One second-hand space shuttle: Yours for $29m NASA has knocked down the price of a used space shuttle to an affordable $28.8m - a considerable saving on the $42m it originally wanted for Atlantis, Discovery and Endeavour. The agency is accepting enquiries from "any US educational institution, federal agency, state or municipality" interested in getting its hands on a …
Innovation: "something new or different introduced"
Let's evaluate this based on the test of "seeing it in action for the first time".
Concorde? Please...it's derivative at best. Breed a supersonic fighter with a passenger jet. It was neither the first supersonic aircraft, nor was it the first passenger jet, it just combined the two. Upon seeing the Concorde for the first time, you'd be thinking something like "I know it goes really fast, but it looks like any other airplane. An oddly shaped one, but not that different.
Harrier? All together, not that impressive. The directed thrust idea was certainly a new thing, so I'll give that particular technology the term innovative, but the whole rest of the aircraft...not so much... Upon seeing a harrier take off vertically for the first time, you'd think "hey, that's a neat improvement on other fighters".
Now as for the space shuttle, I don't recall anything even close to a spacefaring reusable glider ever existing BEFORE the shuttle, so it's a simple matter of *fact* that it was innovative. It might not be all that new and exciting NOW, but it's also been flying for 29 years. Upon seeing the first shuttle launch, you'd be thinking "holy s***, this is a completely different way of going into space".
There really is no comparison. Don't get pissy just because Brits didn't invent it. It's not our fault the UK hasn't done anything useful in space exploration...well...ever...
"the UK hasn't done anything useful in space exploration"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
The problem is this, as the article says: - As of 2009, the United Kingdom is the only country to have successfully developed and then abandoned a satellite launch capability.
Doing something useful - Check
Retaining something useful - Fail.
"As of 2009, the United States is the only country to have successfully developed and then abandoned a manned Lunar mission capability."
It's unfortunate, but the way the American people are, now that they have developed all this capability, instead of taking advantage of it, they'll probably just piss it all away.
-- President Lyndon Johnson, on the Apollo program
Both our countries suck.
Good point about Concorde/Harrier, a better comparison in terms of innovation in design and materials would have been the SR71.
The only really cleaver part of the shuttle is the main engine - which is still an amazing performance even today.
But a simple calculation at the time must have shown they would never get off the ground without the solid boosters. So simply lose the engines and the huge fuel tank and add a couple more boosters and you could build the whole flying brick in a fraction fo the time.
As I recall, that's the approach the Russians took with their "Buran" vehicle -- basically, almost a complete knock-off of the US STS craft, right down to the massive schedule slippage and cost overruns. The differences were that Buran's strap-on engines were liquid-fueled, fed by the main tank that the Buran rode to orbit on, and the orbiter had no engines of its own. Other than that, pretty much a straight-off aerodynamic copy.
Now, you want to talk about a country developing something useful, and then immediately abandoning it:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm
Not 'a completely different way of going into space' but a completely different way of coming back from space, if anything the use of solid fuel boosters could be seen as a retrograde step. However, the use of an unpowered liftng body to get from the upper atmosphere to the ground is truly innovative.
Paris cos she knows all about re-entry.
"Let's evaluate this based on the test of "seeing it in action for the first time"
OK - not a perfect metric, but I'll run with it...
Concorde:
"it looks like any other airplane. An oddly shaped one, but not that different."
No, it really doesn't - Massive delta wings, no tailplane, dipping nose, afterburners. I used to live under Heathrow flight path, Concorde never ceased to fascinate and impress.
Nothing that size had gone anywhere near mach2 before - remember that this was also 40 years ago!
Harrier:
If you think that a gliding return capsule is innovative then VTOL is certainly innovative - the idea was French, but the invention was British.
On seeing a plane hovering you think "WTF is going on - how does it do that!" When you think about it you get even more confused and impressed.
Shuttle:
Reusable - don't make me laugh, the three largest sections are jettisoned early in flight and are recovered; That's no better than adding a parachute to the Saturn stages, certainly derivative.
