Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: nyu notesfiles V1.1 4/1/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207
From: lwe3207@acf4.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Getting it back to the Cape
Message-ID: <11700002@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Apr-84 19:43:00 EST
Article-I.D.: acf4.11700002
Posted: Thu Apr 19 19:43:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Apr-84 07:15:51 EST
References: <474@ihuxa.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 14
Nf-ID: #R:ihuxa:-47400:acf4:11700002:000:802


Nf-From: acf4!lwe3207    Apr 15 19:43:00 1984


I think the point to be made, which I don't think the person asking
the question realized, is that the Shuttle doesn't have an (or much of
an?) internal fuel tank for the main engines -- enough I guess to do
a de-orbit burn, but not enough to lift off horizontally.  Since the
thing is aerodynamic, however, I don't see why it shouldn't be able to
take off horizontally.  Clear the "rotation speed" would be rather 
high -- 275 knots?  -- but you could do it, perhaps by putting a tank
into the payload bay.  The fact that burning the engines leaves lots
of crud in them is a matter of technology, and presumably in the future,
rocket engines will be designed so that you can burn them a couple of
times in the low atmosphere before you have to wipe the gunk out.

-- Lars Ericson
  cmcl2!acf4!lwe3207