> Instead of an STS-derived HLLV, why not rely on the Russians
instead? They
> claim that they can resurrect the booster that launched Buran
(c.f.,
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/russia-space-general-01m.html).
The
> engine --- the RD-180/181 --- is in production and used on Zenit
(Sea
> Launch). It's a simpler rocket than an STS-derived HLLV would be,
and it
> would be capable of lofting 100 tons to LEO.

STS HLLV is in the same lift class as Energia (Buran was the name of
the shuttle, Energia is the name of the booster). There are no plans
that I am aware of for Energia reuse in orbit, there have been many
plans for STS External Tank in orbit reuse. Energia production lines
would have to be completely refurbished (they've been rusting for a
decade), External Tank production lines are currently active and
would require little to no retooling for production of reuseable
tanks. Balkador (sp?) launch facility is at a higher latitude than
Kennedy which requires more fuel to reach orbit.

These are just off the top of my head.

king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)

Good points, especially regarding ET reuse in orbit.

Ron Menich

king_rodent@...
09/25/01 08:13 PM

> Instead of an STS-derived HLLV, why not rely on the Russians
instead? They
> claim that they can resurrect the booster that launched Buran
(c.f.,
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/russia-space-general-01m.html).
The
> engine --- the RD-180/181 --- is in production and used on Zenit
(Sea
> Launch). It's a simpler rocket than an STS-derived HLLV would be,
and it
> would be capable of lofting 100 tons to LEO.

STS HLLV is in the same lift class as Energia (Buran was the name of
the shuttle, Energia is the name of the booster). There are no plans
that I am aware of for Energia reuse in orbit, there have been many
plans for STS External Tank in orbit reuse. Energia production lines
would have to be completely refurbished (they've been rusting for a
decade), External Tank production lines are currently active and
would require little to no retooling for production of reuseable
tanks. Balkador (sp?) launch facility is at a higher latitude than
Kennedy which requires more fuel to reach orbit.

These are just off the top of my head.

king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)

> Good points, especially regarding ET reuse in orbit.

>

Did you know that originally, Skylab was to be "wet launched"? The
habitable section would have been launched with fuel, then equipment
moved in after residual fuel was removed. This would have only
required a Saturn IV, rather than a Saturn V launch. NASA decided
against it because of the higher technical risk , higher costs and
lack of experience with on orbit outfitting.
One of the ideas that came out of the Space Station Freedom redesign
proposed using an ET as the habitation module. NASA officials thought
that it didn't utilize the Shuttle enough even though the station
would have given more capacity than ISS, at a much lower cost.

king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)