The actual shuttle is a reusable capsule - it lands on wheels rather than splashdown (Apollo style) or bumping to land (Soyuz style), but the innovation is that the heat shield can withstand multiple entries and be repaired.
Otherwise to draw an analogy with your dismissal of Concorde: It's just a space capsule crossed with a glider.
There have been only 2 (afaik) super sonic passenger jets, French/British Concorde and the Russian one, the American's couldn't work out how to make one so gave up. Is it derivative? An airplane which needs to expand and contract, Concorde is a technological marvel.
Though based on your own assumptions. Glider with rockets added so it can lift off and glide down, I'm pretty sure many planes can glide without power so it's not exactly rocket science (that's a pun) to figure out the shuttle. It's not a "different way of going in to space" it's the same method the yanks stole from the Germans after world war two, a giant frikken rocket, all travel into space is the same theory, strap a huge rocket onto something and fire both up into space. Coming down is the easy part, you get gravity for that.
Upon seeing Concorde you marvel at the engineering required to make it fly at super sonic speeds, you marvel at its beauty, Concorde from an engineering point of view is far superior to the shuttle in so many ways.
Do you have a toy shuttle by any chance? Your bias would indicate that you do.
A "spacefaring reusable glider". It can barely make it to the edge of our atmosphere, and then only with a hell of a lot of help from solid-fuel rocket boosters. It only glides on the return trip and does not do that very well at all. It is reusable but the cost and time of servicing between missions is astronomical. And, in 29 years two have (unfortunately) been destroyed along with the crew so rather a poor track record.
Innovation my arse.
"Breed a supersonic fighter with a passenger jet. It was neither the first supersonic aircraft, nor was it the first passenger jet, it just combined the two."
So we didn't have gliders or big fuck off rockets before the Shuttle then? Or did they simply combine the two...
Sorry mate, couldn't resist :)
Well, there was Dyna-Soar -- or X-20 -- a planned successor to X-15 designed for the USAF which, since before the beginning, has always been horny for its own space program. Designed to carry a single pilot -- and, in versions planned for later, a small payload -- it was sort of in that league of "space fighter", designed to ride to orbit atop a Titan III, along the booster thrust axis instead of slung alongside, like the Shuttle:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm
This isn't including the buttloads of earlier winged boost-glide craft studied and proposed before DynaSoar, including Korolev's pre-WWII rocketplane:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/korplane.htm
...and Eugen Sänger's trans-atmospheric long-range boost-skip/glide bomber:
http://www.luft46.com/misc/sanger.html
...not to mention the additional buttload of proposed designs for the Shuttle itself:
http://www.astronautix.com/nails/b/bsts70b.jpg
http://www.astronautix.com/nails/s/sts70rx.jpg
http://www.astronautix.com/nails/s/shutbnar.jpg
http://www.astronautix.com/nails/s/shutbgru.jpg
...and further buttloads since the Shuttle was developed, both for large cargo-carrying and fighter-sized spaceplanes:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/makbiter.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/okm.htm
Just a few I found by rummaging around at astronautix.com and luft46.com for a few minutes.
As the title says, really? Why would you evaluate whether something is innovative based on the 'wow' factor the first time you saw it.
Specifically innovation is taking something, either an idea or an existing technology and INNOVATING to improve or develop this.
Effectively your argument is saying that the billion dollar B2 Spirit bomber is not innovative with it's radar absorbing paint, flying wing design and huge range, in fact its just the same as the plane the wright brothers used.
Or not.
Yes, the basic principles of concorde are the same as a passenger jet, it moves people through the air from A to B. However a passenger jet is slow, for people who want to get there faster (and were happy to pay for it) Britain and France innovated upon existing technology, such as passenger jets, delta wing planes, fighter jets etc, and created Concorde. A one off, the Russians created a similar plane, but it was a failure with none of the amazing technical innovations of concorde, the Americans just gave up on the starting blocks and super sized their planes by creating a 747.
