25/4/2010 by anxietydisorder]

reply to post by anxietydisorder


Good morning...

Its a personal reason for believing that Spaceshiptwo should have RCS and I will explain why:

During Gemini 8, Neil Armstrong and Dave Scott had some serious trouble, causing them to bank or tumble just a few hours after launch. The only thing that stopped them from tumbling into the atmosphere was the entry RCS. They had to cancel the mission and the came home a few orbits later.

Now...


If the entension mechanisms on the wings, do not work correctly, or don't extend, the craft will tumble while following the ballistics trajectory back into the atmosphere, thereby causing the breakup of the craft.

Example, if you watch the Spaceship One documentary, during one of the flights the pilot had an issue where one of the wings wouldn't do what it was suppose to and the was great concern about the "spin" it would produce because there would be no way to stop it, once it started.

Without a "control" system, there is no way to recover from unknowns of suborbital flight. Plus the system they use to navigate the has failed a few times on flight as well!

I don't know about you, but that sounds like an issue to me.