Archibald said:To complete this website, here's another which narrate full story of early shuttle years (1969-1973). http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/index.htm
a flight impression of NASA space shuttle.
Agena in a shuttle bay = as dangerous as a Centaur ?
(non cryogenic, but highly toxic corrosive... on the other hand Shuttle OMS use storable propellants)
something you don't want in a Shuttle cargobay in case the oxidizer tank, feedline or valve leaksBeing a powerful oxidizing agent, nitric acid reacts violently with many organic materials and the reactions may be explosive
Michel Van said:Wat i wonder is, had Martin never proposed Transtage for Shuttle upperstage ?
(they had proposed Transtage as ad-on booster under the ET in 1982)
flateric said:1990s Rockwell thoughts of Space Shuttle evolution
CFE said:At the same time, I recall reading John Young's ideas for an "advanced orbiter." He wanted features like thrust termination on the SRB's and canards on the orbiter for better control on approach & landing. The former idea is idiotic, as thrust termination (blowing the nose caps) would likely rupture the ET and kill the crew. Canards aren't such a bad idea, but it's not easy to see how you could stow them for re-entry without adding a lot of mass.
CFE said:What kind of engines are specified for the liquid-fueled boosters on the shuttle-derived vehicle?
Mark Wade's site has a drawing of the shuttle with similar LRB's (four engines per booster and shutters to protect the engines during splashdown.) But his drawing is from a later study that utilizes STME's.