Yes a 747 isn't an innovation, it's literally using a photocopier and just upping the scale a bit, however concorde is a completely different thing as it completely changed the way planes were viewed, even if it was eventually commercially withdrawn.
The most innovative thing about Concorde was making the cabin so civilized. Bear in mind that the plane itself got so hot at supersonic speeds that it grew by several inches, yet the cabin remained at a comfortable temperature. Of course it was done by air conditioning, and that took a lot of power, but the real trick was in having such a wide range of temperatures in the air frame (155 centigrade on the leading edges to 24 degrees in the cabin) without the whole thing distorting permanently on cooling.
Military craft avoided this issue by building the cooling into the crews' suits.
And of course there were many less significant tricks developed for Concorde that didn't feature in other aircraft for a long time, mainly because they were considered too expensive. For decades it was amusing to see features being offered on subsonic planes being described as "innovative" when they had first been used on Concorde years before.
Actually the definition of Innovation is "a new way of doing something". Like crossing the atlantic in 4 hours clinching a deal in a 1 hour meeting then coming back in the same day. Or deploying from a more compact aircraft carrier without the need for a bloody great big run up or a big rubber band/net to land. The ancient greeks first invented steam engines but it was James Watts idea to deploy them to power the industrial revolution and Stephenson's idea to put it them on wheels and iron tracks. Together with a massive take up for economic reasons made them innovative.
BTW the definition of economic is "pays for itself".
"it looks like any other airplane. An oddly shaped one"
YSurely you're being oxymoronic. How can it look like any other AEROPLANE and be oddly shaped at the same time?
As for Concorde being innovative lets see. NASA engineers are on record as saying that getting Concorde to work was harder than putting a man on the moon. Bear in mind that at the time supersonic military aircraft required that the crew wear special suits, passengers and crew on Concorde could wear everyday clothes. Supersonic military jets could only stay in the air for a very short time and then on landing would require loads of maintenance before the next flight, Concorde OTOH could stay in the air for hours, land, refuel and then turn round and do it all again.
Based on a fighter? Which one would that be then? Get a grasp or aeronautic history before you open your mouth on the subject next time.
SR71 you say? Well sort of. If they didn't have to spend days working on them between flights and if the engines didn't suffer from those nasty "unstarts" then maybe it would have been something. However I don't think it really counted as anything more than a prototype without those glitches sorting out. Likewise the shuttle, wasn't it supposed to be offering a fortnightly service? They never really got it past the beta stage did it?
Yet another septic suffering from NIH syndrome.
Space Shuttle? Please...it's derivative at best. Breed a supersonic aircraft with a heavy lifting space rocket. It was neither the first supersonic aircraft, nor was it the first rocket, it just combined the two.
What is your in-depth analysis of other cutting edge technologies?
Flying car - derivative! Breed a car with a plane
Robot butler - derivative! Breed a robot with a butler
Sharks with frikkin' lasers - derivative! Breed a shark with a laser
Ok lets all be honest here. The Concorde, The Shuttle and the SR-71 all pretty damn impressive feats of engineering here. And each, in its own right innovating in their own right. Now if you want a really innovative and impressive look at the Shuttles crawler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter
The biggest self propelled vehicle in the world. And still in service. Though granted the 2 probably only have around 1000 miles on the odometer but hell one hell of a steal for only $14 (US) million at the time. I want that for off-roading :)
OP: You do fail on your comparasion you failed to look at the features of all combined.
"Innovation: "something new or different introduced"
Let's evaluate this based on the test of "seeing it in action for the first time"."
As a child I would have agreed with you. As an adult I know rather more.
Concorde. In reality the *first* (and so far only) aircraft to allow Mach 2 for the *rest* of us.
It's *major* competitor in innovation and speed is the SR71 (or the XB70 but that never saw service). In fact like the Blackbird it also expands due to aerodynamic heating.
