Posts: 403
From: Hilversum, The Netherlands
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 07-03-2006 01:41 PM               

---

If only they had decided...

Luc

[This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited July 03, 2006).]

Posts: 2896
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 07-03-2006 02:01 PM               

---

Luc-

Try this- place the orbiter on top of the second stage of the Saturn V. In looking at my 144 scale models of both - it looks like it could have fit.
(I wonder where the White Room swing arm would have been?)

Tim

Posts: 2121
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 07-03-2006 02:28 PM               

---

RSS looks scary in this config though !!!

Hope you don't mind Robert, I used one of your great pics :-)

Adam

P.S. Only a few years until we see this sight for real.

[This message has been edited by nasamad (edited July 03, 2006).]

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 07-03-2006 03:43 PM               

---

The problem with that design, Luc, is how will the SSMEs fire? Unless if you intended for the Shuttle main engines to be moved to the bottom of the ET. (Of course, then the engines would be destroyed for each mission when the ET re-entered the atmosphere.)

The ET would also need to be heavily reinforced to carry the shuttle in that manner, particularly at the attach point between the tank and the orbiter. Any "flex" in the stack during flight would put incredible stresses on the attach point.

[This message has been edited by mjanovec (edited July 03, 2006).]

Posts: 2121
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 07-03-2006 04:13 PM               

---

I would have the SSME's in the normal place and have them fire on the pad, the resulting explosion should be enough to put the orbiter into orbit !

Adam.

Posts: 3161
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-03-2006 04:36 PM            

---

Then there is always:
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld030.htm

- which if they would have done in the first place, we'd have spent far less overall (higher development costs in the early 70s, but probably much, much less in operational costs ever since) and wouldn't have this foam issue to contend with at all.