12/15 Is the Space Shuttle capable of taking off on a runway like a regular
aircraft?
\_ by the way, Space Shuttle is one big glider. Even with
full throttle, it can't take off
\_ That's not quite true. It can't take off by itself,
but it's not just a big glider. It needs the help of
the two booster rockets to take off, but after the
boosters fall off then it's powered by its main
engines.
\_ which are fueled by the external tank so
NO it can not take off. It's all Nixon's fault.
Challenger was Nixon's fault, too. He hated NASA
It's a shame that his signature is on the moon.
\_ So no external tank = no fuel? So from, say,
the new Space Station to a reentry point to
atmosphere to touchdown, no fuel whatsoever?
Or am I missing something here?
\_ there several small rockets part of
the RCS and OMS that do the little
manuevering in space but there is
a limited fuel for those.
\_ There are other sources of power, but it
needs the external fuel tank for the 5+
minutes between when the Solid
Rocket Boosters burn out and when it has
enough energy to reach orbit. For
minor maneuvers, it either uses the main
engines with another, smaller,
fuel source, or it has other smaller
engines. I'm sure the information can
be found at shuttle.nasa.gov.
\_ the main engines are not fired again
after they detach from the external
tank. for forward momentum stronger than
a RCS (reaction control system) burn
they use the two bigger OMS rockets.
\_ I've always wondered why after so many years they're still using
the same Shuttle design that they have for twenty years.
\_ Why the fuck would we need a new shuttle? The
current shuttle fulfills all of its mission requirements.
\_ no
\_ It can take off a runway on the back of a 747, I think.
\_ I'm pretty sure that the 747 is only used to transport it from
Houston to Kennedy when it lands in Texas.
\_ yeah and it can't detach from that carrier plane
in mid-air.
\_ troll deleted -tom
\_ No
\_ by the way, Space Shuttle is one big glider. Even with
full throttle, it can't take off
\_ That's not quite true. It can't take off by itself,
but it's not just a big glider. It needs the help of
the two booster rockets to take off, but after the
boosters fall off then it's powered by its main
engines.
\_ which are fueled by the external tank so
NO it can not take off. It's all Nixon's fault.
Challenger was Nixon's fault, too. He hated NASA
It's a shame that his signature is on the moon.
\_ You should re-read what I wrote. I said, "It
can't take off by itself, but it's not just a
big glider." It uses the main engines to slow
down for re-entry, and then glides to a landing.
\_ So no external tank = no fuel? So from, say,
the new Space Station to a reentry point to
atmosphere to touchdown, no fuel whatsoever?
Or am I missing something here?
\_ there several small rockets part of
the RCS and OMS that do the little
manuevering in space but there is
a limited fuel for those.
\_ There are other sources of power, but it
needs the external fuel tank for the 5+
minutes between when the Solid
Rocket Boosters burn out and when it has
enough energy to reach orbit. For
minor maneuvers, it either uses the main
engines with another, smaller,
fuel source, or it has other smaller
engines. I'm sure the information can
be found at shuttle.nasa.gov.
\_ the main engines are not fired again
after they detach from the external
tank. for forward momentum stronger than
a RCS (reaction control system) burn
they use the two bigger OMS rockets.
\_ don't you mean "SRB"s? What does
OMS stand for?
\_ Orbital Maneuvering System.
\_ Are you sure? I thought that the
shuttle turned around and fired
the main engines to slow itself down
for re-entry. You're saying that it
uses the manuvering engines to do this?
\_ SSME (space shuttle main engines)
have no fuel while in space.
OMS may sound misleading but
they are bigger than the RCS nozzles
\_ Having only power but no mass to throw out
is not enough. You're not going to get
anywhere with a huge nuclear reactor if
if you don't have any mass to jet.
\_ The moon landing was a Cold War hoax. Ever wonder
why there are no stars in the photos or why they never
took a photo of the earth from the moon? Because we'd
know it was FAKE!
\_ They took several pictures of the earth from the
the moon. Probably the most famous was the "Earth
Rise" shot. Several of the photos from the Moon
Landings also feature stars.
\_ Space shuttle is a waste of money. "Preparing" one for
launch is several times more expensive than a single-use
rocket. Russian space program was much better, anyway. Oh well. |
http://csua.com/feed/