Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Discoverys home
Entil'Zha
I see famous people
in Zocalo v2.0
Touchdown!
Comments
[B]just been watching the whole thing on NASA TV. thank god its back safe! [/B][/QUOTE]
yeah i was watching it as well, holding my breath the whole time, to lose that ship would have been an utter catastrophy. and without a doubt the end of the shuttle program.
and since we have nothign to repalce it with, it would have been a huge setback to the US Space Program.
The shuttle may be old, outdated an a "flying brick" but i'd hate to see the program end on a sour note.
[B]yeah that would have been a tragedy. but it didnt happen and hopefully NASA has learnt some lessons from this flight which it can put to good use with the Atlantis flight later in the year. i think tho the only way to ensure a safe continuation of the program is to get the shuttle replacement off the drawing board and into space [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't see that happening within a few decades. Does NASA even have funds to get it to the drawingboard in the first place? Last I knew there where some ideas but nothing concrete is even being designed yet.
(or, we could just blow up the planet in little junks, then the atmosphere will vanish and the gravity will be only a fraction, thus space missions would be much cheaper..)
[B]i thought they had some plans for a Crew Transfer Vehicle or something like that, but im not sure TBH. where's ET when you need him? ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
AFAIK they are still experimenting with all those funky weird vehicles and propulsion systems to see whats more practical. They are nowhere near even knowing what kind of vehicle they will build. The problem with the space shuttle is it never really worked. The idea was to have a reusable vehicle to make it cheaper than the conventional disposable rockets. The shuttle proved to be far more expensive to shoot into space with all the inspection and maintenance required for it to be re-used. The fact that it still needs to be strapped onto a massive fuel tank and two rockets doesn't help either. The center fuel tank also burns up on re-entry. I think they are trying to come up with a vehicle that requires no external tanks or significant take off assistance. It would take off like a plane to extremely high altitude so rocket boosters will not be required. Current propulsion systems are not mature enough so they're still nowhere even near achieving that. It seems to me that NASA's progress in this field is quite stagnant and the Shuttle is quit literally the only solution available with current technology. From what I remember reading something ridiculous like 90% of the cost of a shuttle launch goes into the external fuel tank and rockets. Maybe someone with more insight into this subject can help clarify.
Currently NASA is taking proposals for a scaled down vehicle to deliver or retrieve a small crew of 4 people or so to the ISS. No payload capacity whatsoever. Doesn't seem much better than what you can do with a Soyuz. It seems like everything is just taking one huge step back.
[url]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055[/url]
[B]The X-33 programme was cancelled years ago (unfortunately - it was very promising). NASA is well along with their plans for a new capsule-like crew vehicle and a heavy lift cargo launcher, although there are no concrete designs yet.
[url]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
LOL! Those designs look like hacks resembling german weapons of desperation in the late months of WWII :D [url]http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Mistel-Bomber/info/info.htm.[/url]
One more thing to consider. Somewhere in a park in Russia sits a once functional Buran space shuttle. Maybe they should slap a fresh coat of paint and bring it into the fleet :D
[url]http://www.spacedaily.com/news/russia-space-general-01m.html[/url]
Anybody have any idea if there's anything new with this?
So did anything come of that whole Buran revival thing, 'cause I've heard nothing.
[B]I really loved the Buran/Energia project... It's already developed (more or less) and the Energia booster can and has be adapted to many different potential uses outside of the task of lifting the orbiter.
So did anything come of that whole Buran revival thing, 'cause I've heard nothing. [/B][/QUOTE]
After reading that article I posted it sparked my interest and I've kept on looking for more info but it isn't very promising. It turns out the project was never really officially cancelled. It just ran out of money and died. There were very high hopes that the program would be revived and in 2001 it was looking very promising. The transporter that sits in a Moscow park is actually an atmospheric test vehicle as is another one thats been on a rather unsuccesful tour around several countries and is now sitting in some scrap yard while they figure out what the hell to do with it. The Buran itself (the one that succesfully flew and was nearly completed) was virtually destroyed in 2003 after the roof of the building it was stored in in Kazakstan colapsed. The Buran was sitting on top a nearly completed booster rocket which was also toast. With this loss of the only nearly fully completed vehicle and lauch system it looks like the project is permanently doomed.
