Ever wonder about the shuttle program

[TC_sc]

The original idea, back in '80, was that by this time we would have a fleet of about 40 shuttles, we would be on gen 5 or 6 by now, rather than still flying gen 1.
At all times, there would be
1 on the launchpad
1 approaching the station
1 docked
1 returning to earth
1 in repair/refurbish.

They would ferry back and forth to the station, they would capture, repair and release satellites, they would be catching and cleaning up space junk, and by now we would also be servicing the lunar station. and be well on our way to building not only a Mars station but either one in the asteroids or on Europa.

That's just amazing, almost so much so to be true. Could that really have been feasible? Sounds like a terrific case to be in LEO with a space station and shuttle, even to clean up space junk. Would repairing a satellite really make economic sense? Even if it didn't work out, it should be practical things like this that should be tried.

That was the vision when they had planned on having a cheap, reusable spaceplane. The final design never met that criteria for all the reasons ruri mentioned, and then some. If you can get to orbit cheap enough, I think repairing some satellites would be cost affective.

 

[Geoduck2]

When the shuttle was introduced there was a lot of talk about how it was the first version. There were SUPPOSED to be other models. An unmanned version with double the cargo capacity. A 6 passenger/minimal cargo version boosted by a single SRB and an upper stage (sounds familiar but the capsule had wings), and several other designs. The current Shuttle was SUPPOSED to be just the first model. Unfortunately they didn't follow through. Suppose Boing had designed the 707 but never designed another jet? Suppose Apple designed the original Mac, but never did another computer? That's what NASA has with the Shuttle. A great design for its time but badly dated now.

 

[skypilot001]

I would say if you have to ask that question you should refer back to the questions of what if Chris never landed or if lewis & Clark stopped at the mississippi and turned around be cause it was to wide to cross. I guess to point in question is that in the chase for advancement in life you have to except death at some point and time. I am sure that during the boat ride chris lost a few during his travels and I would say the same for lewis & clark as well! sounds shallow but they did not stop the qwest to move forward. So if we are to take the next big step and say going back to the moon :roll: :roll: :? :?: or taking the big step and go to mars it takes guts and the power of just doing.
The time has come for the rich to invest and make it happen. SO what if we make a mistake and fail we do that everyday we spent time on this planet if we wait to much longer we will never get past all the space junk that floats above us just another risk to get past so hit the gas and push on through.

 

[Starwarden]

My question is posted to Ruri specifically, although anyone who can answer it should feel free to do so. you mentioned a cold frame versus a hot frame, and although I think I understand your point on this, I would ask that you elaborate on it.

 

[_110501_]

Howdy.....hello.....1.NASA and the "commercial world" should and ought to be working together to keep shuttle style and type as a viable operating organization. It should be reconfigured so that gas tanks can be sent into orbit and shuttles can attach themselves. They should be for sale. Privately owned. To build what ever one wants, in space, on moons, planets, asteroids, comets, etc.etc. Only one rule, no initiation of violence. The bounty is to he who owns it and works it. 2. Human is beyond brilliance, with a continuation of inventiveness for measurement of the natural states. Soon that knowledge will be used for travel. 3. Never ever not for a second give any thoughts of abandoning the moon. Were that to happen then adversaries of the USA could and will have missiles aimed at us. If there are to be missiles on the moon, make sure that they are American, for the protection of America, by Americans. Personally, it would be nice were the moon to be a weapon free environment. Let it be for the enjoyment of its' uses. It would be a great spot for a summer home. All of the amenities of a city on the earth, only on the moon. Wow, would that create millions of jobs. 4.and now.....for sci fi....net-ftl (non exhaust thrust-faster than light) craft should and ought to be cheap, for the general public to buy. Or would you not want that on others in the universe? As advances are made, and they will be made, new questions of inter action between peoples arise. On the earth the extremes of cultures react against each other, usually with violence. Will that exist as humans encounter others? The main priority for most all creatures is the protection of the nest. As human behavior evolves its' masses may venture forth. But at first and for a long time, they may venture forth only if they pay. net-ftl is not for sale. services maybe......for sci-fi.....

 

[rubicondsrv]

If STS-107 never burned up, another mission would have burned up shortly thereafter. It wasn't a random event. The tanks shed too much material & there was no way to detect TPS problems. The tanks would still shed & there would still be no repair capability or way of knowing if tiles were damaged.

the tanks have had foam shedding problems as long as the sts has been in use.

the risk of foam damage would be unchanged from pre sts 107 levels.

 

[TC_sc]

If STS-107 never burned up, another mission would have burned up shortly thereafter. It wasn't a random event. The tanks shed too much material & there was no way to detect TPS problems. The tanks would still shed & there would still be no repair capability or way of knowing if tiles were damaged.

the tanks have had foam shedding problems as long as the sts has been in use.

the risk of foam damage would be unchanged from pre sts 107 levels.

There was little to no loss until the switch to the lighter non-freon based foam.

BTW, today I was at the Smithsonian and saw the Enterprise. What an awesome looking spacecraft. Its a sight everyone should enjoy at sometime.

 

[jim48]

I say keep the old girls flying for a couple more years. It just galls me to have to rely on the Russians and Soyuz. It also galls me that they kept their Soyuz lines open while we shut down all of the Apollo stuff. We should have at least kept the command module and Saturn I lines going. We should have done a lot of things, shouldn't we?

 

[TC_sc]

I say keep the old girls flying for a couple more years. It just galls me to have to rely on the Russians and Soyuz. It also galls me that they kept their Soyuz lines open while we shut down all of the Apollo stuff. We should have at least kept the command module and Saturn I lines going. We should have done a lot of things, shouldn't we?

:lol: I was looking at the Apollo and the Soyuz today and thinking you gotta be a lot nuts to strap in either of them. I had forgotten just how small they were.

 

[TC_sc]

Odd this topic about the foam shedding since today I was looking at SpaceHab and told my friend thats why Columbia was destroyed. For that mission there was no robotic arm, there was no way to exit the craft. If this had been a typical mission to ISS the damage to the carbon/carbon panels might have bee discovered and the shuttle would have never gone through reentry.

If it had been a non ISS mission then its possible the crew might have died anyway, but who knows, we might could have at least tried to mount some kind of rescue mission.

I'm still thinking back to what ruri said about the cold frame design. If they had used titanium, then the shuttle would have had a good chance anyway. Look how far the shuttle was into maximum heating before it started breaking apart. Maybe without the extra weight of SpaceHab it might have made it anyway.

 

[vulture4]

I've been looking at the bottom of the orbiter for 20 years. There was always foam damage. It was a maintenance problem but it never endangered the orbiter and wasn't considered a safety problem. Moreover, the foam shedding off the tank did not cause the STS-107 loss. Columbia was lost because a preformed foam block glued to the bipod strut came off and happened to strike the RCC leading edge. This was because of poor adhesion between the block and the strut, not because of the composition of the foam. It was unfortunately not recognized as a safety hazard until STS-107.Had the bipod strut foam blocks (or, potentially, the ice frost ramps) been recognized as a hazard, they could have been removed (as is now the case) or the adhesive could have been improved. Had there been a nonfatal impact this would certainly have been the case. Or there could have been another 107 flights without an impact; it's impossible to say.

But this particular failure mode will not happen again, since the foam blocks are no longer used, and maintenance costs have actually been reduced since most of the minor damage from small fragments of tank foam has been eliminated. Since the problems that caused the losses of Challenger and Columbia have been corrected, any new failure that could cause the loss of a shuttle would be a problem that has not become apparent in 128 flights. So while the Shuttle is not completely safe, it is safer than it has ever been. One could argue that it is still too dangerous. But anyone who believes that should insist that the next flight be canceled.. Each flight is an independent event; indeed if further improvements are made each flight will be less hazardous than the one before. There is no possible statistical basis for saying we should cancel it because "the risk is too high" but only after seven more flights. And hey, we just flew four times in five months with no major problems. Canceling the program now simply makes no sense.

As to the hot frame design, the Columbia's main spar was made of inconel, the same high-temperature alloy used for the skin of the X-15, and it melted anyway. Some sort of leading edge insulation is still needed. But flexible RCC is available now which would be much less brittle, if anyone were interested in improving the design.

 

[Fluteman2000]

I remember the reason they wanted to build the shuttle was to have a cheap way to space with a large cargo capacity and mostly to save the cost of the throw away rockets they were using back then in the 70's. There was a lot of talk about the waste of hardware with each launch..Remember what came back with Apollo was a tiny capsule. The rest went into the ocean. With the shuttle the only waste was the large external tank that once empty went into the ocean.. There was even talk about letting it reach space and using it for something there. The boost rockets were recoverable after landing in the ocean. It was all about cost.. Well that didn't turn out so well..The shuttle was designed and built by the lowest bidder with many resulting shortcuts in the shuttle's design..no air breathing engines for example..and no effort was made for future upgrades in it's design..It's whole purpose was to service a space station that didn't exist when the shuttle went online.. That went into the ocean too.. It was called Skylab..That station could have been expanded and built into a large platform for the shuttle to service when it went active. No effort was made to save it.
I do think that going back to a stack rocket arrangment like apollo is a step backwards. Instead build another shuttle like machine with all the things added back to it the original shuttle had deleted from it..The overall design has already been proven..
Fluteman

 

[Eman_3]

With the shuttle style configuration where components are stacked side-by-side, there will always be a risk that debris coming off one component could impact another. Even if you totally eliminate the foam insulation problem, there would still be lots of matter being shed. For instance, ice buildup on the fuel tank.

After the Apollo missions, NASA and the USA were at a crossroads and lacked direction. Since the cost of the booster rockets was considered a total waste, the concept of a totally reusable space transportation system appeared desirable. So was born the shuttle and the STS. The original ideas were simple and realistic. But the end result became an engineers nightmare, because it was designed by a committee.

Eventually the shuttle was built and flown into space. But it was built to service missions, to deliver people and/or cargo into space. But sadly, since the shuttle ate into NASA's budget so much, it became the mission. The shuttle was supposed to be the delivery truck, and just that alone. But instead, it morphed into the entire parade.

So what came of this was a transportation system without a clearly defined mission, such as Apollo's going to the moon. So NASA reinvented the shuttle and it was used in all kinds of missions, even some as public relations work. Only when a space station was decided on did the shuttle finally have a mission it could do.

But previous accidents have really changed NASA. In a lot of ways, for the better since safety is now taken seriously by all levels of management. For the worse because NASA is unwilling to take risks that could further erode public confidence (spelled money). The new hardware coming out is fundamentally the same as from the Apollo era. Heck, they are even using the same heat shield material as Apollo.

It all comes back to the political environment in the USA. For the lawmakers to approve money for a NASA budget requirement, it has to be appealing to the public. But for a public easily distracted by MTV, reality shows and youtube, it has to be something special. it has to entertain, be very interesting, and hold the public appeal for years.

Meanwhile the Russians built a reliable rocket to get into space, and have only refined the basic design. It isn't fancy, it doesn't do tricks, all it does is deliver people or cargo into space.

This is the real situation. The USA is retiring the shuttle and it will be a few years before they have the ability to laiunch man into space. Meanwhile the Russians will continue launching into space, continuing an unbroken sage of manned spaceflight that began with Gagarin. They and others will continue the exploration of space, and along with others reach the moon and Mars long before the USA.