What's innovative is it uses a *very* clever wing design to *eliminate* both the need for variable geometry (which has only *ever* flown in 2 and 3 seat miltary aircraft) or cannards to handle the low speed landing problems. Only the Lockheed SST design (which used chines, whose effectiveness they probably only knew about from the SR71 programme) would have matched it in terms of reliability. The bugbear of *all* active aerodynamic systems (BLC, variable geometry) has *always* been that *if* it locks up (or off) at the wrong moment your passengers are toast.
It was AFAIK the first "Supercruise" aircraft which did not need an afterburner to sustain greater than M1 speed. It is the only civilian aircraft with afterburner and uses it to power thrugh M1 but does not need it to cruise at M2.2. The upgraded version would have eliminated reheat altogether. The SR71 is designed to fly permanently on burner. Anything else of that vintage needs burner to get above and stay above M1.
It confronts the heat problem with an aluminium skin with fairly well understood metalurgical properties (The alloy was developed to make pistons for Rolls Royce aeroengines) rather than setting up a whole foundry to make the Titanium parts of the SR71. Oh and *unlike* either of the US supersonic transport designs it got *built* and accumlated operational experience, *despite* 2 false starts when the French insisted on trying to build short range versions with less than 1000nmi between airports.
For the Harrier you would need to know that their was a NATO requirement for a VSTOL aircraft as NATO had realised that those 5000ft long lumps of concrete could be quite easily spotted and precision surveyed *decades* in advance of any attack either nuclear or cluster bombs.
Most concepts used seperate "lift jets," often *dozens* of them. These are *dead* weight at all times other than take off and landing. RR built one with a T/W of 16 (good normal jets of the time could do 5:1) as long as it did not run for more than 15mins.
The real time control of thrust balence among all these engines with 1960s tech (the UK SHort Brothers had 4 thrust engines in the mid body and needed 4 ch fly by wire as *very* small imbalences build up *very* quickly and the vehicle goes uncontrollable (the Apollo "flying bedstead" simulator Buzz Aldrin nearly died on was a similar problem) The Pegasus concepts designed *all* of that out with 1 engine on the centreline with dual contra-rotating shafts to cancel the gyroscopic forces and gas tap off to the vehicle ends and wing tips for low speed control, making flying possible *without* a control computer.
It got built (unlike a *lot* of the others), it got deployed and saw action. It should have done a hell of a better in foreign sales however.
Both really quite sensible and well deserving of some museum space.
The orbiters deserve places in aerospace museums anywhere in the world. They were also the *start* of the art in their field and over time I have learned to appreciate their advanced features too. But if you read "Frontiers of Space," this 4 piece system that throws 3 chunks away before getting *anywhere* is clumsy and ungainly.
I hope it will not be quite so long before their is a follow up to them (not necessarily the shape or the architecture but the idea).
Actually, that was Armstrong who narrowly escaped death by ejecting from an out-of-control LLRV:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htm
(quote)
1968 May 6 - Apollo lunar landing research vehicle No 1 crashed at Ellington Air Force Base - Program: Apollo.
Lunar landing research vehicle (LLRV) No. 1 crashed at Ellington Air Force Base, Tex. The pilot, astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, ejected after losing control of the vehicle, landing by parachute with minor injury. Estimated altitude of the LLRV at the time of ejection was 60 meters. LLRV No. 1, which had been on a standard training mission, was a total loss - estimated at $1.5 million. LLRV No. 2 would not begin flight status until the accident investigation had been completed and the cause determined. Additional Details: Apollo lunar landing research vehicle No 1 crashed at Ellington Air Force Base.
(/quote)
Otherwise, great post. Thanks!
(pedantic grammar nazi alert icon, because there's no pedantic spaceflight-history geek alert icon)
So Concorde's not innovative, as it was the first supersonic passenger jet but was neither the first supersonic plane nor the first passenger jet, but merely a combination of the two?
However, the Shuttle is innovative, as it was the first reusable space glider, despite being neither the first spaceship nor the first glider?
And Concorde looks like any other airliner? What are you smoking?
