Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Heavy Lift Capacity Boosters Message-ID: <1988Sep30.165056.18848@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <677@eplrx7.UUCP> <2240@ssc-vax.UUCP> <1402@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> <2248@ssc-vax.UUCP> <6936@ihlpl.ATT.COM> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 88 16:50:56 GMT In article <6936@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >... don't the SSMEs go into orbit? >Does their pod need both retro-rockets and an ablative heat shield >to re-enter safely before deploying the chutes? >Also, aren't the complex liquid engines more easily damaged >by the splashdown and salt water corrosion while they're >waiting to be fished out of the water? Yes, recovering the engines is a headache. Depending on the design, they get either all the way into orbit or very nearly so. Retrorockets are no big deal, but heat shielding is a nuisance, and keeping them dry with an ocean splashdown is also a headache. This sort of thing is why the current Shuttle-C proposals don't envision engine recovery. (Admittedly, Shuttle-C is intended for a low launch rate and deliberately accepts higher per-launch costs for the sake of simpler development.) >BTW, do the Russians use ablative shields on their Mir re-entries, Yes. As they would probably say: "Why not? They work quite well." >or has something better been developed? Define "better". -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu