Tourist Module - MoComments. Also a comment on the space pen which NASA did not pay to develop

--- panamabob wrote:
> Location is in Panama waters ; we're going to be located about 8 degrees
> north of equator at aroung 80 degrees west Grenwich.

Sounds like a pretty site for a launch.

> www.SouthernLatitudes.org

> About NASA space pen; come on?! That snope site is administered by who? God?
> he-he It's usually just * their * opions on many things.

Which are pretty much almost always true. If they say something's false then
it probably is.

> Show me the Rusian pen version :-) Besides it's the point that I was trying
> to make , not the actual fact, and the space pen is the easiest and simplist
> anecdotal type of example to use :-)

If it's false then it doesn't work. Besides the low tech solution (using a
pencil) is not good.

> Even snopes acknowledges the essense of the anecdote (regardless if accurate
> or not :-) Their quote is : "The lesson of this anecdote is a valid one,
> that we sometimes expend a great deal of time, effort, and money to create a
> "high-tech" solution to a problem, when a perfectly good, cheap, and simple
> solution is right before our eyes"

But NASA used the low tech solution on Mercury and Gemini flights so they did
see it. Just that a better one came along which actually was good (unlike the
pencil). Of course a PDA would have been even better.

> Is USA technology better than Ruskies because of ability to create exotic
> specialty alloys, components, etc.? If it was my butt in the seat, your damn
> sure I would want the best of the best possible... but is the other methods
> used serviceable? That's the $64 question. That's the question HMO's deal
> with every day as well.

Yes in fact. Better materials and better manifacturing processes do make the
technology superior. Of course even the most advanced technology can't save a
completely stuffed up design.

> Many times it would appear it's an Al Rubestein contraption with greater
> potentials for "oops" .... sometimes we over engineer things because we
> think we can. Certain english cars had that within them and were a nitemare
> to operate. The v12 engine required a mechanic on retainer :-)

I'm thinking that might also be another urban legend. Do you have a source for
it?

> However looking at the shuttle as a transport bed, and then attaching a
> "container" much akin to sikorsky sky crane set up, may not be a bad idea.
> The Ruskies have essentially done that by separating the "engines" from the
> Buran shuttle itself. In essence, the whole shuttle component could be
> seperated from the fuel and engines in case of impending catastrope. If in
> the case of the USA shuttle "boom" a ruskie type of system may have been
> able to sense the problem and "blow away" the whole orbiter from the highly
> volatile problem.

That's could be seen to be like what used to be done with the Mercury and
Apollo missions. They had the capsule right on the top with an escape tower
equiped with solid rocket motors above it. If something went wrong the escape
tower motors would fire sending the crew clear of the rocket.

> Question is during the powered section of flight, would the shuttle gained
> sufficient speed to be able to manuveur a dead stick landing at or near the
> launch point? Kinda depends if its within the first few seconds or several
> minutes into the burn sequence. Still, something is better than nada?
> Perhaps a bevy of heavy parachutes could deploy for the low altitude
> situations?

In reality we want to have as complete an abort as we can get. If possible we
should be able to abort at all points from the take-off run to the landing run.
This is one reason why VTOHL isn't a good idea.

> Regarding orbital velocity with sky hook or elevator cable... sure you would
> have the velocity!

You would have velocity but it wouldn't be anything close to orbital unless
you're bringing the cable up near GEO (to GEO would be oribital at that
location).

> At ground level your already going at around 1000 mph (circumference of earth
> revolving in 24 hours) As you go up the cable elevator, as you go higher the
> velocity increases as well.

Your velocity will go up but it won't meet orbital velocity until you reach
GEO. Also realise that the orbital velocity down at 400 km is lot higher then
it is at GEO.

> The cable is perpendicular to the earth so at ground its moving (like the
rest
> of us at 1000 mph) but at the high end it has to be moving multitude of times
> faster to maintain its perpendicularity.

That assumes it's rigid enough to do so. Unless you bring it to GEO and well
beyond to provide some tension it will have to be very rigid otherwise it's
just going to flop around and fall over. I don't really think you can get the
rigidity to do this from current materials.

As for the velocity, sure it will be higher but the difference between here and
400 km isn't all that much in terms of velocity required to cover the distance
in 24 hours. It's not really going to be provide much of a boost since most of
the energy is in getting the speed. Maglev boosting would be much more
effective at helping a craft into orbit and also a lot easier to do.

> Like Geo stationary orbits being 20,000 + miles out they actually in relation
> to earth are going many times faster than 17000 escape velocity because of
the
> greater distance they cover ....Am Iwording that clearly :-)

If your cable goes past GEO it will be going faster then orbital velocity.
You'd have to go even further out to get to 11 km s^-1.

> Now thats a lot of stress :-) Of course if you put the elevator at a higer
> latitude, the circumference it travels in would be less. Heck you put it at
> the poles (overlooking the small wobble) it would have barely any velocity
> stress to deal with, but then would the cable stayup there? hmmm.

Don't worry about the precesion. It's really too slow to matter.

Would the cable stay up at the poles? It depends on how strong it is, I'd say
it probably wouldn't. Although if you did build anything like that it wouldn't
be a cable, but a building. Make the CN Tower look short.