Diferencia entre revisiones de «VentureStar»
Contenido eliminado Contenido añadido
Sin resumen de edición |
|||
Línea 34:
Estaba previsto que la ingeniería y diseño del VentureStar tuviera numerosas ventajas comparado con el [[Space Shuttle]], lo cual ayudaría a reducir los costos y tiempos de fabricación y mantenimiento, como también aumentar los niveles de seguridad.<ref name="Reed">{{cite web |url=http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4220/ch9.htm |title=SP-4220 Wingless Flight: The Lifting Body Story (Chapter 9) |publisher=[[NASA]] |work=R. Dale Reed (NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Aerospace and Contract Engineer) |date=August 1997 |accessdate= 21 January 2010}}</ref> Se había evaluado que VentureStar hubiera permitido reducir en un 90% el costo de lanzamiento de los satélites comparado con el costo de usar el Space Shuttle.
<!--▼
El aprestamiento de vuelo del VentureStar hubiera sido muy diferente del aprestamiento del Space Shuttle. A diferencia del [[Space Shuttle orbiter]], que debía ser izado y ensamblado con varios otros componentes pesados (un gran tanque de combustible externo, y dos cohetes sólidos, VentureStar solo hubiera requerido la inspección en un hangar, en forma similar a la inspección de un avión.<ref name="Reed" />
▲<!--
Also unlike the Space Shuttle, VentureStar would not have relied upon [[solid rocket booster]]s, which had to be hauled out of the ocean and then refurbished after each launch.<ref name="Reed" /> Furthermore, design specifications called for the use of linear [[aerospike engine]]s that maintain thrust efficiency at all altitudes. The Shuttle relied upon conventional nozzle engines which achieve maximum efficiency at only a certain altitude.<ref name="Reed" />
VentureStar would have used a new metallic [[Space shuttle thermal protection system|thermal protection system]],
VentureStar was expected to be safer than most modern rockets.<ref name="Reed" /> Whereas most modern rockets fail catastrophically when an engine fails during flight, VentureStar was intended to have a thrust reserve in each engine in the event of an emergency during flight.<ref name="Reed" /> For example, if an engine on VentureStar were to have failed during an ascent to orbit, another engine opposite to the failed engine would have shut off to counterbalance the failed thrust, and each of the remaining working engines could then have throttled up so as to safely continue the mission.<ref name="Reed" />
Línea 51:
The VentureStar program was cancelled due to development cost concerns accompanied by technical problems and failures in the [[X-33]] program, a program which was intended as proof-of-concept for some of the critical technologies needed by the VentureStar. The failure during a test of the X-33's complex, multi-lobe composite-structure cryogenic hydrogen tank is one of the main reasons for the cancellation of both the X-33 and the VentureStar. Ultimately, the VentureStar program required too many technical advances at too high a cost.
-->
== Véase también ==
* [[Lockheed Martin X-33]]
| |||