There are four other follow up transporters which were to be equiped for space flight but were never finished. One called the Ptichka is nearly completed but still lacks a lot of the internal components. There's a third unnamed one which was even far less along construction. Nobody knows for sure were those two are stored. The other two were very early into cunstruction and were not much farther along than empty hulks. One was dismantled and the other is unclear if it was dismantled or still sits in the factory.
The Energia-Buran project actually looked very promising. It seems even more practical in concept than the US shuttle. There has been a lot of speculation whether the soviets stole the external design or if it was just on of those things where the function determines the form. Its kind of like all airliners looking the same regardless who makes them. Even though they look extremely similar externaly thats where the similarities end. One of the keys to it is that they figured since the thing had to take off strapped to boosters it made no sense to have engines on the shuttle. Let the boosters do all the work. It only has a set of small retro rockets to bring it out of orbit. By not carrying any onboard engines the transporter is capable of carrying not only several ton heavier payloads but larger ones too. Instead of basing the design around the shuttle they based it around the booster.
The boosters where designed as a stand alone unit which could have different numbers of side boosters attached to the center tank depending on the payload. The Buran was only one of several options designed to piggyback of it. Its exactly what Nasa is considering doing now in that link Biggles posted. Having dedicated unmaned payload containers. Before the succesful test of the unmanned Buran flight the rocket boosters had also been succesfully launched alone.
They used a completely different kind of fuel too. Russia was not very experienced with the solid fuel and cryogenic fuels used in the US shuttle so they used liquid oxygen and kerosene systems which powered most of their rockets and they were more familiar with. One of the interesting advantages of this is that the boosters can be throttled. Once solid fuel boosters are ignited there's no turning back. Technically something like the Challenger disaster could have been avoided because the rockets could have been shut off. I fact it was a safety feature in many russian rockets than if a fire is detected in the engines can shut off immediately and the paylaod or human cargo can be seperated and recovered.
Unfortunately it looks like we will never see what this program was capable off. If you go to this link look at the last two images and you can see the before and after images of what the Buran looks like after the buildings roof colapsed on it.
[url]http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0153.shtml[/url]
The collapse of Area-112 was quite sad, as well. I had actually forgotten about it, so I suspect that perhaps its loss may be in some way responsible for the lack of advancement in total. Based on a couple of additional pages I dug up, it seems like they (the Russian Space Agency) had apparently been focusing on the potential refurbishing of Buran 1.01/ OK-1K1 with environmental control systems...so I imagine the loss of such an investment (had one actually occured) would be slightly off-putting.
[B]I believe the problem wasn't of shoddy construction, but just lack of maintenance. Even the best built warehouses will collapse given the treatment soviet structures were :p [/B][/QUOTE]
Buildings don't typically fall down due to lack of maintenance. At least not so fast :D They just get uglyu and dirty.
Anyway, that was a cool link on the Energia stuff. Very interesting that Boeing is currently launching satelites using the modifiend sideboosters.
[B]I think they are trying to come up with a vehicle that requires no external tanks or significant take off assistance. It would take off like a plane to extremely high altitude so rocket boosters will not be required. [/B][/QUOTE]
The key is staging... based on the tools we have available now, it just the most efficient. Perhaps when hybrid rocket systems become more common place it won't be quite as crucial. The shuttle uses both the solid rockets and the liquid motors. It's all a trade off - liquid motors will give you a real high ISP but you've got all of the inert mass associated with a liquid motor. Solid rockets don't carry all of the inert mass you'd have with a liquid system but have a much lower ISP. You've got a great deal of inert mass that you're hauling into orbit if you're not dropping a tank.
The bottom line is that if you're not dropping the dead weight as you ascend, you're loosing the ability to haul more into orbit or you would need more fuel in the first place to get there. It may seem wasteful, but it's more efficient for hauling. To be honest, I really can't think of any current space vehicles that are single stage to orbit. Even plane dropped launch systems like space ship one and the pegasus are staged when you take into consideration the plane that drops it.
I really think Rutan has it right with space ship one. Most of the nasa folks I've talked to recently don't care too much for him, but he doesn't care much for them either (if I remember correctly, he refers to nasa as "naysay").
