Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Just announced the the London Science Museum has bought Tim Peake's Soyuz capsule for display. BBC didn't say whether it was the one he went up in or the one he came back down in.
That will be worth a view.Was just thinking the other day that it is nearly a year since I visited the Russian space exhibition they put on. I found the pictures on my hard drive the other day.
The Tuesday after we were at the museum, Tim flew to the ISS.
Further to my previous post about the Science Museum getting Tim's Soyuz, I just realised I had posted this on the day he came back. Maybe somebody at the Science Museum is a closet PHer?
Eric Mc said:
Just pushed the capsule upright. It all looks so very agricultural - but it works. I wonder what will happen to the capsule. It would be nice if it was donated to the UK for display somewhere.
Eric Mc said:
Just announced the the London Science Museum has bought Tim Peake's Soyuz capsule for display. BBC didn't say whether it was the one he went up in or the one he came back down in.
That's cool. I wonder what the going rate for a used Soyuz is? (I thought they where partially reused?)scubadude said:
Eric Mc said:
Just announced the the London Science Museum has bought Tim Peake's Soyuz capsule for display. BBC didn't say whether it was the one he went up in or the one he came back down in.
That's cool. I wonder what the going rate for a used Soyuz is? (I thought they where partially reused?)http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacehab-00a.html
Think it's sold now though. Bugger!
As far as I know, the only orbital spacecraft capable of being reused was the Space Shuttle.
Orion will be reusable as will Dragon and the AST-100.
One Gemini spacecraft was used twice back in the 1960s. Gemini 2 was an unmanned test of the Titan II/Gemini configuration and flew in 1965. The same Gemini capsule was used again in 1966 on the one and only test flight of the USAF MOL programme
The capsule is on display at Cape Canaveral.
Orion will be reusable as will Dragon and the AST-100.
One Gemini spacecraft was used twice back in the 1960s. Gemini 2 was an unmanned test of the Titan II/Gemini configuration and flew in 1965. The same Gemini capsule was used again in 1966 on the one and only test flight of the USAF MOL programme
The capsule is on display at Cape Canaveral.
Eric Mc said:
They may strip out some of the internals for later flights, but the basic capsule only gets used once.
That's what I assumed, although I thought the Russians were a bit more economical. It surprises me that they haven't moved on in the last 50yrs.It makes me wonder what it is about a "capsule" that means it can't be reused? You can certainly swap out the heat shield and refuel and recharge it.
Is it that its so weight marginal that its not strong enough to make a second flight after one re-entry roasting perhaps?
It does seem somewhat confusing to explain to a uninformed person that we Used to fly to space in a 75ton
reusable thing the size of an airliner now we use a phone box that's junk after each flight...
"Resuable" for the Space Shuttle was only ever a word of convenience. In reality, the Orbiter was essentially stripped and rebuilt between missions.
It's like giving a Boeing 747 a full blown "D Check" between each Atlantic Crossing.
D check
This is by far the most comprehensive and demanding check for an airplane. It is also known as an IL or "heavy maintenance visit" (HMV). This check occurs approximately every six years.[4] It is a check that more or less takes the entire airplane apart for inspection and overhaul. Even the paint may need to be completely removed for further inspection on the fuselage metal skin. Such a check can generally take up to 50,000 man-hours and 2 months to complete, depending on the aircraft and the number of technicians involved. It also requires the most space of all maintenance checks, and as such must be performed at a suitable maintenance base. The requirements and the tremendous effort involved in this maintenance check make it by far the most expensive, with total costs for a single D check in the million-dollar range.
Because of the nature and the cost of such a check, most airlines — especially those with a large fleet — have to plan D checks for their aircraft years in advance. Often, older aircraft being phased out of a particular airline's fleet are either stored or scrapped upon reaching their next D check, due to the high costs involved in comparison to the aircraft's value. On average, a commercial aircraft undergoes three D checks before being retired. Many maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) shops claim that it is virtually impossible to perform a D check profitably at a shop located within the United States. As such, only a few of these shops offer D checks.[citation needed]
Given the time requirements of this check, many airlines use the opportunity in order to also make major cabin modifications on the aircraft, which would otherwise require an amount of time that would have to put the aircraft out of service without the need for an inspection. This may include new seats, entertainment systems, carpeting, etc.
