Boldly Going: A History of an American Space Station
- Thread starter e of pi
- Start date
If the shuttle image doesn't win the "best graphic/artwork" award at the Turtledoves I'd be suprised.
I am not a rocket scientist, so please tear what I am about to write apart. having read this TL with interest I have some questions and observations,
Looking at the various NASA projects up thread got me thinking.
There were proposals for payload to be carried in front of the tank, primarily light and large and another proposal for heavier payloads below the tank.
Now to make the fuel tank into a workable space station it appears to me that launching the tank with air locks, docking stations and habitats built at both ends of the tank and integral to it. Surely this would make the conversion f the empty tank to a usable habitat easier, The Enterprise shuttle would still be converted and integrated in to the space station, The main question is can this be done within the maximum lift to orbit capability of the stack.
Does this suggestion have any merit at all?
Looking at the various NASA projects up thread got me thinking.
There were proposals for payload to be carried in front of the tank, primarily light and large and another proposal for heavier payloads below the tank.
Now to make the fuel tank into a workable space station it appears to me that launching the tank with air locks, docking stations and habitats built at both ends of the tank and integral to it. Surely this would make the conversion f the empty tank to a usable habitat easier, The Enterprise shuttle would still be converted and integrated in to the space station, The main question is can this be done within the maximum lift to orbit capability of the stack.
Does this suggestion have any merit at all?
I’m sure the authors will chime in - my two pence:
Reason for not using ET cargo carriers in OTL was concerns about orbiter separation and tank behaviour. So why not use it now? I’d suggest budget: need to fiddle with design and production and also ground support equipment. Why bother when you have enough space within the ET proper?
Those were to be launched with the orbiter's cargo bay empty, as otherwise the launch stack would not have enough propellant to be able to lift the additional mass to the target altitude, and so would not be possible with Space Station Enterprise without further modifications for additional propellant capacity in either the ET or SRBs, probably both.
Not really. Being able to use SSMEs to close to the target orbit was expected to allow the carriage of a fair amount of weight in both the Orbiter and the ET payload unit. Certainly the Aft Cargo Carrier, probably the most developed concept, envisioned missions carrying payloads in both the orbiter and the ACC. For example, if you read one of Portree's posts on the subject, you'll find that Martin Marietta envisioned
The advantage would come partially from circumventing center-of-mass limitations, partially from circumventing payload bay volume limitations, and partially because more of the necessary delta-V could come from the efficient SSMEs and less from the inefficient OMS engines. Of course the first isn't an issue on this flight, and neither is the third, but the second is.
So from the comments it would appear that a top and tailed tank would in theory be possible, whether advantageous is a another matter entirely
My main point was that having habit and docking station prebuilt on earth and fitted out is a lot quicker and easier than working in the tank. Also having direct access to the tanks from either end is easier and quicker than going down a tortuously curved inflated access tube, As another bonus it may be possible to build an annular access hatch/ lock that permits the insertion of relatively large items into the tank. If it is practical to open the tank to vacuum (at start of mission say) then with both inner and outer lock doors open there is no limit to the length of structure inserted. I know this might be a load of rubbish but comments would be useful and illuminating
My main point was that having habit and docking station prebuilt on earth and fitted out is a lot quicker and easier than working in the tank. Also having direct access to the tanks from either end is easier and quicker than going down a tortuously curved inflated access tube, As another bonus it may be possible to build an annular access hatch/ lock that permits the insertion of relatively large items into the tank. If it is practical to open the tank to vacuum (at start of mission say) then with both inner and outer lock doors open there is no limit to the length of structure inserted. I know this might be a load of rubbish but comments would be useful and illuminating
Your modeling is fantastic as always but...
(jk-str) The color scheme is so off it's painful! Sure the ET is white but you used NASA-White-049 which was only ever used on the SRBs and was never 'vacuum' rated! Then the SRB's use NASA-White-247 which they never used because that was restricted to use on the Orbiters being a thermal and vacuum rated "long-exposure" specialty paint while the Enterprise itself obviously is shown in NASA-White OU812 which was only used on the APOLLO command module and only for one mission (ASTP) and none was ever made for the Shuttle program. I'm so disappointed. (jk-end)
Or will be if you any of that last bit seriously
(Apparently there ARE 'color/paint' mavens out there but please don't take me for one it's just an 'easy' joke to toss out. LOVE it all )Randy
And if you really need to you can clamp on a 1980 proposed booster, (from MM and the Air Force who suggest in the paper it may be needed to 'help' with Air Force Vandenburg launches
) build from modified Titan parts:"Shuttle Performance Augmentation with the Titan Liquid Boost Module"
Randy
They were DoD Gray 040 with a light wash of MilSpec Black to bring out the accents... (Who knew SRB's had accents? But it's true, that 'roar' is really a long drawn out "yehawwww" sound. True I swear!
)Randy
Not bad, though I'd recommend some Tamiya putty or other filler material to cover up the areas where the wings would have gone into the Orbiter fuselage. But you got the difference in shades between the ET and the rest of the stack right--it has that alabaster tone that the STS-1 and -2 tanks had.