Paris, 'cos for $28m, she'd be your plaything too.
The Brits have done nothing useful in space exploration mainly because of lack of money, not lack of technical expertise or imagination. Much of the early space technology in the US was taken from the Germans at the end of the war. Wernher Von Braun headed up the Appollo team which designed the Saturn 5 rocket engines. The Americans might have been mainly responsible for the Shuttle, but I would'nt pat myself on the back over that one. The Shuttle was hopelessly uneconomic to operate, inherently unreliable and dangerous, and not a shining example of technical innovation. As to jet aircraft, I would also like to mention that the jet engine was invented almost simultaneously in England and Germany, and that the first American jet aircraft used jet engines designed in England. America's main contribution to technology comes from the large amounts of money it has to fund development - and I don't want to even begin to talk about the ethics of where the money comes from.
Hate to say it, even though I love the space shuttle, and will be in tears to see it go, it wasn't in itself innovative, the USAF was flying a reusable space plane/craft before the shuttle came along.
The Shuttle is widely credited as having the first throttleable, reusable rocket engine, but the USAF had the X-15, with its XLR-99 engine which was the first.
Ok the X-15 need a B-52 to help it take off, and was only just a plane, but it got there before the Shuttle ever did. Oh, and you'd never see one take off as its military.
I will agree the Shuttle is one of a kind, and I'd love to own one, shame the price quoted doesn't include the engines :-(
Good point. However, the X15 was unable to reach orbital velocity and, iirc, it was only on a few later flights that it reached altitudes close to the early Mercury suborbital flights; actual flights to orbit would've been left to the X20 "DynaSoar" had it actually been built and flown.
Still, there were plans for an orbital mod to X15 -- the X15-B -- proposed for launch atop a booster derived from the old Navajo cruise missile (another proposal involved launching with four lashed-together Titan I booster stages). The X15 was to orbit once-around (like Vostok) and, after passing through re-entry, the pilot would eject and parachute to earth and the X15 abandoned to crash unoccupied:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15b.htm
Also, now on eBay - exclusive @RARE@ missing heat shield tiles.
And there's more: don't just buy the missing heat shield tiles, get *VINTAGE* hydrogen fuel, as used in the Space Shuttle, as well. A $29.95 value for just the cost of your bid. Good luck and hope you *WIN*.
<sarcasm>
You will only find this offer by A++++++++++++++++++++ rated sellers. Who will in turn be more then happy to mail you your piece of foam from China or some place over there. Which will in turn take (minimum) 8 weeks to get here. Which by that time they will have taken your money and run and you will never get your piece of foam. And your only recourse is, well, nothing cause eBay (and therefore) PayScam have already gotten their share and no longer care about your rights as a consumer.
Or:
You get your piece of foam, stamped Made in China. Its only downside is that its covered in lead paint, presents a choking hazard to children and gives of noxious fumes which drive you would of your home.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, AC... while it'd be cool as hell to own the whole shebang -- sans tank and boosters, of course -- still, realistically thinking, I'd be perfectly happy to own an actual, flown-in-space heat shield tile... sealed in a block of Lucite, with a notarized certificate of authenticity signed by the NASA Administrator, and perhaps autographed by John Young -- if it's not too much trouble, of course. (;^>
I don't know about the jug of LH2, though -- we don't have anyplace at our house cold enough to keep it liquid -- but I'd pay real money for that baggie they found in the processing hangar, especially if there was any coke left clinging to the inside.
I agree the shuttle was innovative and a fantastic project but I have to say the Harrier was also. The U.S spent ages trying to copy it with all manner of hilarious attempts before giving up and buying a load from Rolls Royce. They realised it was a fantastically innovative aircraft that would be very versatile, you should as well ;)
p.s the Concorde also rocked :) it still would be if BA hadn't blocked Richard Branson from buying them, they feared that they would show them how to make money :)
I recall seeing a picture in 'The Eagle Annual' in about 1962 of the Shuttle - only they called it the 'Dyna-Soar' (a cut-away drawing, not flown by 'Dan Dare'). I later discovered that the X-20 Dyna-Soar really did exist.
