Exactly! That is why one of the stongest proposals for a "new" heavy lift vehicle is to mount the main engines to the bottom of the ET and put the payload on the top of the ET. What's funny is that even with larger SRBs and 4 main engines instead of three the "new" vehicle still falls about 20 metric tonnes short of the Saturn V Low Eath Orbit capability.
Burtakus, ---you are mistaken----the soviet Soyuz is not the soviet space shuttle. Soviet soyuz was like a space capsule for------ orbital moving and docking not a space shuttle, per se. This is the Russian space shuttle (nasa look alike) ----called Buran. soviet Soyuz
I can't really argue the reusable vs. non-reusable case for launch vehicles. However, you should distinguish between critiquing the design of the space shuttle and critiquing the choice to build a space shuttle. You are really saying we should never have built a space shuttle at all, which is really a political rather than an engineering decision, but couching it in terms of a design critique. An interesting article on launch costs: http://www.ghg.net/redflame/launch.htm Martin
Burtakus, I think its naïve for you to think that------ââ¬Åchina shuttle is old technologyââ¬Â. In the next few years china will become the center of technological achievement (how much depends on America).if we American donââ¬â¢t start looking @china with a serious approach. on your next vacation pay a visit to shanghai.----see for yourself----their skyscraper and finance district will reveal new York and Chicago. good day
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/s/sh/shuttle_buran.htm Key differences with the NASA Space Shuttle Buran was designed to be capable of both (Click link for more info and facts about manned) manned and (Click link for more info and facts about unmanned) unmanned flight, it had (Click link for more info and facts about automated) automated (The act of coming down to the earth (or other surface)) landing capability; the manned version has never been operational The orbiter had no main (A jet engine containing its own propellant and driven by reaction propulsion) rocket engines, freeing space and weight for additional (The front part of a guided missile or rocket or torpedo that carries the nuclear or explosive charge or the chemical or biological agents) payload; the largest cylindrical structure is the (Click link for more info and facts about Energiya) Energiya carrier-rocket, not just a (Click link for more info and facts about fuel tank) fuel tank. There were four (An amplifier for restoring the strength of a transmitted signal) boosters instead of two, and they used (A substance that is liquid at room temperature and pressure) liquid (Something that propels) propellant ( (A flammable hydrocarbon oil used as fuel in lamps and heaters) kerosene/ (A nonmetallic bivalent element that is normally a colorless odorless tasteless nonflammable diatomic gas; constitutes 21 percent of the atmosphere by volume; the most abundant element in the earth's crust) oxygen) The Energiya carrier, including the main engines, was designed to be reusable but funding cuts meant that a reusable version of Energiya was never completed. The U.S. Space Shuttle has reuseable main engines in the (Man-made equipment that orbits around the earth or the moon) orbiter and reusable Solid Rocket Boosters. Buran could lift 30 (A unit of weight equivalent to 1000 kilograms) tonnes to orbit, against the Space Shuttle's 25 tonnes. The high lift-drag ratio of the space (An aircraft that has a fixed wing and is powered by propellers or jets) aeroplane Buran is 6.5 against 5.5 for Space Shuttle Buran returned 20 tonnes of payload against 15 tonnes for Space Shuttle orbiter from an orbit to an (An airfield equipped with control tower and hangers as well as accommodations for passengers and cargo) aerodrome The cutting lay-out pattern of thermoprotection tiles of Buran is optimal and (Click link for more info and facts about longitudinal) longitudinal slits of tile belts are orthogonal to the flow line. Sharp angles of tiles are absent. Here is a great review of china space program. http://www.astronautix.com/articles/china.htm good day
If we Americans stop being naive about Chinas potential and technology ---we will be in trouble -----made in chine does not equivocate, cheap and low tech anymore. The Chinese have both the money and will to out pace American----the question is? Due we American understand this? I hope that NASA cleans itself up and continues to be successful? And I hope to never watch these pictures on TV! good day
china has a good gig going right now. They stole they protected and they were not pushed because we figured better industrialized and friedly. But let us see how they do 20 years from now. Notice Japan ran into problems. We have problems so of them because of our meat head educators. China will have problems too. Let us see how they deal with a society that revolts against the dictatorship.
I wouldn't bank on it. Historical examples galore showing 'advanced' slave civilizations lasting hundreds, sometimes a thousand years.
Gidoen, I am well aware of the differences between the Buran and the Soyuz/Progress. How many times has the Buran flown?
Heeeyyy Burt, you need to get a life and shave your eye brows and maybe you would be able to see the truth. I think they should just strap an ACME rocket to the top of an 18-wheeler and send it into orbit. I mean, that sounds about like what your suggesting. Do you even work with a company affiliated with any space program or do you just sit around and watch the discovery channel all day long. I have heard better assesments of where the NASA Shuttle program should go from my older brother. So do us all a favor and leave your ignorant, ill advised suggestions to yourself and leave the thinking to the grown ups. Need I say more? And if you feel like further debating the topic, give me a call. I'm pretty sure you know my number.