SEMROC SPACE SHUTTLE

I'm thinking about buying this kit...looks pretty fun.

https://www.semroc.com/Store/scripts/RocketKits.asp?SKU=KV-38

Flies better than my Estes stack did....:eyeroll:

fyrwrxz said:

Flies better than my Estes stack did....:eyeroll:

Click to expand...

That isn't saying much....

It is a great build, much better than the one from Quest, where the orbiter drops like a brick no matter what. This one's orbiter is tricky, you have to play with the weight distribution. I'm building another one right now and I think I'm going to use flexible flaps on the orbiter like the booster has.

Quest kits on average are not ones I usually buy. They just don't do it for me. I usually buy Semroc or Scratch build now. At least Quest has Plastic Nose Cones. I absolutely despise balsa cones.

If you want to build a space shuttle, Semroc is the one to build. Only downer is the balsa nose cones which need hollowing out. Mike Jerrauld's verson had centuri logos and very light blow molded plastic nose cones. Unfortunately those are no longer produced.

Semroc is the best thing since Centuri.

I saw the thread title and was thinking something totally different when you said "Space Shuttle". I don't think anyone could go wrong building a Dr. Zooch Space Shuttle. The best "near" scale kits out there that actually fly well!

https://www.rocketryforumarchive.com/showthread.php?t=18798&highlight=Dr.+Zooch+Space+Shuttle

But, having said that, I wonder why there is a "TM" after the "Space Shuttle" on the site. Are they refering to the NASA Space Shuttle or the Centuri Space Shuttle for rockets...hmmmm :confused2:

Bravo52 said:

I saw the thread title and was thinking something totally different when you said "Space Shuttle". I don't think anyone could go wrong building a Dr. Zooch Space Shuttle. The best "near" scale kits out there that actually fly well!

https://www.rocketryforumarchive.com/showthread.php?t=18798&highlight=Dr.+Zooch+Space+Shuttle

But, having said that, I wonder why there is a "TM" after the "Space Shuttle" on the site. Are they refering to the NASA Space Shuttle or the Centuri Space Shuttle for rockets...hmmmm :confused2:

Click to expand...

Probably referring to the Centuri name... just a CYA with the "TM"...

This is basically the shuttle design that was SUPPOSED to have been built until the Air Force and Nixon's "do it on the cheap" methods mucked it all up into the delta wing partially reusable shuttle we ended up with...

I've posted some study summaries related to shuttle development and designs over in the scale section of the forum... have some more to do when I get a chance...

Later! OL JR

luke strawwalker said:

This is basically the shuttle design that was SUPPOSED to have been built until the Air Force and Nixon's "do it on the cheap" methods mucked it all up into the delta wing partially reusable shuttle we ended up with...

I've posted some study summaries related to shuttle development and designs over in the scale section of the forum... have some more to do when I get a chance...

Click to expand...

FWIW: I was under the 'impression' that the USAF & the Nixon administration were the primary causes of that....

luke strawwalker said:

Probably referring to the Centuri name... just a CYA with the "TM"...

This is basically the shuttle design that was SUPPOSED to have been built until the Air Force and Nixon's "do it on the cheap" methods mucked it all up into the delta wing partially reusable shuttle we ended up with...

I've posted some study summaries related to shuttle development and designs over in the scale section of the forum... have some more to do when I get a chance...

Later! OL JR

Click to expand...

Basically, the problem is that spaceplanes are hard. You basically want to bring back as little as possible as part of your capsule, because anything on the top of the rocket adds TONS of fuel needed- on the Saturn V, adding 1lb to the 3rd stage meant taking 14lb off the first stage.

Having your capsule be the size of a small airliner isn't gonna make things any cheaper. Reusable spacecraft SpaceX/Blue Origin/ESA style is the way to go- the Falcon 9 carries only 5 tons less than the Shuttle but costs 20% of what the Shuttle did.

Now, airbreathing spaceplanes- like the Skylon project- actually save you something, since jet engines are so darn efficient, an order of magnitude better. Here's a comparison:
Solids- ~2km/s
Kerosene- ~3.5 km/s
Hydrogen- ~4 km/s
Turbofan on 747- equivalent to 60 km/s

That said, the Semroc Shuttle looks like a neat kit, and I love boost gliders as much as the next guy. It's just that Nixon isn't entirely to blame- physics had a hand in it too.