It was based on the Silbervogel - built by the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Segelflug by Eugen Sanger, and developed by Walter Bornberger (who had co-ordinated the German V1 & V2 programmes) - it was originally planned to take off from Germany, bomb the USA and land on Pacific islands under Japanese occupation.
I'm sure the Russians made use of Sir Isaac Newton's work to get sputnik up there.
Evergreen Flight Museum in McMinnville, OR is queuing up to get one of the shuttles. They already have the museum built & ready to go. Don't forget, Evergreen Aviation is heavily involved in the 747's used to transport the shuttle. I suspect their 'cost' of acquisition will be much lower than anyone else.
Evergreen was successful in landing (pun intended) the Spruce Goose as their first major display. I'll bet they have the moxie to land a shuttle as well.
The Concorde is not the first supersonic large aircraft. Try XB-70 Valkyrie. First flight of the Valkyrie was in 1964 vs Concorde being in 1969. Valkyrie was about 20 feet(5m) shorter, but cruised at around mach 3 vs mach 2.02 for the Concorde. The useful load on the Valkyrie was over 300,000lbs (160,000kg) vs 245,000lb(111,130kg) for the Concorde. The Valkyrie also saw some of the earliest uses of canard wings as well as in-flight wing shape changing (hinged outer wing edges). The Russians made a 'clone' of the Concorde that added canards in front, but they did not get the engines, fuel control and flight control working as well as the Concorde. Note: The Valkyrie also used fuel for air conditioning, like the Concorde that followed it.
I agree the Harrier was quite innovative. It was followed by the Russian Yak-38 - whose first flight is 1971 vs Harriers being 1969(Harrier I / AV8-A). The Yak used a separate lifting engine in the front while the Harrier was able to use the first stage compressor of the main engine for lifting. Similar research planes included X-14(first flight 1957), VAK-191B (first flight 1971, very similar in config to AV8-A). VTOL is so difficult to successfully pull off in a practical airframe that even presently, very few aircraft are built capable of VTOL.
As for the Shuttle, it is also innovative. While the solid fuel rockets and main tank are jettisoned after main lift, by that time they are dead weight and comprise very little of the total airframe weight (their weight is mostly propellant). Both the solid fuel rockets and main tank are recovered and reused. Both of these are a 're-entry' risk because they would disturb the airflow around the shuttle on re-entry. Another innovative component of the shuttle are the much maligned tiles on the bottom. You can hold one side of the tile in your hand while the other side is heated with an oxy-acetylene torch (no time limit).
Useful ref:
http://depts.washington.edu/matseed/mse_resources/Webpage/Space%20Shuttle%20Tiles/Space%20Shuttle%20Tiles.htm
.....an SSME.
Back in the day, i was producing training tapes for engine inspection, and a tiny, expertly sawed off pump cutaway was leftover from a Video i was making.
Its a frigging beautiful artifact! I'm sure the original manufacturing cost exceeded gold or platinum, even though it is "mere" titanium.
If you could talk Uncle Sam into letting you do it, selling pieces (nicely framed, of course) of an SSME to the public it would be a noble and suitable destination for this special kind of art.
Many profiftards think the space program brings no financial benefit to the Nation, Yet we do not load Ben Franklin into a rocket and send hime into space, rather, we pay individuals, corporations, and institutions dollars that stay right here on earth.
I guess the price isn't bad for a Shuttle. I have room to stash one here (but no millions), and it would sure make the neighbours talk... well, more likely choke on their croissants.
Tell you what, this is a real "what to get a person who has everything" moment, isn't it?
My burning question - given how I've seen it on the massive low-loader jobbie... How much for postage and packing, and how the hell do they think they can deliver?!?
