1985

ascan1984 · Nov 29, 2005

Some people have said that 1985 was the golden year for the space shuttle program. Do you agree?

carp · Nov 29, 2005

Yes,i agree. look the future that we have lost. http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/index.htm

najab · Nov 29, 2005

>Some people have said that 1985 was the golden year for the space shuttle program. Do you agree?Nope. 1985 was the year that the Shuttle program went to hell....it was as a direct result of pressure put on the program in 1985 that Challenger was lost.

radarredux · Nov 29, 2005

> Some people have said that 1985 was the golden year for the space shuttle program. Do you agree?/i> Yes... in the sense that it was the last year of the shuttle dream. It was like early 2000 on the Nasdaq, and then the bubble burst. 1985 was the year before reality raised its ugly head. Following 1985, NASA realized it could not safely sustain high launch rates. The shuttle would no longer be the primary launch vehicle for all objects to go into space (satellites, space probes, etc.). The DOD pulled back from support, and the shuttle effort at Vandenberg was closed.

ascan1984 · Nov 30, 2005

Final Thought There is a line in the book Space Shuttle the first 20 years which says "it was the end of inocence". 1985 was surely the golden year of the space shuttle program in terms of the amount of missions flown and their profiles. However the strain on the staff and the vehicles made 1985 one of the worst years in shuttle history. The canabalation of certain components from sister ships between one another showed to be how overstreched the poor KSC staff were. Examples of this canabalisation include Discoverys OMS pods being taken of the orbiter and given to the orbiter Challenger for the 51L flight. When Columbia Landed at edwards after STS 61C in January 1986 a T38 was despatched to get something or other i cant remember what for challenger. I agree that the launch schedule was too much for the KSC and JSC staff to deal with. Everyone was exhausted, especially after the nightmare that was getting STS 61C launched. I also agree that this pressure lead to the loss of challenger. So it is hard to say if this was the golden year. 1986 with 15 was to make shutle history yet again, but they never would have made those number of flights i do believe. I do belive for my bery final thought on this subject that the KSC and JSC staff did a fantastic job accomplishing what they did in 1985 Launching that many flights.

nyarlathotep · Nov 30, 2005

>>"Nope. 1985 was the year that the Shuttle program went to hell....it was as a direct result of pressure put on the program in 1985 that Challenger was lost." The crew of challenger were lost because of a decision made in the 70's by congress to cut corners on technology development. 1985 and 2003 were merely the years that karma caught up with the program. If NASA had gone with the AACB Class 1 proposal or the DC-3 proposal, and made a second production run of upgraded Saturn V's, we would have had the equivalent of a core complete ISS, and SDHLV equivalent payload capacity by 1980.

najab · Nov 30, 2005

>The crew of challenger were lost because of a decision made in the 70's by congress to cut corners on technology development.Yes and no. The bad design was a result of those decisions, but it is possible to operate a bad design safely. 1985/6 was anything but safe operation.

dobbins · Nov 30, 2005

The biggest mistake was going gadget crazy and ignoring KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) when trying to build an operational vehicle. That resulted in the most complex machine ever built (as NASA still likes to brag) and not a snowballs chance in Hell of meeting the operational schedule needed to make a RLV spaceplane economically viable. Unfortunately some people still haven't learned that lesson.

mattblack · Nov 30, 2005

Yes true. People like Gaeto and others seem determined to repeat that. I've been adopting sort of a new motto: "The mission is important, not the machine". Along with: "Never let the love for risk override the love for a successful mission." And in the days before the Internet with the availability to follow space missions in realtime, 1985 seemed to push out Shuttle missions in quantities almost too bewildering to follow through conventional media. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

dobbins · Nov 30, 2005

Here's another one from one of the great engineers of all time, Charles Kettering. "Parts that are left off don't break and don't cause any warranty problems"

n_kitson · Nov 30, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The bad design was a result of those decisions, but it is possible to operate a bad design safely. 1985/6 was anything but safe operation. <hr /></blockquote> I don't tend to think of the shuttle as a bad design. The design needs to be evaluated within the context of the times in which it was commissioned. However, I agree that it is possible to operate safely. Unfortunately, you cannot achieve schedule, cost and safety concurrently.

CalliArcale · Nov 30, 2005

I agree -- it's not a bad design. Not neccesarily the right design for the job, but not a bad design in and of itself. It's a very impressive vehicle and it does things no other vehicle built or seriously attempted has ever done. There is nothing on the drawing board that can fully duplicate Shuttle's capabilities, and some of its capabilities will be lost outright when it retires. It's a wonderful, beautiful bird. But it's very expensive to operate safely, and is probably not the most cost-effective solution. Certainly it isn't going to get us to the Moon or Mars. It is not what NASA needs post-ISS, and it has certain penalties of its own even for current operations. I think it's a good design, given the requirements it was given. But those requirements were not wisely chosen, IMHO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

dobbins · Nov 30, 2005

The primary design criteria of the Shuttle was to reduce the cost of access to space. Early on in the design process it was known that this could only be achieved with a high flight rate. A vehicle who's complexity makes the high flight rate need to achieve it's primary design criteria an impossibility is a bad design. The Shuttle is a remarkable machine, it's a triumph of pushing 1970s era technology to it's limits. However that doesn't change the fact that it failed to meet it's primary design criteria, lowering the cost of access to space.

najab · Nov 30, 2005

> I think it's a good design, given the requirements it was given.Given that one of those requirements was a hard price cap of less than half what the engineers had originally estimated it would cost, I'd have to agree.

n_kitson · Dec 1, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I think it's a good design, given the requirements it was given. But those requirements were not wisely chosen<hr /></blockquote> Unfortunately with government sponsored space flight the requirements are often defined by political reasons, both here and abroad. The stellar shuttle concept became a victim of political design. Similarly the Soviets abandoned their well-thought out Bor experimental designs for the Buran design, a political decision. Fortunately, times have changed and enthusiasts like ourselves find that we have more access to form informed opinions and also that our voices are heard. This has already saved New Horizons and extended Hubbles life (for now). Hopefully this trend continues and we can all contribute to a meaningful space program.

stephentracey · Dec 1, 2005

The shuttle program should never of been built. Just imagine where the space program would of been now if we had of continued with the Saturn V or Saturn 1B rocket series. We would already have has some kind of small lunar bases and possibly getting ready for a manned mars mission! We could of continued to make improvments to the CSM as the technology improved, and it would already look somkthing like the proposed new Apollo CRV Bush plan....this would of been achieved years ago ! the shuttle program was a good idea in principle, but due to too many budget cuts and comprimises it has become a program in crises and should be cancelled immediately, so its funding can be redirected to the new CRV. I think the new Nasa Admin is on the right track in trying to outsource launches to the private sector.Hopefully Space X will play a role in the future. Regards steve

drwayne · Dec 1, 2005

"should be cancelled immediately, so its funding can be redirected to the new CRV." It doesn't work that way in the government funding game. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

nyarlathotep · Dec 1, 2005

>>"the shuttle program was a good idea in principle, but due to too many budget cuts and comprimises it has become a program in crises and should be cancelled immediately, so its funding can be redirected to the new CRV." That would just leave us with another doomed boondoggle like the SLI program and the ISS. We'd be better off if NASA instead allocated a significant portion of their budget to an open tender for regular crew and cargo transport to the ISS, and the lunar surface, and got out of the design business completely. Regretably, this isnt going to happen any time soon.

viper101 · Dec 1, 2005

Just imagine TWO shuttle launches in one month (like Jan 1986) Pretty hard to picture nowadays.

ascan1984 · Dec 1, 2005

The STS 61C crew portrait reminds me of something. In 1985 and 1986 two polititians who both in some ways headed control of the budget for NASA and the STS program got flights on the shuttle. I cant believe that.

carp · Dec 1, 2005

drwayne · Dec 1, 2005

Jake Garn, Bill Nelson. Later was John Glenn who was out of the Senate by that time. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

carp · Dec 2, 2005

remembered those days? Not even pressure suits were worn. http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8448/shuttleles956hi0tj.jpg http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/278/s83325692vl.jpg

1985

ascan1984

Guest

carp

Guest

najab

Guest

radarredux

Guest

ascan1984

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

najab

Guest

dobbins

Guest

mattblack

Guest

dobbins

Guest

n_kitson

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

dobbins

Guest

najab

Guest

n_kitson

Guest

stephentracey

Guest

drwayne

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

viper101

Guest

ascan1984

Guest

carp

Guest

drwayne

Guest

carp

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page