It's like giving a Boeing 747 a full blown "D Check" between each Atlantic Crossing.
D check
This is by far the most comprehensive and demanding check for an airplane. It is also known as an IL or "heavy maintenance visit" (HMV). This check occurs approximately every six years.[4] It is a check that more or less takes the entire airplane apart for inspection and overhaul. Even the paint may need to be completely removed for further inspection on the fuselage metal skin. Such a check can generally take up to 50,000 man-hours and 2 months to complete, depending on the aircraft and the number of technicians involved. It also requires the most space of all maintenance checks, and as such must be performed at a suitable maintenance base. The requirements and the tremendous effort involved in this maintenance check make it by far the most expensive, with total costs for a single D check in the million-dollar range.
Because of the nature and the cost of such a check, most airlines — especially those with a large fleet — have to plan D checks for their aircraft years in advance. Often, older aircraft being phased out of a particular airline's fleet are either stored or scrapped upon reaching their next D check, due to the high costs involved in comparison to the aircraft's value. On average, a commercial aircraft undergoes three D checks before being retired. Many maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) shops claim that it is virtually impossible to perform a D check profitably at a shop located within the United States. As such, only a few of these shops offer D checks.[citation needed]
Given the time requirements of this check, many airlines use the opportunity in order to also make major cabin modifications on the aircraft, which would otherwise require an amount of time that would have to put the aircraft out of service without the need for an inspection. This may include new seats, entertainment systems, carpeting, etc.
Eric Mc said:
It's like giving a Boeing 747 a full blown "D Check" between each Atlantic Crossing.
Like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA5z5HSibVgEric Mc said:
"Resuable" for the Space Shuttle was only ever a word of convenience. In reality, the Orbiter was essentially stripped and rebuilt between missions.
Yes, I realise that... still considerably more reusable than "not reusable"! A Capsule is also considerably simpler than the colossal compromise that was the Shuttle.Reusability is only of benefit if it confers significant cost savings and efficiencies.
The requirement to effectively rebuild the Orbiter after each and every mission more or less blew away any hope of the Space Shuttle being the great cost saving system that had been hoped for.
That us how the programme was sold to Congress back in 1972. It would not have been approved and funded if its true nature had been known back then.
Looking back, it is clear now that making use of the non-reusable Saturn/Apollo system would probably have worked out less per launch. And it is likely that production lining the assembly of Saturn IBs and Vs would have made the cost of each launcher cheaper.
Elements of reusability could have been introduced into the Apollo/Saturn system. For instance, the Orion capsule (which is very much an Apollo spacecraft for the 21st Century), IS reusable. The heat shield will be throw away - but will be replaced and make the capsule fit for reuse. Also, the external sides of the Orion are protected by Shuttle type tiles and that is what protects the underlying shell from being heat damaged.
The Apollo Command Module did not have much in the way of side protection. Neither does Soyuz for that matter and that is the most likely reason why the basic Soyuz craft can't be used more than once.
And the sheer lifting capacity of the Saturn V would have made it cost effective i.e. 100 tons into low earth orbit - 30 tons to the moon - and perhaps beyond if NASA had not turned its back on manned flight beyond low earth orbit.
The Shuttle could not carry much more than 10 tons payload into low earth orbit. And the payload dimensions were restricted by the size and capacity of the cargo bay.
The requirement to effectively rebuild the Orbiter after each and every mission more or less blew away any hope of the Space Shuttle being the great cost saving system that had been hoped for.
That us how the programme was sold to Congress back in 1972. It would not have been approved and funded if its true nature had been known back then.
Looking back, it is clear now that making use of the non-reusable Saturn/Apollo system would probably have worked out less per launch. And it is likely that production lining the assembly of Saturn IBs and Vs would have made the cost of each launcher cheaper.
