Goodbye Atlantis!!!!

[mlorrey]

That explains why flights are expensive on the 727. The Orbiter is built for the flight regime, the 727 isn't.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Is there another airplane better than the 727?<br /><br /><br />If there is another airplane tougher than the 727, I'm all ears. The only one that comes close is the 747, and that's a whole different breed of cat. The 727 is a cros between a 707, B-52, and a Piper Cub.<br /><br /> Ain't nothing like it ever been built since. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />*EDIT*<br />What's better than a 727? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Just wondering, you seem to know more about these things than I do.<br /><br />Do you believe that there is a way to modify an airframe to lower the costs of maintenance that such parabolic flights put on it?

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Mike-<br />I'm a 727 Flight Engineer, and I wish there was a way to make it cheaper, but there really isn't one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> was under the impression that the Orbiter's wings didn't create much lift, and they are were pretty poor gliders to boot?</font>/i><br /><br />Well, I don't think they were added just for the "coolness factor". <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Its sad to see her go soon "2008" But its understandable with the price of the overhauls and everything...</font>/i><br /><br />Perhaps what is most interesting is that this is now so easily accepted. I remember when rumors of one shuttle being retired early and fewer than 28 shuttle flights being flown were first discussed on these boards, there was an outcry that this was impossible -- 28 flights and no fewer were needed to complete ISS.<br /><br />Times have changed...</i>

 

[steve82]

" -- 28 flights and no fewer were needed to complete ISS. <br /><br />Times have changed... "<br /><br />I think we are going to find the exact definition of "Assembly Complete" is going to become a moving, shrinking, target.<br />

 

[llivinglarge]

None of the 3 remaining shuttles belong in any museum...<br /><br />We already have 4 beautiful "shuttles" that are fulfilling that market.<br />OV-101 (Enterprise) - National Air and Space Museum<br />OV-100 (Explorer) - Kennedy Space Center<br />OV-098 (Pathfinder) - U.S. Space & Rocket Center<br />OV-095 (Resolution) - Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I think we are going to find the exact definition of "Assembly Complete" is going to become a moving, shrinking, target.</font>/i><br /><br />I think there are at least two major milestones that should easy to make and will be exciting (assuming no major foam issues this next flight): (1) moving from 2-3 person crew (I believe that happens this next flight) and (2) moving from 3-6 person crew.<br /><br />If NASA can get ISS up to a 6 person crew, and there is enough support equipment to keep them busy, ISS will be widely considered a success.</i>

 

[qso1]

I'll do a point by point just to try and shed some light on the whys or other points you have here. BTW, they are all good points.<br /><br />Superluminal:<br />Find a NASA leader with a realistic workable vision.<br /><br />My response:<br />This is one of those subjective things. Some would say Griffin has a realistic workable vision and that the current Bush plan is a realistic workable vision simply because its the least expensive option.<br /><br />Superluminal:<br />When do the American taxpayers get a say so in shuttle dismantle? I suppose never.<br /><br />My response:<br />The vast majority of taxpaying Americans would probably rather let their representatives decide that. many of them do not care what happens as there has been enough bad press to convince them the shuttle was a failed program.<br /><br />Superluminal:<br />We the public sat back and watched them dismantle Apollo a fantastic moon launch system. Now the shuttles. Yes good-bye shuttles. What a shame.<br /><br />My response:<br />And at that time, the public was swayed enough by the media and Congress that Apollo was a drain on the U.S. economy and the money could be better spent on Earthly needs. The reality is that the money was spent on bigger better deficits, more intrusive Government, more waste such as S$L bailout among others. Even I would support phasing out the shuttle if it were being replaced by a better system...one that starts with the shuttles greatest legacy...reusability.<br /><br />Superluminal:<br />Why doesn't anyone talk about the possibility of refueling the shuttles while in orbit? Why?<br /><br />My response:<br />First off, there has to be a sound reason to do so. Next, with the shuttle being phased out, no new modifications can be implemented unless they directly affect the safety of the remaining flights in a positive way.<br /><br />Superluminal:<br />It's a remarkable vehicle indeed. Most of the danger occurs during launch and re-entry.<br /><br />My response:<br />And this is true of any system <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I think the time for any systems retirement comes when something better comes along. Something that the retired system contributes to in a meaningful way. This does not appear to be happening with shuttle. The shuttles retirement should be of a system that is reausable, preferrably fully reausable. I'm not up yet on the CEV and related vehicles so I don't know how reusable they are if at all. But for shuttle, it should be replaced by a vehicle with similar capability even if the payload capability is less. After all The A.F. was what determined the original payload spec of 65,000 lbs. NASA was loking for something substantially less during the shuttles early development years.<br /><br />I suspect that what will probably happen is the shuttle will retire as soon as NASA or Washington finds an out. Not necessarily the year 2010. The Bush proposed lunar Mars efforts will stall. Mars will be dropped and the lunar effort may or may not move forward. The key year being 2009 when the new President weighs in on whether we should do the lunar Mars plans. I have always been of the persuesion that if JFK had not been assassinated, Apollo would not have gotten near where it had. Either because President Kennedy himself would probably have agreed to a joint U.S. Soviet lunar effort, or Apollo would have been voted down in subsequent budget years by Congress, especially if the rest of history played out as we know it.<br /><br />Apollo resulted at least in part IMHO, due to Kennedys status as a martyr resulting from his murder. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>We already have 4 beautiful "shuttles" that are fulfilling that market. <br />OV-101 (Enterprise) - National Air and Space Museum <br />OV-100 (Explorer) - Kennedy Space Center</i><br /><br />Explorer was built as a mockup, right? I didn't think it was a structural test article or anything like that.

