WI: STS-26 was a disaster?

You don't have to take issue--we're on the same page. I have hated the Shuttle from its inception, and hoped '86 would kill the program; however, just going on launch cost (half a bill), and that cost gets you 25 tons and 7 people to orbit, it compares favorably to Apollo and Gemini, at least as developed.
Apollo may only have had 3 crew, but it had almost twice the payload (negating from the shuttle launches, the orbiter itself), almost 44 tons for Apollo 11, or 77 tons and no crew for Skylab.

If STS had ever had the kind of mission frequency expected of it, then it would have been reasonably cost-effective *once flying*.
That would have required a lot more shuttles and a truly bank-breaking budget, and still wouldn't have gotten anywhere because you'd be limited to a payload cylinder of 4.6 x 18 m.
 
That would have required a lot more shuttles and a truly bank-breaking budget, and still wouldn't have gotten anywhere because you'd be limited to a payload cylinder of 4.6 x 18 m.

Sorry for the necro......


But have you ever heard of the aft cargo carrier concept?

Big ass fairing hanging off the back of the ET. Shuttle brings ET to orbit (possible using just SSMEs continuing to burn), and vola, 7.5 meter diameter payload.
 
Sorry for the necro......


But have you ever heard of the aft cargo carrier concept?

Big ass fairing hanging off the back of the ET. Shuttle brings ET to orbit (possible using just SSMEs continuing to burn), and vola, 7.5 meter diameter payload.

What kind of orbit could the shuttle have achieved with that kind of payload on it? I'm concerned about the extra drag, as well as the weight and balance issues that much mass hanging off the external tank would cause.
 
What kind of orbit could the shuttle have achieved with that kind of payload on it? I'm concerned about the extra drag, as well as the weight and balance issues that much mass hanging off the external tank would cause.
It was on the aft end of the ET and had the same diameter, so would create minimal additional drag. And it was also basically on the SRB thrust centerline--so there would be minimal balance issues. As for what kind of orbit would be allowed with the increased payload, it was more about the shuttle tending to "bulk out" by filling the payload bay before it actually reached its maximum payload (or due to C.G. location issues relative to the main landing gear--now that was a balance issue). The aft cargo carrier would have allowed it to fully utilize the payload it was designed for--so the same orbits would be available. See a full writeup over at Beyond Apollo.
 
It was on the aft end of the ET and had the same diameter, so would create minimal additional drag. And it was also basically on the SRB thrust centerline--so there would be minimal balance issues. As for what kind of orbit would be allowed with the increased payload, it was more about the shuttle tending to "bulk out" by filling the payload bay before it actually reached its maximum payload (or due to C.G. location issues relative to the main landing gear--now that was a balance issue). The aft cargo carrier would have allowed it to fully utilize the payload it was designed for--so the same orbits would be available. See a full writeup over at Beyond Apollo.

Oh, ok. I had been under the impression that it was stuck on the opposite side of the external tank from the orbiter, in parallel with it.
 
a Disaster during STS-26 would definitively kill the Shuttle Program

scenarios for a disaster is long and realistic:
Flight computer get wrong data and shutdown ALL SSME.
a undetected fissure in Hydrogene line burst open.
Ice lose from ET and hit the Orbiter Wings.
bolds from dropped SSRB could hit ET and the Orbiter.
the pyrotech of Satellite release, blow and hit the Cargobay with shrapnel, cutting electric wires under it

so what next ?
IMHO this is not the end of US manned space flight.
President Bush senior or his successor Clinton will start a new program
the question is will US Senate and Congress give a billions dollar budget for it ?
At NASA they will proposed Shuttle II or "Single Stage to Orbit" super rockets,
but in end it will be a mini Shuttle like HL-20 or CRV on a Titan IV or Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle in 1998

the biggest victim will be Space Station Freedom!
no Shuttle makes impossibly, to build original concept in orbit.
If they try to build a Space station, it would look more like Man-Tended Free Flyer concept of ESA
it could be use as building block for a bigger space station.
 
Top