How close were we to making the shuttle Great?

mikejz · Oct 22, 2005

I was playing around in Excel, and started to figure the time from launch to launch (launch, mission, landing, processing, stacking, crawler, launch) for an orbiter And I noticed something intresting, pre-51L a turn around of under 90 days was not uncommon. The record was Atlantis with 51-J and 61-B. 53 Days. What made such a fast turn around possible? If that 53 day turnaround was normal, with four orbiters (Columbia seemed to turn around far slower) That would of translated to 24 launches per year--once every other week. The best turn around post 51-L was Columbia with STS-83/94 with 87 Days. this begs the question, If there had more of a focus on making processing quicker and or easier--Would the shuttle actually of had a chance of living up to it's potential? Or was the shuttle's complexity and inablity for a sustainable quick turn around what doomed it?

mikejz · Oct 22, 2005

by 'normal' I mean that the processing resulting in an average turn around in 53 days (so some quicker, some slower) with the exisiting work force. In other words, as a goal for improvement of the process. So COULD the shuttle or the processing procedures been modified to allow for the this sort of turn around with normal operations?

mikejz · Oct 22, 2005

I mean if there were proposals for modifing the shuttle or with processing equipment to allow for turnarounds on an orbiter in that timetable without changing the manpower used?

najab · Oct 23, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I mean if there were proposals for modifing the shuttle or with processing equipment to allow for turnarounds on an orbiter in that timetable without changing the manpower used? <hr /></blockquote>Of course there were proposals, the question is how many of them would have been feasible? The proposal which, in my mind at least (because it was my proposal), would have had the greatest impact on turnaround time is the idea of a payload bay module (or liner).This would be a module the exact size of the payload bay that interfaced with the Orbiter structure and systems at fixed attachment points. The payload would be integrated with the module at the customer's premises and then the whole module would be quick-fitted into the Orbiter.With a few payload modules, it wouldn't be necessary to have the Orbiter 'tied down' with lengthy payload-bay deconfig/reconfig between missions, it would just be a matter of sliding a new module in, running some standard interface checks and away we go.

tuckerfan · Oct 23, 2005

The simple answer is "Not Very." http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-03p1.html <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />CAIB member John Logsdon pointed out that in May 1971 the Office of Management and the Budget had placed a mandatory cap of $5.5 billion on the Shuttle's development cost -- and that NASA's "ultimate presentation, at least to the White House level, said you could do that" and fly the Shuttle "with an operating cost of $118 a pound (of payload). I'm curious where those numbers came from particularly the operating cost." Thompson's response was, first, to casually admit that NASA had lied to Congress about development costs -- apparently with the connivance of President Nixon and the OMB:<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"The most capability we EVER put in the program is when we built the facilities for the [External] Tank at Michoud -- we left growth capability to where you could get up to 24 flights a year by producing tanks, if you really wanted to get that high. We never thought you'd ever get above 10 or 12 flights a year.<hr /></blockquote>So from the beginning, they knew they wouldn't be able to a very large number of flights per year out of the birds.

dobbins · Oct 23, 2005

The first indication that there was something seriously wrong with the Shuttle program came within months of NASA committing to it. Von Braun left. Von Braun would do almost anything to build rockets and even better to be part of a space program. You would have to beat the man off with a stick to get him away from rockets. The Shuttle proved to be that stick. From then on I had misgivings about the program, ones that later proved to be well founded.

drwayne · Oct 23, 2005

Remind me of the timing - could his health have been a factor at that point? Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

tap_sa · Oct 23, 2005

LINK He left NASA in 1972, four years later found out he had cancer. Check the link and picture there of him in his new NASA HQ office in 1970 and compare to previous pics. He looks like he knew already then that Apollo program and his dreams of future space programs are going down the drain <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

barrykirk · Oct 24, 2005

You're right, it's a sad looking picture... He knew that the dark ages the last 30 years were coming.

CalliArcale · Oct 25, 2005

On the other hand, at least now we've got a space station. That's what he'd originally wanted to do (although being a devoted spaceflight nut, he had no qualms about going to the Moon instead <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ). So it's not been an entirely dark 30 years. And the unmanned space program has grown by leaps and bounds, although I expect Von Braun would not have been so thrilled with that. He was always a man-in-space sort of person. I think what really made Von Braun throw in the towel wasn't Shuttle. It was the death of Saturn. Great things were well within reach, and it all got axed. That had to have been a terrible blow to his professional pride. <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 · Oct 25, 2005

Congress killed funding for additional Saturns in 1968, 4 years before Von Braun left.

barrykirk · Oct 25, 2005

I remember going to the Saturn museum at KSC... I was so sad that we no longer have that grand rocket. I understand what your saying. When I went to buy a t-shirt at the gift shop, it was difficult to find one that displayed the saturn in a place of prominence. If I remember, Von Braun was also an advocate for a real space station.... A space station that rotated to provide centrifugal "gravity", like the one in 2001: A space odysee.

dobbins · Oct 25, 2005

"If I remember, Von Braun was also an advocate for a real space station.... A space station that rotated to provide centrifugal "gravity", like the one in 2001: A space odysee." Given the knowledge we know have about the health problems associated with microgravity and Von Braun's interest in human flight I don't think he would have been very happy with building a microgravity research station instead of one that was working out the problems of operating one with artificial gravity.

barrykirk · Oct 25, 2005

Exactly, Sadly, and I know there are many pro/con arguments for the ISS, but sadly one of the cancelled tests was a centrifugal gravity module.

CalliArcale · Oct 25, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Congress killed funding for additional Saturns in 1968, 4 years before Von Braun left. <hr /></blockquote> Yep. He basically stuck it out until the main Apollo program was done. (Apollo 17 flew in December of 1972.) The cancellation of Apollo 18 may well have been the final straw for him. Obviously, I never knew the man, so I'm just speculating. But putting myself in his shoes, I know I'd be very frustrated by that. <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>

radarredux · Oct 25, 2005

> The payload would be integrated with the module at the customer's premises and then the whole module would be quick-fitted into the Orbiter./i> Sounds like the public storage system today where they bring the storage container to your house, you fill it up, and then they haul it back to the storage facility. http://www.pspickup.com/

radarredux · Oct 25, 2005

> And I noticed something intresting, pre-51L a turn around of under 90 days was not uncommon./i> Wasn't scheduling pressures cited as a major contributing factor to Challenger?

tuckerfan · Oct 25, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />When I went to buy a t-shirt at the gift shop, it was difficult to find one that displayed the saturn in a place of prominence. <hr /></blockquote>You mean no one has put this picture on a T-shirt yet? (The mind boggles.) http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-KSC-69PC-397.jpg

barrykirk · Oct 25, 2005

No, the t-shirt exists.... I'm wearing it right now. But I wanted one that had both the Saturn and the Apollo, but I wanted them to actual scale. I did find it, but it was a search.

drwayne · Oct 25, 2005

"Wasn't scheduling pressures cited as a major contributing factor to Challenger?" Challenger had a number of scrubs before the fateful launch that added pressure on everyone. There was some speculation at the time that there was pressure from the White House about getting the ship up in time for the State of the Union speech. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

najab · Oct 26, 2005

>Wasn't scheduling pressures cited as a major contributing factor to Challenger?Shuttle_guy physically cringes when speaking of pre-51L work conditions. 60 hour weeks were the norm and they were constantly swapping parts back and forth between Orbiters to try and get a useable stack. There were many, many divorces caused by the overwork.

mattblack · Oct 26, 2005

With the current workforce and budget in place, 3 Orbiters and with a decent break from hurricanes and the foam issue resolved (it will be), I'm told that the maximum Shuttle flight rate could safely reach 4 missions per year, 5 at a one-off stretch. Probably no more than that as after the Hubble servicing mission, it's very likely that one Orbiter will be retired. Prospects (with good fortune): 2006 -- 3x missions. One logistics & test flight (STS-121) and two ISS assembly. 2007 -- 5x missions (to clear 'backlog') Mainly ISS assembly, minimal logistics and supplies. 2008 -- 4x missions, including Hubble with that Orbiter straight into retirement, as it would be too expensive to turn it's Cargo Bay back into ISS configuration. Other 3 flights; ISS assembly only. All logistics now carried out by ESA, Japan and Russia. 2009 -- 3x missions (ISS assembly, no logistics). 2010 -- 3x missions. All ISS assembly. Second-to-last Orbiter retired after the first of these three. Last Orbiter (Endeavour?) undertakes final 2 missions. Total: 18x missions, give or take a flight. To those in the know here; Does the above look feasible? Or could the whole fleet be retired 2 flights after the final Hubble mission in 2008. <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>

pmn1 · Oct 26, 2005

This would be a module the exact size of the payload bay that interfaced with the Orbiter structure and systems at fixed attachment points. The payload would be integrated with the module at the customer's premises and then the whole module would be quick-fitted into the Orbiter. With a few payload modules, it wouldn't be necessary to have the Orbiter 'tied down' with lengthy payload-bay deconfig/reconfig between missions, it would just be a matter of sliding a new module in, running some standard interface checks and away we go. As reaction Engines propose for Skylon... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

How close were we to making the shuttle Great?

mikejz

Guest

mikejz

Guest

mikejz

Guest

najab

Guest

tuckerfan

Guest

dobbins

Guest

drwayne

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

dobbins

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

dobbins

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

tuckerfan

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

drwayne

Guest

najab

Guest

mattblack

Guest

pmn1

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page