 

[qso1]

Right. As I recall, The only remotely flightworthy shuttle that never flew in space was Enterprise. As I recall, Explorer is just a static display at KSC VIC or the space camp. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[steve82]

"...the shuttle will retire as soon as NASA or Washington finds an out. Not necessarily the year 2010."<br /><br />As of right now, September 30, 2010 will be the last day<br />of the Shuttle program. Long lead-time item contracts are already being cancelled. Key people have been leaving the shuttle program and transferring to CEV in droves. Unless something really drastic happens and some very expensive course reversals are made, 2010 is going to be the end.

 

[spacefire]

hey, why not make the shuttle orbiter go in space on a sub-orbital ride?<br />You take out the SSMEs and replace them with a hybrid engine or a cheap, lower thrust liquid rocket engine, and build a propellant tank in the cargo bay.<br />It would take off vertically and land horizontally.<br />The TPScan be replaced by something permanent and lighter, and that's that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Explorer isn't even a test article. There was one other sort-of-Orbiter: Pathfinder. It was a test article, I think build only for fit checks. (Sort of like the enormous SA-500F, the full-scale Saturn V mockup.)<br /><br />There were several test articles built. One of them is no more. That was Challenger, believe it or not (which explains why her number was OV-099, not OV-103). She was built originally for vibration tests, which meant her airframe had to be built every bit as tough as the real ones, which made it easier to make her flightworthy than to build a new vehicle from scratch. <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>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Unless something really drastic happens and some very expensive course reversals are made, 2010 is going to be the end.</font>/i><br /><br />The following is just speculation or food for thought...<br /><br />I think a foam incident comparable to the last flight might be enough to doom the shuttle program early. There has been too much said regarding "this must be solved" and a lot of evidence that indicates "it can't be solved".<br /><br />Having said that, the cost of an early shuttle shutdown (e.g., contract buyouts, etc.) could be mitigated by transferring those contracts to ESAS. This would be one major benefit to having chosen to go with an architecture that makes heavy use of the existing STS infrastructure.<br /><br />There would still be an issue of "obligations" to the ISS partners, but I suspect there are creative ways to keep everyone relatively happy.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">yes, it is just a wood mockup for the visitors center.</font>/i><br /><br />Sounds like the recent CEV and CXV mockups.</i>

 

[mlorrey]

""That explains why flights are expensive on the 727. The Orbiter is built for the flight regime, the 727 isn't. " <br /><br />Actually it is not. The aero loads on the Orbiter for an orbital mission are not that great and it certainly it is not designed for the number of flights that an airliner is. <br /><br />I believe the max normal load factor on the orbiter wings is only about 1.5 G's I do not think it could take a <br />zero G parabola flight. The pull out would fail the wings. "<br /><br />That doesn't sound right. The wings should be rated to whatever the max reentry rating is. We know the orbiter takes 3.5 gs on reentry normally, and that is with a reentry angle of attack of up to 40 degrees. Such an AOA and g level should indicate the standard g loading of the vehicle. <br /><br />Airliners are not built for heavy g loadings. At max takeoff weight, they can handle about 1.5 g's. Some folks point to that barrel roll that was done by the 707 back in the 1950's in Seattle over Lake Washington, as indication they can take more, but a barrel roll is a low g maneuver: a properly done one should not be more than 1.1 gs at the end of recovery.

 

[steve82]

An engineer I knew who used to work up in Wichita told me a good yarn once about one of the bizjets. He said they had a few company VIPs riding in one of the planes and the pilot did a perfectly executed barrel roll in IFR conditions and nobody in back noticed.

 

[mlorrey]

Yeah, I've seen video of a guy flying a learjet (I believe it was the guy who wrote Jonathan Livingston Seagull) with a glass of water on the dash while doing a barrel roll.

 

[drwayne]

Unofficially though?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"I know nothing, NOThinggg!"<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>

 

[llivinglarge]

So... What about the OV-095 "Resolution" cockpit?

 

[john_316]

Do they assign OV designators to everything that doesnt fly as well?<br /><br />I mean a wooden mockup? OV? Does that make sense?<br /><br />LOL<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />