Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: orbiters
Message-ID: <1990Nov4.070304.427@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <494@newave.UUCP> <1990Oct22.051612.799@zoo.toronto.edu> <4374@disk.UUCP> <1990Oct26.205937.25383@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1990Oct27.220840.3756@zoo.toronto.edu> <4405@disk.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 07:03:04 GMT

In article <4405@disk.UUCP> joefish@disk.UUCP (joefish) writes:
>While I see the original Buran launch vehicle as a great accomplishment,
>I don't see where it is comparable to the first shuttle orbit launch.

I never said it was.  It was a preliminary, one that the US skipped.

>The original Buran orbiter is not scheduled to fly again.   It carried
>no life support systems.   It was never designed to add the life support
>systems, so it can never fly a manned mission.

References, please.  Everything I've said says that it *was* meant to be
uprated into a manned orbiter eventually, but the Soviets have decided
that this is not worth the trouble any more (much as the US did with
Enterprise).  This myth is sometimes applied to Enterprise, but I'm
surprised to see it appear so quickly for Buran.

Incidentally, I've seen proposals for manned spacecraft that would rely
entirely on spacesuits for life support.  Buran could easily fly a manned
mission that way.

>I don't understand all the shuttle bashing.   The system has performed
>better than I have ever dreamed (if a launch in temperatures for which
>it was not designed is not counted).

References, please.  The shuttle was supposedly designed for routine
airliner-type operations, implying launches in cold weather among other
things.  You are confusing "not designed for" with "not tested for" or
"does not work in".

>... I see very little
>that could be done to the shuttle itself that would be much of an
>improvement.

You're almost alone; not even NASA agrees with you.  In hindsight it is
not a very good design.  Apart from anything else, it is far too costly
and manpower-intensive.

>The shuttle launch system is already the best system in percentage
>of successful launches...

Numbers, please.  Its demonstrated reliability is no better than the major
expendables, most of which have far more launches under their belts than
it does, and several of which can launch rather more frequently.

>... There are three
>manned rated vehicles in the shuttle fleet, and none in the Buran
>fleet.

Why do you insist on comparing a vehicle early in development with one
that is supposedly operational?  There were no man-rated US orbiters
in 1979 either.

>The talk of a liquid fueled booster stage fails to realize that
>the at least three or four of the largest liquid fuel engines
>made would be needed to replace each of the solid fuel boosters.

Nonsense.  Two F-1s would do fine.  You only need four if you insist
on using SSMEs, a bad move for several reasons.  Granted, the F-1 is
no longer in production, so the biggest liquid engines now made are the
core engines for Energia.  They'd do fine, I think.

Also, why are the numbers so significant?  Von Braun clustered eight
engines in the first stage of the Saturn I, and the number of nozzles
sticking out of the "A" booster -- the only truly mass-produced booster 
on Earth --is truly ridiculous.
-- 
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry