Another question for shuttle_guy...

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

najab

Guest
How did the Shuttle get so complicated? I know you were involved with some of the design work, so you might have some insight.<p>Was it as complex as it is from the start? Was all the complexity designed into it from the beginning? Or did people keep adding systems to systems to fix the problems in the original system?<p>In software parlance: is the Shuttle the ultimate example of 'build-and-fix' development?</p></p>
 
O

omegamogo

Guest
I'm no substitute for our dear Shuttlepedia, Shuttle_Guy, but I'll give it a shot <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><Disclaimer: All that follows is Random-ass educated guessing /> Back in the '60s, it seemed the more complex/advanced you made a vessel, the better it turned out to be. With Mercury, huge achievements were made for that time, but it didn't even have an on-board computer. All navigational info was sent via radio to the astronauts who made the adjustments to the instruments. Then came Gemini, with enough technology to make Mercury seem more then a decade old with its advanced instrumentation and on board navigation computer etc, then of course, Apollo. With even more complex technology and a grander goal. <br /><br />So far, each project was more complex then the previous one and also more successful. So my guess is that as they designed the Shuttle, it didn't seem like such a bad idea to increase the complexity of the system. 1: So far that didn't go bad. And 2: It would make it harder for the Soviets, who were eager to redeem their space program, to copy the designs. At least those of certain parts.<br /><br />So perhaps it isn't so much an example of Build-and-Fix as much as a Build-and-Improve that, eventually mutated into a Build-and-Fix.<br /><br />Generally, I don't know what i'm talking about when it comes to the design strategies, but I thought about this very question a week or so ago, and this seemed like the most logical answer to me. Apologies for hijacking the question.
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>When I was in California for 3 years from 1974 to 1977 the systems design was set in stone. </i><p>Ahh, it was an overspecified project. Those can be the worst since it gives the designers/engineers no leeway to come up with 'elegant' solutions. An example of which would have been the idea you spoke of for a propellant crossfeed between the fore and aft hypergolic tanks, which could double as a trim mechanism.</p>
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
I'd like to throw my .02c worth in too.<br /><br />Complicated, undoubtedly, but a great testament to the rocket guys and girls of the time when you consider the technology they were working with when they dreamed the STS up.<br /><br />The fact that it may or may not be more complicated than needed just adds to the whole legend.<br /><br />In the 2005 mind-set we live in, you can easily imagine today's rocket-builders falling about the floor with laughter if you put a set of STS blueprints in front of them and said, "can you build me one of these please?".<br /><br />All the excuses in the world would come out about why it 'can't be done'. <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>
 
T

the_ten

Guest
<font color="yellow">"In the 2005 mind-set we live in, you can easily imagine today's rocket-builders falling about the floor with laughter if you put a set of STS blueprints in front of them and said, "can you build me one of these please?". <br /><br />All the excuses in the world would come out about why it 'can't be done'."</font><br /><br />I completely disagree. From politicians, maybe. But engineers and the like? No way.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
**Sirens** Stupid Question Alert **Sirens**<br /><br />I have a lovely bronze model of an Orbiter on the back of a SCA that is dated 1975 and has the SSME config as:<br /><br />1 2<br />.3<br /><br />Two SSMEs at the top, one at the bottom.<br /><br />Was this ever the case in the design process?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts