A poll - do you think the shuttle will launch in July?

[j05h]

Predictions: Discovery won't fly until October. Last flight of system with harrowing robot landing and stranded crew on ISS. Shuttles are retired in disgrace instead of honor. Even without this "negative" scenario, the STS is going to continue current behavior through end of program. No chance of 4-6 flights/year from my view. <br /><br />Or, we could be smart; NASA could stand-down the STS, find other ways to finish ISS and move onward. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Force of habit sir.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

And you need to stop calling people names, that is a technique used over on free space. And I don't want to see it used here! I am not NASA's or anybody else's fanboy! I HAVE said that the shuttle should be cancelled totally if NASA can't get off its rear and at least make one launch this year. This is especially true as they are going to the relative safe haven of the ISS anyway! <br /><br />I didn't run down Elon Musk and spacex because they have problems either, so get off my case. This IS a dangerous and difficult business, and I do believe that NASA has done a pretty good job of it over all. I guess if that makes me a fanboy then I will just have to be a fanboy. <br /><br />What I am NOT fond of is a congress that expects an agency to produce a Mercedes Benz on a Ford budget! If they are going to expect NASA to do all the things they seem to want NASA to do, then they should have the guts to raise the budget accordingly, or just don't expect so much! It is really that simple!<br /><br />How is your own work coming along?

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Doc, would you knock off that "Sir" nonsense?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>It's the 'Rimmer salute' when he says it that I've drawn the line at. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The downside of room temp LH2 is that it has the same density as room temp GH2.... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not neccesarily. Not to get too nitpicky on what was really just meant as a joke, you can make a gas into a liquid just by compressing it. (Did you know that carbon dioxide is commercially transported as a liquid? It's more efficient that way, even though the tanks have to be strong enough to provide the neccesary pressure.) And while I have no idea how much pressure it would take to do that to hydrogen, certainly you can improve its volume-efficiency by compressing it. I don't think you'd beat (or even approach) cryogenic liquid hydrogen for that, though.<br /><br />There's a thread over in Technology (IIRC) about how Nissan is experimenting with a 10,000 PSI hydrogen tank for fuel cells. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

I don't see where I called you names. In fact, I called you by name, though I said "you and the NASA fanboys". "AND", not "and the other". You should keep in mind that, every time you get irritated with criticism of NASA, we get doubly irritated: for every time that someone blithely gives NASAs corruption, mismanagement, overspending, or incompetence a pass there is another at the same time totally denigrating the accomplishments of the private space industry that are attained for a tiny percent of the cost that NASA spends on such things. The very fact that private launch companies are demonstrating, day in and day out, lower cost launch options than our governments bloated system ever did.<br /><br />There are a number of examples cropping up:<br />a) SS1 vs X-15: budget vs achievements<br />b) Bigelow vs ISS: BA's inflatables are demonstrating an affordability that were never seen by ISS module contracts, even before a single module was launched.<br />c) SpaceX: three scrubs and one mid-flight failure is still markedly better than what the government went through back in the day with Vanguard and other programs, particularly when you compare money spent.<br />d) Most of what NASA started its launch program from wasn't paid for by tax dollars. The research of Robert Goddard was paid for by private grants, primarily. Yes, he got a $5,000 Smithsonian grant, but he also got a $50,000 Guggenheim grant.<br /><br />I don't think any of us denigrate NASA for the things they have truly accomplished and done well with. The problem is that such attainments are trumpeted in public, while billions in waste, cancelled projects, technologies that will never see the light of day, contracting by congressional district, bad design decisions, are shuffled under the rug and given the Sgt. Shultz treatment by those I call "fanboys".<br /><br />The fact is, that if private industry had the money to blow up their noses that NASA does every year, we'd have cities on the moon by now.

 

[jschaef5]

Alright quick idea... What if we put foam on the inside of the tank and put some coating to protect it from the liquid propelents... We would lose some volume but couldn't we make the tank wall bigger to compensate? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nibb31]

That would be in effect be a complete redesign of the ET. And you think it's taking too much time to do some wind tunnel testing and PAL ramp modifications?

 

[j05h]

Redesigning anything major like the tank insulation is the equivalent of a total redesign. It isn't going to happen. If the current Shuttle design is flawed beyond an easy fix, don't fly it. This isn't backing down from a challenge, I know what a brick wall looks like. This proves something people have talked about since before the STS was built: side-stacked rockets are a bad idea. Inline stacks (or air-dropping lighter craft) are the designs that make sense.<br /><br />JOsh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

I'm just saying that its an idea...<br /><br />And its not a whole redesign like you say. The tubing and everything would stay the same. The general dynamics of the whole tank would be the same. Very little wind tunnel testing would need to be made but the only real difference would be having the foam and propelent touching each other which doesn't sound like it would go too well.<br /><br />This way chunks would fall into the tank and not onto the shuttle, but they would need some kind of grating to stop from pluging up the feeder line.<br /><br />I am not saying this is a practical thing to do right now but just maybe a possible solution. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

>I am not saying this is a practical thing to do right now but just maybe a possible solution.<br /><br />We've covered foam-inside-ET several times. Google an image of the ET, there isn't room inside, except in the interstage, for foam. Inside the tanks is a very bad idea. It's not a solution, the solution is to not side-stack payloads. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

"We would lose some volume but couldn't we make the tank wall bigger to compensate?" - Me about 3 posts up...<br /><br />I still don't see the problem with foam inside the tank. Fixing issues that arise from putting the foam inside the tank seems like it may be safer than trying to stop large chunks while still hoping nothing hits the orbiter.<br /><br />"It's not a solution, the solution is to not side-stack payloads. "<br /><br />Well the current system is side stacked so we need solutions for it. It would be stupid and quite a waste, IMO, to just ditch the shuttle. The problem has a solution. You just need to think a little and be creative. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

>Well the current system is side stacked so we need solutions for it. It would be stupid and quite a waste, IMO, to just ditch the shuttle. The problem has a solution. You just need to think a little and be creative.<br /><br />The current system can not sustain that kind of 'fix'. It's supposed to be shutdown in 3.5 years. The solution is to fly on EELV and other available launchers. <br /><br />Here, in short is what happens with your solution: regardless of material chosen, cryopumping, brittleness and sloshing will combine to put a lot of broken, icy, foam into the fuel stream. Grating isn't going to keep it out of the pumps. <br /><br />Don't "ditch" the Shuttle, retire it with grace. It's obvious that they can't keep up even with the 12-flight manifest. This is old, old hardware, folks. Tin whiskers and all that.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>