Spaceception

Completely crazy idea? Or just might work? (It doesn't)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, alpha tech said:

you know what would be cool have a docking nosecone and attach an Les to it and make it where it would cutoff at the cargo bay then bail or eject

 

*sob*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes#Ejection_escape_systems

Right underneath that parts on ejection seats is a part on ejection "capsules" including an F-111-style cockpit-section capsule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alpha tech said:

you know what would be cool have a docking nosecone and attach an Les to it and make it where it would cutoff at the cargo bay then bail or eject

That was what ESA wanted in the final design of the Hermes shuttle. It added so much weight and extra cost that it was the final nail in the project's coffin.

1988%2002.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

No it couldn't. Soyuz couldn't reach the inclination of Columbia. And Soyuz has no EVA capability.

If Challenger had used liquid boosters, it wouldn't have had O-rings so they couldn't have leaked and the accident wouldn't have happened. Also, even if they did have a way to a shut down the SRBs, the damage was done as soon as the burn-through in the ET had happened. Liquid rockets have their own failure modes, they aren't inherently better or safer, they are just different. 

I think you've been watching too much History Channel.

no The shuttle crew Eva to Soyuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RizzoTheRat said:

Material weight is a bit a red herring though, as the mechanical strength obviously varies with weight and temperature.  For example aluminium is less dense than steel, but an aluminium SCUBA air cylinder is actually heavier than a steel one because you need to use more metal to get the structural strength.

This point strongly depends on the alloy in question (pure aluminium being hardly ever used), some Al alloys posses steel-like tensile strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about strength in talking about heat resistance it surprised the hell ou of me when I heard that it was made of aluminum

got a test on energy in physical science. So what do u think of my shuttle les idea

Edited by alpha tech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

This point strongly depends on the alloy in question (pure aluminium being hardly ever used), some Al alloys posses steel-like tensile strength.

Agreed, I just meant materials are usually chosen for a combination of their properties rather than just one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, alpha tech said:

no The shuttle crew Eva to Soyuz

What part of "Soyuz has no EVA capability" and "it couldn't reach Columbia's inclination" don't you understand ?

Old Soyuz vehicles used to have EVA capability, with an external hatch, handrails, suit checkout, and depress/repress capability. Those capabilities were removed when it was redesigned as a 3-person space-station taxi. So you cannot EVA to or a from a Soyuz TMA.

There is no way a Soyuz launched from Baikonur, which is located at a latitude of 45°N can reach a 39° inclination, which is where Columbia was.

Please read this thread:

 

Edited by Nibb31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nibb31 said:

What part of "Soyuz has no EVA capability" and "it couldn't reach Columbia's inclination" don't you understand ?

Old Soyuz vehicles used to have EVA capability, with an external hatch, handrails, suit checkout, and depress/repress capability. Those capabilities were removed when it was redesigned as a 3-person space-station taxi. So you cannot EVA to or a from a Soyuz.

And there were also only 2 EMUs on the Shuttle anyway.

 

the orbital module and mmu aren't used anymore they have safers and don't they have teathers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, alpha tech said:

what about tile repair kits

Tile damage didn't bring down Columbia.

Seriously, do you really think you're going to come up with something that the folks at NASA haven't thought about already? Have you even read the CAIB report ?

11 minutes ago, alpha tech said:

the orbital module and mmu aren't used anymore they have safers and don't they have teathers

Who mentioned the MMU and what orbital module are you talking about ?

Edited by Nibb31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alpha tech said:

then what the hell did

A breach in the reinforced-carbon-carbon panels on the leading edge of the left wing, as I mentioned above with a huge picture. Nothing to do with tiles.

Edited by Nibb31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

A breach in the reinforced-carbon-carbon panels, as I mentioned above. Nothing to do with tiles.

what was the cause of the breach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, alpha tech said:

what was the cause of the breach

It appears that the *only* thing you know is that a shuttle was destroyed, we can't babysit you all the way in, there is far more information available to anyone than we could type out here in one day. If you're happy getting info from the TV I dont know why you wouldn't be happy googling it.

Just in case it wasn't clear, and I do feel the need to tell you this, the shuttle was called "COLUMBIA".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Heavy. 

Really, really heavy. 

They stopped painting the external tank because the weight of the white paint was too great. 

(IIRC, paint probably would have kept the foam from breaking off and striking Columbia in the first place.)

The fact is, we never should have put our crew vehicle anywhere other than on the very top of our rockets. The side-slung configuration was chosen so that the Shuttle's engines could thrust from launch to orbit.

Um... Dint sts-1 have missing OMS POD tiles?

The two pilots also reported falling debris rushing past during launch, so paint could have been an additional hazard..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

It appears that the *only* thing you know is that a shuttle was destroyed, we can't babysit you all the way in, there is far more information available to anyone than we could type out here in one day. If you're happy getting info from the TV I dont know why you wouldn't be happy googling it.

Just in case it wasn't clear, and I do feel the need to tell you this, the shuttle was called "COLUMBIA".

I know that it happens in 1998/99 I think challenger happened in 2003

6 minutes ago, Pseudon said:

Um... Dint sts-1 have missing OMS POD tiles?

 

The two pilots also reported falling debris rushing past during launch, so paint could have been an additional hazard..

yes sts 1 had some tile damage to it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, alpha tech said:

I know that it happens in 1998/99 I think challenger happened in 2003

That was Columbia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, alpha tech said:

I know that it happens in 1998/99 I think challenger happened in 2003

Ah, I see, cya then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have more crazy idea... remove heat shield and find a way to slow down to speeds that won't melt your craft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the names of the shuttles

enterprise (ground mockup) Columbia (destroyed) challenger (destroyed) Atlantis,discovery,endeavor (retired)

2 minutes ago, Darnok said:

I have more crazy idea... remove heat shield and find a way to slow down to speeds that won't melt your craft?

that is wat I had in mind

Edited by alpha tech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, alpha tech said:

I know the names of the shuttles

enterprise (ground mockup)

Wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

Wrong.

enterprise was never flown in space it was used for testing and training purposes only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T'was a glider tester scheduled to be space-fitted, but never was. Much more advanced than a pure mock-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.