Of course, if they don't mind trashing a few crop fields and some of the underside, they can launch it, aim it, slide along the neighbour's field (don't worry about bringing down the power lines, they're due to be replaced soon) and right into the back field. But, hey, you'll only get one shot at it!
Hehe... seriously though. Delivery? Guys? A Shuttle? WTF icon?
[Thynne as auctioneer] What am I bid for this Army surplus shell?
[Henry Crun] Mgh! Um, mgh sixpence!
[Thynne] Sold! to the man who has lost his memory. Would you like it wrapped or should we arrange delivery for you sir?
[Crun] Mgh, er, oh, er, you can deliver it for me please. East Finchley will do just fine.
[Thynne] Ready? Aim... Fire!
[FX] Shell fired from large cannon.
[Thynne] I will be on your doorstep when you arrive, sir.
[Crun] Thank you! What wonderful service, eh Minnie? The tiger WILL get a surprise, won't he?
Can't recall it all precisely, nor can I recall the show. Sorry if it's embellished and impoverished at the same time: I must bow before the greater knowledge of the Goon Appreciation Society.
"The Concorde is not the first supersonic large aircraft. "
Quite true. I mentioned the XB70 in passing. However it did not see service in the way the SR71 did (programme cancelled at IIRC $500m a prototype each. Gotta love that cost plus). Concordes true innovation was to "...allow Mach 2 for the *rest* of us."
No military service. No physicals. No pressure suits. No pre breathing (SR71 crews have to pre-breath to reduce the threat of the bends as the regular level of N2 comes out of their bloodstream). Just buy a (fairly expensive) ticket and your good to go.
I'm not sure but those flip down wing tips may *still* be the biggest examples of a "Swing wing" in existance. The first, last and only know example of a true shockwave rider. Like the Concorde it was built in a relatively pedestrian material but in a clever way (stainless steel honeycomb, which was pretty advanced for the time). Sadly that and the flipped down wing tips would make an excellent radar target.
IIRC the bomb load was about 50K Lb. If that was in one bay it would have made a great carrier plane for a (possibly single stage to orbit) launcher, provided the seperation issues were worked out. The plans are pressumably still in an archive somewhere and with the substantially better QC (the SS honecomb has quite a few issues. Any kind of honeycomb panel was new tech back then) and engines available (T/W has roughly doubled but I'm not sure what's around at the 38Klb catagory) it would be a substantial carrier. Ah well.
The number "60" springs to mind for this. So for 5 shuttles (4 original and the structural test vehicle they re-furbed after Challenger went bang) that's 4 engine sets each. Handy given the USA's fondness for whipping them off and stripping them down after each landing.
In amongst all the comments about the Shuttle and its engines 1 thing seems to have been forgotten. Both are significant pieces of IT history in their own right and would deserve a place in a computer museum.
The Shuttle was both one of the first winged vehicles to fly with its insturments connected to a non proprietary, non specific databus (1553b) and one of the first to fly for which computer assistance was *mandatory* due to it being unstable. NASA had flown a demonstrator using an F8 before with a re-programmed Apollo computer, as *only* this machine was deemed to be reliable enough not to fail.
It was the first to use an instruction set from a commercial machine (the IBM 360 mainframe instruction set) rather than an in house design (The NASA Standard Space Computer did as well but I think it's a bit later) and used a high level language (admittedly one almost no one knows) to program real time control systems with hard response limits at a time when a *lot* of stuff was still written in assembler, and an original processor rated at c400KIPS.
It could (in principle) handle the whole takeoff to orbit and land from orbit with *almost* no human intervention. A range of M0-M23-M0. AFAIK Only Buran has done this cycle with *no* human intervention.
The development process used by IBM Federal Systems in Dallas to develop the flight software became *the* benchmark for the Carnegie Mellon Capability Maturity Model level 5 definition.
The SSME is probably the first rocket engine that cannot be started *without* computer control. The timing sequence (and the valve opening angles) are too tight to do it *any* other way. IIRC 13 combustion chambers were destroyed to develope the sequence. One because a technician misaligned a valve angle opening sensor by 1 *degree* relative to the valve. It is AFAIK the first engine with a *very* detailed computer model to allow pre-testing of planned changes (although how much of this has been developed *after* the explosions is not clear).
