STS-133 Discovery Attachment to ET/Solid Rocket Booster

STS-133 Space Shuttle Discovery Attachment to External Fuel Tank and Solid Rocket Booster

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• STS-133
• Space
• Shuttle
• Discovery
• Attachment
• to
• External
• Fuel
• Tank
• and
• Solid
• Rocket
• Booster
• Launch
• NASA
• STS
• 133
• SRB
• ET
• 2010
• Rollout
• Space Shuttle
• STS 133

[Eagle1Division2]

@usnsquirrel Shape the orbiter like the Venture Star (wiki), and you could place the booster on top, not adjacent to the heat shield.

An aerodynamic booster wouldn't be covered with the weak orange foam.

As an aerodynamic booster, if it separates at around 2.8 km/s with shuttle-like aerodynamics, it could land horizontally and be recovered at Wallops Island for high inclination flights, or use small Buran-like jet engines to power glide to Wallops on low orbit inclination launches.

[Eagle1Division2]

@usnsquirrel There have been two accidents in the shuttle's history, I wonder if Challenger's crew probably could've survived if they were wearing the orange flight suit, so they'd be conscious and able to "bail out". As for Columbia's heat shield damage...

The shuttle's sidemount is dangerous for 2 reasons:

A: It's on the bottom, adjacent to the heatshield

B: The orange insulation foam breaks off

My idea I'd like to discuss with an expert is a reusable aerodynamic booster...

[usnsquirrel]

@Eagle1Division2 Agreed for the most part. Love LRBs, love metal heat shield, but it's not smart as a sidemount. Simply moving it to the top would make it 10 times safer. I was referring to shuttle, simply because it was the only thing currently capable of both up and downmass. Would love to see a "Shuttle 2.0" someday, if done intelligently.

[Eagle1Division2]

@desfees I think there's a lot of time lapse in the video, though it is surprising how short it takes, and I agree, we need a reusable spacecraft. Making it cheaper than non-reusable is a challenge that will be the only way access to space gets easier and cheaper.

The shuttle is far more elegant than, I love how you put it, the "crash-landings of the soyuz."

[Eagle1Division2]

@usnsquirrel The only vehicle you have to really empiraclly back up that claim is the shuttle.

I think if the SRB's were replaced with LRB's, and some other differences were made (like an all-metal heatshield that doesn't require massive inspection), it could turn out cost-effective. It would be cheaper, and have a shorter turnaround time, which makes it even more cheaper.

[BenqS42]

9:12 nice boobs

[usnsquirrel]

@desfees There's no demand for a shuttle, and as of right now, a reusable spacecraft is more expensive than an expendible one.

[geomodelrailroader]

Your last trip to the VAB Discovery have a good flight

[desfees]

Phenomenal, that you all can upright this monstrocity and hook it up to the external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters in 12 minutes and 42 seconds! American Ingenuity! Still praying that NASA will create a comparable shuttle, updated, of course, that will compete with the Russians. They should not have a monopoly on this with their crash landings of the soyuz.