Money is another matter. It seems likely that, at least for another 5 years, Russia lacks sufficient money to restart anything like the Buran program.
Moreover, since during re-entry, Buran also experienced loss of heat shield tiles... I am doubtful if Buran would not eventually suffer an accident too.
---------------
Here is what I would prefer done:
[b]1) Continued development of good carrier rockets[/b]
Focus: having reliable tools for lifting anything reasonable-sized from Earth to low Earth orbit. (Using the best of available solutions, including Shuttle, Soyuz, Energia, and perhaps Ariane 5).
[b]2) Development of space tugs[/b]
Focus: having craft which are dockable to most imaginable crew/cargo modules, to provide efficient propulsion on demand, for in-space maneuvering.
Once demand for propulsion is gone (a crew module has docked to a station, a station has reboosted, a satellite has been installed) space tugs would undock, and fly elsewhere to serve other customers.
For efficiency, space tugs should be equipped with ion engines, making them highly economical. Barring failure, their only recurring maintenance would be occasionally visiting an Earth-launched fuel tank, leeching new ion propellant, and flying off again.
To render them suitable for propelling Moon and Mars missions, they could support a variety of power sources, including nuclear (disposal: fly into Sun), direct solar, accumulated solar (batteries on board for peaks of consumption) and supplemented solar power (delievered by ground-based or orbital lasers or mirrors).
[b]3) Crew and cargo modules[/b]
Focus: having a multitude of tools for launching with a rocket, tacking onto a space tug... possibly assembling with other modules in orbit, and flying where necessary. Anything from long-distance exploration vehicles to asteroid-colonizing robots.
For safety, on crewed interplanetary missions, multiple space tugs should be used, with only half of them capable of bringing the mission back.
[b]3) Non-Earth landers[/b]
Finally, for landing on non-Earth bodies, delivering cargo or robotic building ability, a reliable design of landers should finally be added (space tugs would stay in space, and never land).
[B]The key is staging... based on the tools we have available now, it just the most efficient. Perhaps when hybrid rocket systems become more common place it won't be quite as crucial. The shuttle uses both the solid rockets and the liquid motors. It's all a trade off - liquid motors will give you a real high ISP but you've got all of the inert mass associated with a liquid motor. Solid rockets don't carry all of the inert mass you'd have with a liquid system but have a much lower ISP. You've got a great deal of inert mass that you're hauling into orbit if you're not dropping a tank.
The bottom line is that if you're not dropping the dead weight as you ascend, you're loosing the ability to haul more into orbit or you would need more fuel in the first place to get there. It may seem wasteful, but it's more efficient for hauling. To be honest, I really can't think of any current space vehicles that are single stage to orbit. Even plane dropped launch systems like space ship one and the pegasus are staged when you take into consideration the plane that drops it.
I really think Rutan has it right with space ship one. Most of the nasa folks I've talked to recently don't care too much for him, but he doesn't care much for them either (if I remember correctly, he refers to nasa as "naysay"). [/B][/QUOTE]
Changing the subject a bit. I fear the longer Nasa takes to develop horizontal takeoff spacecraft the longer the airline industry is going to remain in the subsonic era. Is it just me or do you all think that any advances to come in that industry wil be the result of those developments. Supersonic liners have proven to be impracticle for a bunch of reasons. The only option is to leave the atmosphere.
[B]Moreover, since during re-entry, Buran also experienced loss of heat shield tiles... I am doubtful if Buran would not eventually suffer an accident too.[/B][/QUOTE] AFAIK the Space Shuttle [i]always[/i] loses a few tiles during re-entry. That's exactly the reason they used tiles, to be able to replace them easily, and to avoid using a heavier ablation shield.
Those tiles are cool stuff, I've had the chance to use them in materials science demonstrations, holding a propane torch to one side until it gets red hot, with my hand on the back, protected by just one inch thickness of lightweight tile material remaining perfectly cool, that other side of the tile doesn't even get warm, the heated side cools down in a few minutes.
Thanks for the links about Buran, I hadn't read anything about it for years. Too bad that it is for all practical purposes a dead program, that hasn't been officially cancelled only because that would require allocating money for mothballing it in a bureaucratically sound manner. :rolleyes: