NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/shuttelaser.jpg
Basically a clone of NASA's Space Shuttle with modernized computers and advanced engines and with the cargo bay completly replaced with the laser and a docking interface. It can be launched convetionaly(with boosters and fueltank) or it can be launched from 50,000 ft on the back of a modifed 747. The 747 costs $100 million
Total Weight at Lift-off: 4.5 million pounds
Maximum Payload Weight: 59,000 pounds
Shuttle System Length: 184 feet
Orbiter Length: 122 feet
Orbiter Wingspan: 8 feet
Engines: 2 liquid fueled rocket boosters, 3 main engines, 2 orbital thrusters
*Liquid Fueled rocket boosters:
....454,000 kg (1 million pounds) of propellant
.... Each provides 1,194,020 kg (1315 tons) of thrust (sea level)
....Burn time: 2 minutes and 2 seconds
....Reusable
*Main engines:
....Utilize 547,524 kg (603 tons) of liquid oxygen and 91,708 kg (101 tons) of liquid hydrogen in external tank
....Each provides 154,360 kg (170 tons) of thrust (sea level)
....Burn time: 8 minutes
....Reusable
*Orbital maneuvering system engines:
....16 Plasma Arc Rockets 2,452 kg (2.7 tons) of thrust each
Hottest Skin Temperature on Re-entry: 1650 degrees C
The SC-1A1 is powered byTopaz 9 Nuclear Reactor and uses efficent plasma thursters which do not require fuel, only electric power.
The shuttle has solar panels on the top of the wings which can be extended for recharging battires or emergencies.
Crew: 4
Price: $3.4 billion

(PMT)

for sale!

2010 only!!

too good for you

Any kind of thruster requires reaction mass, except ion drives, which do not produce sufficient thrust for launch.

1st: Plasma thrusters? I know I'm not an expert, but that sounds FT.

2nd: Why would you need a laser?

1st: Plasma thrusters? I know I'm not an expert, but that sounds FT.

2nd: Why would you need a laser?

He may mean some sort of nuclear drive, where you use the heat of the reactor to heat and expel reaction mass to propel your craft.

Fusion torch drives (definite PMT) take this a step further, by actually igniting hydrogen and using it to propel themselves.

Lexington Cross looked at the advertisment with interest. Hmmm, this was indeed an interesting peice of work.

He sent out in inquiry:

TO: The Phoenix Milita
FROM: Lexington Cross, Cross Airship Company/Speical Projects Divison

RE: 1A1

We are most interested in your new weapon. We have a few inquiries.
How powerful is the laser on the 1A1 and how much energy does it take to power it? It is the laser we are most interested in and any details you could give would be greatly appreciated.

Engines: 2 liquid fueled rocket boosters, 3 main engines, 2 orbital thrusters

*Main engines:
....Utilize 547,524 kg (603 tons) of liquid oxygen and 91,708 kg (101 tons) of liquid hydrogen in external tank
....Each provides 154,360 kg (170 tons) of thrust (sea level)
*Orbital maneuvering system engines:
....16 Plasma Arc Rockets 2,452 kg (2.7 tons) of thrust each

If you all would read more carefullly, only the orbital manevering rockets are plasma rockets, which exist in real life today and are used on a satelite to keep station and to change its orbit...

Actually this shuttle is MT except for the laser system and computers

And I am sorry the laser's output is classifed (ooc: its a medium laser capable of melting satllites or boring a decent hole in a stray asteroid and it takes a good bit of power which is why it hasa nuke generator)

Cross raised an eyebrow.

So I could buy this thing, test it, reverse engineer it, but he can't tell me the laser's output because it's classified?

Lex thought about it for a moment.

TO: The Phoenix Milita
From: Lexington Cross

Re: The 1A1 Laser Space Plane

While we are sorry to hear you can not inform us as to the output of the laser, we are still interested in a purchase. Of course, a demonstration is in order if you can not give us the exact numbers.

Regards,
Lexington Cross

The classification is so that the public will not intercept the information and use it to fortify thier defenses against it...


And if you wish to launch atarget satellite I will direct the Phoenix Space Force to destroy it for you.

Hmmm...

Hmmmmmm...

Hmmmmmmmm....

"Very well!"

Lex, being the master engineer that he was, could guestimate the laser's power. If it was aimed at destroying sats and powered by a freaking nuclear generator, it could probably burn it's way straight through a sattalite.

Which was just enough for his purposes.


TO: The Phoenix Milita
FROM: Lexington Cross

If possible, we would like to purchase just the laser componet of the 1A1. If this is possible, please give us a quote and my staff will arrange payment. No demonstration will be required as your explaination has been enough.

Regards,
Lexington Cross

TO: Lexington Cross
FROM: The Phoenix Milita
The laser componet of the 1A1 will cost 2 billion dollars. If acceptable and the money is wired, order confirmed.

TO: Lexington Cross
FROM: The Phoenix Milita
The laser componet of the 1A1 will cost 2 billion dollars. If acceptable and the money is wired, order confirmed.

Do you mean to tell us that the Shuttle costs more than the laser? For an additional 1.4 Billion I could have a space plane? Surly there must be some mistake?

No mistake..

OOC: rl space shuttle cost 1 billion mines updated with 400,000$ worth of computers + 2 billion laser and targeting system an the nuke generator

The Cross Company will take one laser componet.

OCC: Ah, forgot about the generator

Order confirmed.

bump

[OOC: Thrust is measured in Newtons (N), not Kgs.]

[OOC: Thrust is measured in Newtons (N), not Kgs.]
[OOC: tell it to the NASA webmaster from whom I ripped the stats ]

[OOC: tell it to the NASA webmaster from whom I ripped the stats ]
[OOC: I might do actually. Where did you get it from? I'm sure that NASA would not actually make a mistake like confusing units of mass and units of force.]

did not find the orignal site, but another nasa site says:

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-mps.html#sts-mps
The main engines can be throttled over a range of 65 to 109 percent of their rated power level in 1-percent increments. A value of 100 percent corresponds to a thrust level of 375,000 pounds at sea level and 470,000 pounds in a vacuum. A value of 104 percent corresponds to 393,800 pounds at sea level and 488,800 pounds in a vacuum; 109 percent corresponds to 417,300 pounds at sea level and 513,250 pounds in a vacuum.

[OOC: That makes more sense, as pounds in that context means pounds-force. If you're converting things into SI units, though, you should use the correct unit, which is Newtons, not Kg. NASA is right, you're still wrong.]

nope, you



I quoted the figures in my orignal post from another website.

If I'm wrong then so is wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram) and everyone who runs the SI system of units.

As I have said, I can not find the particular website, but here on anothe NASA page you can see cleary when speaking of thrust, pounds = kg


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-006-DFRC.html

The aircraft are powered by two General Electric F404 turbofan engines, each producing 17,700 pounds (8028.58 kg) of thrust.


Now please leave.

Pounds do not equal kilograms. Kilograms are also units of mass, not force.

From:Free Shepmagans
To:The Phoenix Milita

We are somewhat interested in this, is there anyway to remove the laser and put in a kenetic energy weapon? What is the cost per launch?

((OOC In other words, screw the laser, we want to drop heavy things onto our enemies from orbit. Is that possible?))

From:Free Shepmagans
To:The Phoenix Milita

We are somewhat interested in this, is there anyway to remove the laser and put in a kenetic energy weapon? What is the cost per launch?

((OOC In other words, screw the laser, we want to drop heavy things onto our enemies from orbit. Is that possible?))
Kinetic energy weapons would not work well in this configuration. The only way to have a Kinetic energy weapon of equal effectiveness to the laser, would have be a magneticly ejected, rocket powered missile. We could of course do this for you.... but we would have to design a completly new cargo bay system, and it may cost you over 5 billion dollars in the end. We estimate the launch of the shuttle to be at about $10,000 per pound by ground launch and $8,500 per pound by air launch.


OOC: 1. Free shepmagans:You would better off with satellite based ortillery for that.

2. Praetonia: It appears at least one NASA website editor believes pounds can be used inplace of kilograms when dealing with thrust, and my 4th grade teacher agrees, so drop it. If that's not good enough for you, I don't care.

OOC: 1. Free shepmagans:You would better off with satellite based ortillery for that.

((OOC: Ok, I kinda figured that.))

From:Free Shepmagans
To:The Phoenix Milita

In that case we will have to take our business elsewhere.We will certainly look you up if we ever need an anti-orbital weapon.

2. Praetonia: It appears at least one NASA website editor believes pounds can be used inplace of kilograms when dealing with thrust, and my 4th grade teacher agrees, so drop it. If that's not good enough for you, I don't care.
...are you even reading what I type? I specifically said that pounds is generally acceptable, but that the SI unit for force is not kilograms, but newtons. I wasn't even talking about substituting kilograms for pounds, so I have no idea where you're getting that from.

Occasionally the gravitational force on an object is given in "kilograms", but the unit used is not a true kilogram: it is the deprecated kilogram-force (kgf), also known as the kilopond (kp).
This is where your mistake originates - people using kilograms instead of newtons for weight. However, thrust measured in kilograms is completely meaningless, and only by assuming you mean ~10N/kg can it have any meaning.

Look, I'm trying to help you improve your design and not make silly mistakes like confusing units, but you clearly don't care and instead choose to be confrontational and sarcastic. I have no interest in prolonging this pointless argument any further.

then stop posting...


Who cares, I'm using the Phoenix System Of Measurement (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=487562) from now on anyway :p

Antarctica123 would like to buy 50 SC-1A1 Space Planesfor the newly formed Space Command.

Order confirmed