Elements of reusability could have been introduced into the Apollo/Saturn system. For instance, the Orion capsule (which is very much an Apollo spacecraft for the 21st Century), IS reusable. The heat shield will be throw away - but will be replaced and make the capsule fit for reuse. Also, the external sides of the Orion are protected by Shuttle type tiles and that is what protects the underlying shell from being heat damaged.
The Apollo Command Module did not have much in the way of side protection. Neither does Soyuz for that matter and that is the most likely reason why the basic Soyuz craft can't be used more than once.
And the sheer lifting capacity of the Saturn V would have made it cost effective i.e. 100 tons into low earth orbit - 30 tons to the moon - and perhaps beyond if NASA had not turned its back on manned flight beyond low earth orbit.
The Shuttle could not carry much more than 10 tons payload into low earth orbit. And the payload dimensions were restricted by the size and capacity of the cargo bay.
Eric Mc said:
"Resuable" for the Space Shuttle was only ever a word of convenience. In reality, the Orbiter was essentially stripped and rebuilt between missions.
It's like giving a Boeing 747 a full blown "D Check" between each Atlantic Crossing.
D check
This is by far the most comprehensive and demanding check for an airplane. It is also known as an IL or "heavy maintenance visit" (HMV). This check occurs approximately every six years.[4] It is a check that more or less takes the entire airplane apart for inspection and overhaul. Even the paint may need to be completely removed for further inspection on the fuselage metal skin. Such a check can generally take up to 50,000 man-hours and 2 months to complete, depending on the aircraft and the number of technicians involved. It also requires the most space of all maintenance checks, and as such must be performed at a suitable maintenance base. The requirements and the tremendous effort involved in this maintenance check make it by far the most expensive, with total costs for a single D check in the million-dollar range.
Because of the nature and the cost of such a check, most airlines — especially those with a large fleet — have to plan D checks for their aircraft years in advance. Often, older aircraft being phased out of a particular airline's fleet are either stored or scrapped upon reaching their next D check, due to the high costs involved in comparison to the aircraft's value. On average, a commercial aircraft undergoes three D checks before being retired. Many maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) shops claim that it is virtually impossible to perform a D check profitably at a shop located within the United States. As such, only a few of these shops offer D checks.[citation needed]
Given the time requirements of this check, many airlines use the opportunity in order to also make major cabin modifications on the aircraft, which would otherwise require an amount of time that would have to put the aircraft out of service without the need for an inspection. This may include new seats, entertainment systems, carpeting, etc.
Still quicker and cheaper than a BMW inspection 2. It's like giving a Boeing 747 a full blown "D Check" between each Atlantic Crossing.
D check
This is by far the most comprehensive and demanding check for an airplane. It is also known as an IL or "heavy maintenance visit" (HMV). This check occurs approximately every six years.[4] It is a check that more or less takes the entire airplane apart for inspection and overhaul. Even the paint may need to be completely removed for further inspection on the fuselage metal skin. Such a check can generally take up to 50,000 man-hours and 2 months to complete, depending on the aircraft and the number of technicians involved. It also requires the most space of all maintenance checks, and as such must be performed at a suitable maintenance base. The requirements and the tremendous effort involved in this maintenance check make it by far the most expensive, with total costs for a single D check in the million-dollar range.
Because of the nature and the cost of such a check, most airlines — especially those with a large fleet — have to plan D checks for their aircraft years in advance. Often, older aircraft being phased out of a particular airline's fleet are either stored or scrapped upon reaching their next D check, due to the high costs involved in comparison to the aircraft's value. On average, a commercial aircraft undergoes three D checks before being retired. Many maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) shops claim that it is virtually impossible to perform a D check profitably at a shop located within the United States. As such, only a few of these shops offer D checks.[citation needed]
Given the time requirements of this check, many airlines use the opportunity in order to also make major cabin modifications on the aircraft, which would otherwise require an amount of time that would have to put the aircraft out of service without the need for an inspection. This may include new seats, entertainment systems, carpeting, etc.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff