Do you think Britain could build a space launcher!
Discussion
Should I really ask can Britain build a space launcher again, and could this be a replacement for the space shuttle?
That would mean it can carry people as well as satellites. We did have a rocket "black arrow" that put a satellite into orbit on the 28 October 1971. Any new system needs to bring the cost down a lot. I have a few ideas on that as do a few of you.
Read the book How To Build Your Own Spaceship by Piers Bizony before posting as it will help.
That would mean it can carry people as well as satellites. We did have a rocket "black arrow" that put a satellite into orbit on the 28 October 1971. Any new system needs to bring the cost down a lot. I have a few ideas on that as do a few of you.
Read the book How To Build Your Own Spaceship by Piers Bizony before posting as it will help.
I presume you mean "Could a British based aerospace comapny build a manned spacecraft launcher". Thechnically, the answer is, of course, yes. In reality, of course, such projects require funding and, up until very recently, such funding was dependent on government backing. If BAE (for instance) was able to obtain non-government funding, then there is no reason why such a craft could not be built.
And, of course, a launcher need not necessarilly be the actual spacecraft. I'd be more interested in designing and building a manned spacecraft - and using someone else's already proven launcher - such as an Atlas or an Ariane.
And, of course, a launcher need not necessarilly be the actual spacecraft. I'd be more interested in designing and building a manned spacecraft - and using someone else's already proven launcher - such as an Atlas or an Ariane.
Yes we probably could - but it would be very expensive as we'd also have to recreate a lot of the engineering manufacturing capability it would require, as well as needing a lot of research into various technologies e.g. rocket engines that we haven't kept up with over the last 40 years ( assuming we didn't just buy in engines etc. from abroad )
As for keeping to a timetable, while it will always be very difficult to keep the research needed to a target date, a lot would also depend on whether the customer/government kept their noses out of it, didn't try to micromanage the project, and didn't keep changing their minds about what they wanted.
As for keeping to a timetable, while it will always be very difficult to keep the research needed to a target date, a lot would also depend on whether the customer/government kept their noses out of it, didn't try to micromanage the project, and didn't keep changing their minds about what they wanted.
Eric Mc said:
No worse than some other countries' launch sites, such as Japan or Russia.
Baikonur is on about the same latitude as central France, so quite a bit further south than the UK. Tanegashima (Japan's space port) is around the same latitude as Bahgdad. Both are more or less the closest sovereign (or former sovereign) territory those countries have to the Equator. If we really wanted to launch things into space, St. Helena would make a lovely spot for it.
-edit-
As to the "could we" question, we definitely could. There are men in sheds in the UK who have lofted things over 30,000 feet.
Edited by davepoth on Saturday 8th September 12:11
How far norh is Vandenberg AFB in the US?
Plesetsk in Russia is a very important launch site - and is is 62 degrees north.
A launch site can be anywhere. How useful it is depends to a large extent on the type of missions you want to launch and the orbital inclinations required. Cape Canaveral is great for low inclination orbits - not so good for high inclination orbits.
This should probably be in the "Science" forum, - which has become the home of space chat on PH these days.
Plesetsk in Russia is a very important launch site - and is is 62 degrees north.
A launch site can be anywhere. How useful it is depends to a large extent on the type of missions you want to launch and the orbital inclinations required. Cape Canaveral is great for low inclination orbits - not so good for high inclination orbits.
This should probably be in the "Science" forum, - which has become the home of space chat on PH these days.
We are still a long way from a fully reuseable launcher. The only technology that I can see getting us there is the technology being researched by the Skylon project - which is, in fact, British based.
To my mind, progress in spaceflight, especially manned spaceflight, for the next 30 or 40 years will depend on big boosters in the Saturn V category. I always think that one of the greatest mistakes was to abandon the Saturn V and its developments. If we had retianed the Saturn V, by now (50 years on from its conception), it would be an even more effective rocket than it was in the years 1967 to 1973 and I'm pretty sure large elements of it could have been made resuable - such as the 1st and 2nd stages and perhaps the manned space capsules that developed versions might have carried.