The original processor was a dual 16 bit system with 16k words of plated wire memory which in 1984 gave way to dual Motorola M68000. Due to timing constraints they are physically 2 processors in the same package made by special order to Motorola using 128KB of RAM (yup its the guts of a dual core original standard Mac). It is probably the first programmed in a high level language (C, although others use Ada) and prbably the last to use C for this.
Both of these products are therefore signifcant milestones. It woudl be fascinating to find out how the Russians approached these same problems.
As I've already had one person commit suicide on me I'll try to keep it brief.
@Ken hagan
"The Soviets tried to copy both the shuttle and Concorde. They didn't lack the brains or (at the time) the cash, but they failed on both."
Not quite fair. You're right that in the Concorde case the KGB conducted extensive industrial spying but failed to recognise *how* crucial the wing shape was (look at it from the front. It's subtle) hence the eventual fitting of the retractable cannards.
Buran OTOH seems to have been more a true case of parallel evolution driven by similar requirements (Shuttle's bugbear was always that stupid USAF 1 orbit return to launch site demand. Only vital if you *really* thought you were going to launch in WWIII.)
Buran failed when the Soviet Union's economy hit the skids. It's sole launch (un-crewed) launch and landing were a complete success.
The design choice to put the main engines on the liquid fuelled expendable booster was perfectly reasonable given the USSR had a lot of experience building large numbers of identical liquid fuelled launch vehicles with high performance expendable engines. Make its engines 2nd stage engines a little more powerful (not a big problem) and you only need some *fairly* small stuff for OMS and RCS functions. You can't fire the SSME's in space, the ET that fuelled them is re-entering and the you've just dumped the residual 5000lb of trapped LO2/LH2 for safety reasons. The Russian choice can look quite sensible at times. BTW the Energiya core bizarrely *was* LO2/LH2 with engines comparable to the SSME but expendable.
James O'Brien
“The biggest self propelled vehicle in the world. And still in service. Though granted the 2 probably only have around 1000 miles on the odometer but hell one hell of a steal for only $14 (US) million at the time. I want that for off-roading :)”
There's a description of its purchase in a back issue of Spaceflight. NASA went to a builder of big diggers and got a price. It was only later a competitor heard about it, complained and put in a lower bid. They won and the the 2 they built are indeed still in use. Seems NASA was developing bad (sole source no competitive tendering) procurement habits even then.
@Mike Fluggenock
Actually, that was Armstrong who narrowly escaped death by ejecting from an out-of-control LLRV:
Opps. Quite true. It's believed his near instant response to the loss of control made him front runner for the Apollo pilot slot. Just the sort of person you'd want at the controls at a hairy moment. With modern sensors and control computers thrust balance is a *lot* easier but there are still subtleties that can bite. Ask the folk at Armadillo Aerospace. The real fail of lift engines is that's *all* they do. Useless dead weight the rest of the time. It's also the appeal of the V22 Osprey. All the thrust in the direction you want it, when you want it. Its *long* development history indicates its a *little* more complicated than it looks.
On a general note. IMHO if you wanted to build a new vehicle you should use 5 to give viable engine out thrust levels (Saturn V had this from IIRC a few seconds after lift-off, when it had cleared the tower).
It is a rule of thumb for launch vehicle designers that engine development is a pacing item. If the engines already exist (as F1 did for Apollo) you've got a known performance level to design to. One of the root causes of the shuttles fragile design was that *neither* the SRB's or the SSME met their design Isp target (by about 2-3 secs). This is a *serious* short fall, and given orbiters were being designed in parallel with the engines triggered re-design cycles. Sadly they will still be the original high maintenance hangar queen design without the seal, bearing and other maintainability upgrades.
Mine's the one with the PDF reader loaded with “SSME: The first 10 years.”
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
