Interesting OLD space shuttle article

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Then I guess what I should say is that I dispise the Orbiter part of the Shuttle launch system.</font><br /><br />Why? The Shuttle Orbiter is the most capible spacecraft every flown. It has performed several tasks that are far beyond the ability of anything else. And it's done it more than 100 times, with a failure rate about on par with Soyuz, better than Apollo, and those were just dinky little capsules. <br /><br />*EDIT*<br />What else could have perfomed the Spacelab or ELDF missions? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

I remember an old Popular Science article which came out shortly before the shuttle flew. I think I still have it somewhere. It listed several key areas that would have to work or the shuttle would be lost. Among them were the items that actually did fail to cost us Challenger and Columbia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Leo-<br />If any spacecraft had a foot long hole in the heatshield, it would have burned up. More than 99% of the 113 Shuttle missions have not resulted in heat shield failure. But I want better than 99%, but those dog-goned laws of physics don't like to be cheated. The SRB problem could/should have been addressed long before STS-51L, there was significant burn through on previous launches. Had 51L flown with the new field joint, we'd be back on the Moon by now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

> They had warnings for both accidents and they iqnored them.<<br /><br />Whoa. The STS-51L warnings are well documented - even the phone calls warning of a disaster in the making are documented....but this is the first I've heard or seen anywhere that a previous foam shed was deemed a warning to be fixed?<br /><br />In fact I'm sure this is the first I've seen as it has lawsuit written all over it.<br /><br />Who's they? NASA managers?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Didn't know that either. You can here!<br /><br />There's no way to sound like I'm not trying to dig dirt here, but would it be fair to say that after the foam strike on the SRB that someone went and said "Hey, if this had hit the Orbiter, we've got a problem, it needs fixing"?<br /><br />

 

[najab]

It was on STS-112 if you want to look up more info.<br /><br />An interesting reference was made to that event during a STS-107 MMT meeting when...what's the name of crazy looking lady...hmm...can't remember right now, anyway she said (paraphrasing) "Let's look at the rationale for flying STS-113 and make sure it wasn't lousy."

 

[najab]

Linda Ham. That's it.

 

[redgryphon]

<font color="yellow">It was on STS-112 if you want to look up more info. </font><br /><br />Pages 122-126 of the CAIB report is probably the best place to start.<br /><br />Instead of saying "hey, if this hit the orbiter, we've got a problem," they said "we've flown 112 flights without critically damaging the orbiter this way, so there's no urgent problem".

 

[shuttle_rtf]

And this was Atlantis' launch with the ET cam looking down on the ET and Orbiter all the way to SRB sep. How many seconds into the launch did this happen...is this sort of thing visable?

 

[Leovinus]

I think this is the cover of the issue I was thinking of:<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[farmerman]

To me the shuttle itself has never been the problem. It may be more expensive than first thought to get back to flight , but problem has been the launching system it's attached to. NASA knew about the orings and the foam shedding before the accidents happened but failed to correct them. I wished they would have addressed the issues before the accidents, NASA could of had more flights and the shuttle wouldn't be as doomed as it is now. I just hope that the future shuttle/space craft has the same capabilities as the shuttle.

 

[adzel_3000]

The Shuttle is a marvelous flying machine, and its carried a lot of dreams in the last 25 years. It was originally intended to serve as a piece of a much larger system. NASA has done its best to make use of what it was given.<br /><br />I am not sure what will come after Shuttle but I have an impression many lessons learned from STS will be incorporated into it. It will be better, but like any piece of technology, it will have its imperfections. The people flying STS have accepted that, and they keep flying. The people launching STS do their damndest to understand a system that is more complex, yet from a technical standpoint, as unique and monumental as a Chartres Cathedral. And they do a great job, too.<br /><br />Its what we've got and all those folks will do their best to wrap up the STS program in a solidly dedicated and noble manner.<br /><br />Yes, and I am a shuttle fan. And if they had a contest tomorrow for a ticket on that last shuttle I would sign up and if I won I would be proud and honored to fly. <br /><br />That won't happen, of course. But I will be as excited about the upcoming missions as I was about Columbia's flight right down to those last seconds.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />A3K<br /><br />

 

[farmerman]

I guess I should have been more clear, I meant the srb's and the external tank have been the problems. The shuttle orbiter itself has never been the source of a major failure.

 

[Blur]

Think about this- it would've never had either of those major failures if the shuttle had been mounted on top rather than beside it's booster.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Think about this- it would've never had either of those major failures if the shuttle had been mounted on top rather than beside it's booster.</font><br /><br />I don't know. I understand the requirement to have the Shuttle Orbiter sitting beside the ET because the engines are in the Orbiter, but why would the Braun(Soviet Shuttle) sit beside the Energia? I would think that on top would be better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lycan359]

>Every one has an opinion; too bad your is so wrong.<<br /><br />While I appreciate the reply, could you tell me how I'm so wrong?

 

[lycan359]

>Keep waiting - I don't have time to pamper to Shuttle bashers.<<br /><br />All I did was ask why you like the Shuttle and I get this snarky response.<br /><br />Grow up, please.

 

[lycan359]

>Actually, you are wrong there. One of the main purposes for which the Shuttle was built was to service space stations. The sad thing is that they didn't build a space station until the Shuttle was on its way out.<<br /><br />Well kind of... The main purpose of the Shuttle was always kind of nebulous be it satellite launches, satellite retievals, spacelab missions, or space stations. As for building and servicing space stations, I personally don't see it as the right tool for the job. It would have made more sense to use a Shuttle-C to get the pieces up and use a smaller vehicle to get the crew up and back. Combining the cargo transport and crew transport just doesn't make any sense to me if the goal was to build and maintain space stations.

 

[Blur]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> I understand the requirement to have the Shuttle Orbiter sitting beside the ET because the engines are in the Orbiter <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Exactly. Maybe by now we've discovered this isn't the safest configuration.<br /><br />Besides- it makes more sense to have a reusable lower stage than a reusable upper stage. The lower stage is bigger, and it won't need as much thermal protection since it doesn't go to orbit. That is the whole ARES concept. Of course, it'll probably remain a paper spaceship just as every other spaceship thought of in my entire lifespan has been (28 years). <br /><br />Think about that, oldtimers. For many of us, the shuttle stagnation is the only american spaceflight we've ever seen. For us, it is the default to have a ton of ideas that never fly. I really think "awww- it'll never happen" whenever I hear a spacecraft concept. Can you blame me- it has been a 100% successful prediction my whole life, unless you count spaceshipone.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Well kind of... </font><br /><br />No, not kind of. A smaller vehicle couldn't have done most of the missions that Shuttle did, like LDEF, Spacelab, Solar Max, Hubble, etc... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lycan359]

>No, not kind of. A smaller vehicle couldn't have done most of the missions that Shuttle did, like LDEF, Spacelab, Solar Max, Hubble, etc...<<br /><br />I was refering to the suggestion that the Shuttle main purpose was space stations.<br /><br />Remember the thing was slated to fly 50 times a year (ha!) and without building lots and lots of space stations I don't see what it could possible be doing on all those missions.<br /><br />After the things you listed, what else was there left for the Shuttle to do? Sure every so often a mission may come up that only it can do but it isn't very often.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">After the things you listed, what else was there left for the Shuttle to do? Sure every so often a mission may come up that only it can do but it isn't very often.</font><br /><br />Just look up the Mission Logs and see for yourself. They are pretty impressive. No other spacecraft could have done these things, not to this degree. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow"><br />I don't know. I understand the requirement to have the Shuttle Orbiter sitting beside the ET because the engines are in the Orbiter, but why would the Braun(Soviet Shuttle) sit beside the Energia? I would think that on top would be better.</font><br /><br />The inital Russian design for a HLLV after the L1 was called vulcan and had the payload inline on top, the Energia system only emerged after the Soviet leadership decieded it wanted the a vehicle that was the same shape as the as the US shuttle. The Russian engineers wanted a very different shape for the orbiter.

 

[najab]

Remember that the Shuttle you see is a vehicle designed by committee. NASA's Shuttle got bigger and heavier due to Air Force requirements.

 

[farmerman]

I believe the first accident with Challenger would have still happened, if my "old mind" remembers correctly I thought that the gases from the srb ate a hole into the external tank. In the case of Columbia you're right she would have been out of danger.