Re: Is "side mount" Shuttle-C?
- From: "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Aug 2005 14:29:20 GMT
dbohara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in news:1125023432.823803.281530
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Is the much discussed side mount SDV the same as Shuttle-C?
No. Shuttle-C was a particular type of side-mount SDV, and the designs
currently under discussion differ from Shuttle-C in important ways. In
particular, Shuttle-C's Cargo Element included an elongated orbiter payload
bay, so it was "plug-and-play" compatible with space shuttle payloads. The
current designs replace the payload bay with an ELV-like shroud and are not
compatible with shuttle payloads.
> If so, why
> the hell didn't we do this years ago?
The main reason for Shuttle-C was to accelerate assembly of Space Station
Freedom by allowing multiple station modules to be launched at once. But
Shuttle-C had no rendezvous/docking capability; it relied on a separate
vehicle called the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle to carry the modules to SSF.
OMV suffered repeated cost overruns and downscopes and was cancelled in
1991. At that point, Shuttle-C was in trouble. NASA made one last attempt
to save the project by looking at using shuttles to ferry the modules from
Shuttle-C to SSF, but this proved to be no cheaper than simply launching
the modules with the shuttle in the first place, so Shuttle-C was
cancelled.
> Are the arguments still valid
> that it would be cheaper to use Titan IV for heavy lift?
Cheaper than what? And how are you defining "heavy"?
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
.
- References:
- Is "side mount" Shuttle-C?
- From: dbohara
- Is "side mount" Shuttle-C?
- Prev by Date: Re: Problems with Griffin's exploration architecture
- Next by Date: International co-operation: the soul of the true freedom.
- Previous by thread: Re: Is "side mount" Shuttle-C?
- Next by thread: Re: Is "side mount" Shuttle-C?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