The proposed SLS system - which may or may not eventually happen - is very much based on these types of assumptions - although it will probably make more use of Space Shuttle technology rather than Saturn V technology.
To my mind, progress in spaceflight, especially manned spaceflight, for the next 30 or 40 years will depend on big boosters in the Saturn V category. I always think that one of the greatest mistakes was to abandon the Saturn V and its developments. If we had retianed the Saturn V, by now (50 years on from its conception), it would be an even more effective rocket than it was in the years 1967 to 1973 and I'm pretty sure large elements of it could have been made resuable - such as the 1st and 2nd stages and perhaps the manned space capsules that developed versions might have carried.
The proposed SLS system - which may or may not eventually happen - is very much based on these types of assumptions - although it will probably make more use of Space Shuttle technology rather than Saturn V technology.
Eric Mc said:
How far norh is Vandenberg AFB in the US?
Plesetsk in Russia is a very important launch site - and is is 62 degrees north.
A launch site can be anywhere. How useful it is depends to a large extent on the type of missions you want to launch and the orbital inclinations required. Cape Canaveral is great for low inclination orbits - not so good for high inclination orbits.
Vandenberg is 34 degrees north. Plesetsk in Russia is a very important launch site - and is is 62 degrees north.
A launch site can be anywhere. How useful it is depends to a large extent on the type of missions you want to launch and the orbital inclinations required. Cape Canaveral is great for low inclination orbits - not so good for high inclination orbits.
Commercial space launches tend to be from the lowest possible latitude, because the spin of the earth is fastest at the equator in terms of m/s (think about outside of a record), which means rockets don't need to add quite so much speed to reach orbit, meaning less fuel and therefore more payload.
Northern launch sites are much better for high inclination orbits which are needed for spy satellites to get an orbit that can cover a large part of the earth's surface, but it's a very fuel intensive way of getting to orbit in comparison.
Exactly my point. The position of the launch site has good and bad points depending on the mission you want to fly. I would say the bulk of earth orbital flights and solar system flights take place within a 30 degree band of the earth's equator. For those missions, having a launch site close to the equator will always be the best option.
However, for those flights where you want steep angles of inclination to the equator - polar orbits for instance, or even missions where you want to overfly (say) Northern Europe, then the closeness to the equator becomes less beneficial. Indeed, it can be a hindrance.
For instance, the Space Shuttle Columbia was incapable of reaching the International Space Station - because it was too heavy. The ISS has a fairly steep orbital inclination - primarily because its "customers" required it to fly over its territories. Therefore it had to be able to pass over most of Northern Europe, Russia, Japan and North America. The Space Shuttle, launching from Cape Canaveral required a fair amount of oomph to be able to change its orbital inclination to match that of the ISS. Columbia, because it was the first Shuttle, had a heavier internal structure and was just too beefy for its Orbital Manoeuvring Engines and thrusters to change its angle in space and lift it the extra few miles to reach the station.
However, for those flights where you want steep angles of inclination to the equator - polar orbits for instance, or even missions where you want to overfly (say) Northern Europe, then the closeness to the equator becomes less beneficial. Indeed, it can be a hindrance.
For instance, the Space Shuttle Columbia was incapable of reaching the International Space Station - because it was too heavy. The ISS has a fairly steep orbital inclination - primarily because its "customers" required it to fly over its territories. Therefore it had to be able to pass over most of Northern Europe, Russia, Japan and North America. The Space Shuttle, launching from Cape Canaveral required a fair amount of oomph to be able to change its orbital inclination to match that of the ISS. Columbia, because it was the first Shuttle, had a heavier internal structure and was just too beefy for its Orbital Manoeuvring Engines and thrusters to change its angle in space and lift it the extra few miles to reach the station.
Max_Torque said:
iirc, Columbia also had a signficant T&D sensor payload, that was effectively "hardwired" into the airframe (spaceframe?? ;-), gathering Strain, Aerothermal, and System operational development information. This added significant mass as compared to the later craft built without it?
Correct. She was still, in many ways, an experimental vehicle - right up to her demise.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff