Is the space shuttle too risky to use?

[rogers_buck]

Scrubbed launch because of thunderheads in the area. If lightning were the only consideration, I wonder if it is really less risky keeping the vehicle on the pad another day vs. a possible strike? A strike would be bad, but keeping the shuttle cold can't be good either...<br />

 

[vogon13]

IIRC, there is a 'spire' on the launch tower for the lightning problem.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Prior to Columbia's loss, since it was the only orbiter that could not dock with ISS, I would have no objection to the others being modified into ISS-specialists -- even if they could no longer do Spacelab/Spacehab missions or service Hubble. It was like how there will be two versions of CEV -- one for the moon and one for ISS.<br /><br />However, with Columbia gone, that problem is a bit more t&%$#@!. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Yeah, that's for strikes on the pad. But Apollo X took a hit during ascent that blew several breakers and soiled a large number of under garmets. That's where the lightning strike being an unacceptable and unnecessary risk came from. But the reality of the shuttle is that cold soaking of the foam can lead to serpration risks. I wonder if the strike vs. shed analysis would really have resulted in a scrub if it was performed. My gut feel is that it would have been better to light the fuse if there were no clouds overhead. Also, 20 miles isn't really a sufficient safegaurd for lightning if you want to be 100% safe. There have been instances of storms 100 miles away killing people under clear skies...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[lampblack]

Ummm... it was Apollo 12 that took a lightning strike during the early phase of ascent. Scrambled the computers pretty good, and the astronauts were flying blind for a bit.<br /><br />For at least a few seconds, they didn't know whether they were coming or going. Here's a 1999 story describing it from dear ol' space.com:<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/apollo12_blastoff_991112.html<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[qso1]

IIRC, the shuttle can be scrubbed and the propellants replenished for up to 48 hours before they would have to detank and retank again. These kinds of scrubs have occured several times over the life of the program.<br /><br />The tank has whats known as a loli (Limited Operating Life Time IIRC) cycle which basically means there is a limit to the number of times it can be tanked and detanked..<br /><br />A rollback would involve a lengthy delay. <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]

Thats correct, its something like 80 feet tall. <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]

The last Spacelab flight was 1998. That system was retired to make way for ISS. The main reason Columbia was unable to do ISS missions was its weight. It was too heavy to carry ISS payloads to the 51 degree orbit ISS is in.<br /><br />The other three orbiters can and have done ISS missions or service Hubble. <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>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Due to the risk averse nature of American society since Vietnam NASA will continue to struggle. They will also struggle due to the public's lack of interest in space. Those of you who work in aerospace or technically similar fields may not recognize this fact. A large and growing portion of the public was not alive for the moon landings and consequently do not have the foggiest clue as to why space is important. We live in a self absorbed, "what are you going to do for me now" type society that is not curious or patient enough to reap the long term reward that exploring space can deliver. Engineers do not run the politics or the money that flows into NASA. These are facts that are difficult to deny. <br /><br />Also, consider this. Due to current federal budget situation, the war on terror and Washington's committment and incopetence on handling natural disaster relief, the next administration may Nixon NASA's budget in '08. Space will only be made a priority in the public's eye whenever there is something immediately in it for them. Tourism, R & D, and entrepreneurialism will save NASA and the world's manned presence in space. NASA's future focus will shift to science and new methods of propulsion almost entirely. SpaceX, Bigelow, SpaceDev and others will beat NASA and the Chinese to the moon and beyond. Does anyone really believe that Project Constellation will survive the political winds for the next 15 years? Capitalism is bottom line oriented and it will happen, especially when the world and the aerospace industry begins to absorb the impact of nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing. Corporations will lead us to space and make the world wealthier in the process.<br /><br />SLJ

 

[pathfinder_01]

“Columbia was not capable of docking with the station. So what else do you use it for?”<br /><br />Actually sadly the last modifications to Columbia made it able to dock with the station. It was still too heavy to do any assembly work, but could have carried crew to the station if for some reason the need arose. <br />

 

[qso1]

Thats true, and unfortunate Columbia was not able to be utilized for ISS. <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>

 

[halman]

Something which I think is of critical importance in this discussion is the fact that both Space Shuttle losses have been a result of management decisions. Challenger was lost because it was decided that the vehicle would be launched in spite of extremely cold weather overnight at the pad. There was considerable evidence that the O-rings would not seal properly at low temperatures, however, due to extreme political pressure from somewhere, NASA choose to go for it.<br /><br />Prior to the loss of Columbia, there had been several serious foam strike incidents. Yet management decided not to take any direct action to alleviate the dangers of foam strikes, choosing instead to leave it to field operations to correct. In other words, instead of grounding the fleet in the face of overwhelming evidence that there was a threat of losing a vehicle and crew, the management at the time decided to continue flying while seeking a solution. This is contrary to all existing safety procedures, which call for the grounding of all aircraft of a a type involved in an unsolved accident resulting in loss of the vehicle and passengers and crew. Witness the MD-80 grounding following the loss of the Alaska Air vehicle due to the jackscrew failure in the tail control surfaces.<br /><br />I personally believe that the reactions to the loss of the Columbia have been an attempt to obscure those management decisions, by calling the safety of the vehicle into question, and making a big show of 'fixing' the problem. The same thing happened after the Challenger loss. All attention was focused on the O-ring seals, and diverted from the highly questionable decision to launch in those particular conditions.<br /><br />How many people have their cars completely inspected every six months for cracked brake hoses, leaking wheel cylinders, fuel lines, vacum hoses, coolant hoses, worn brake components, chafed wires, burned out lamps, malfunctioning safety restraints, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera? The <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

Excellent points and for years I often called the Challenger accident an accident by management. The shuttle still owed us an accident strictly by hardware failure as it were. The Columbia accident brings the management accident totals to 2. Technically however, hardware failures were the cause but they were hardware failures traceable to management decisions. <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>

 

[gofer]

(Mis)management of those who designed the hardware, perhaps? As much as I'm attached to the shuttle and the STS for sentimental reasons in general, I think, it was an a priori known failure thrust onto both the management and the engineers (and the taxpayers) against their will by the politicians (Nixon and Nixon's ) Nothing new here.

 

[qso1]

True, this is traceable to the decisions made which as always are based on cost. The Nixon Administration capped the shuttle program at $5.5 B dollars in 1972. The current design was chosen because the upfront cost estimates were less than if they had gone with the fully reuseable two stage version floating around on paper in 1970-71 which was estimated to cost $10 B dollars for upfront development but estimated to be cheaper to operate whereas the current shuttle was estimated to be more expensive to operate. This has proven true for the current shuttle but may well have been the same case for a two stage reuseable system had it been developed.<br /><br />Ultimately, the complexity of a liquid rocket system at current technological capability may keep costs high unless private enterprise can somehow come up with something much less costly. <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>

 

[alokmohan]

Hope they wont any risky shuttle for human beings.

 

[j05h]

> Actually sadly the last modifications to Columbia made it able to dock with the station. It was still too heavy to do any assembly work, but could have carried crew to the station if for some reason the need arose.<br /><br />Thanks Pathfinder, I was under the impression that Columbia was going to be used for crew rotations, and that STS 107 was it's last non-ISS mission. Also, could it handle the MPLM? Not nearly as heavy as major components and all.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[fragrance]

Best wishes to the coming of the shuttle Discovery's launch, on 4th of this month. Hope they will have a fine clear weather soon...although no one is sure about Florida's chanageable summer weather. Pray for the seven crew members.

 

[halman]

One of the most galling things about the entire shuttle program was the refusal to build the 7 orbiters that were originally planned. All of the cost estimates and launch rate projections were based upon a fleet of at least 7 vehicles. I am sure that most people either ignore this or are unaware of it when critisizing the program. The orbiters were very successful from the first launch, yet Congress would not cough up the cash to build the system as it was designed.<br /><br />I have gotten the impression that our government is only interested in demonstrating that it has the capability to go into space, but not to actually do anything there. This kind of attitude goes all the way back to the days of Apollo, I think, when there was no plan whatsoever to follow up on the early landings.<br /><br />In my opinion, we have made fools of ourselves as a nation by building the most complex system ever created, and then doing nothing with it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

"All of the cost estimates and launch rate projections were based upon a fleet of at least 7 vehicles. I am sure that most people either ignore this or are unaware of it"<br /><br />Well, I for one was un-aware of that. Very interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>> Actually sadly the last modifications to Columbia made it able to dock with the station. It was still too heavy to do any assembly work, but could have carried crew to the station if for some reason the need arose.<br /><br />Thanks Pathfinder, I was under the impression that Columbia was going to be used for crew rotations, and that STS 107 was it's last non-ISS mission. Also, could it handle the MPLM? Not nearly as heavy as major components and all. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Minor correction: Columbia was scheduled to receive the ODS (Orbiter Docking System) from one of the others, I believe Discovery, following STS-107. Additionally, I think they were going to move the EDO pallet (which provides extra reactants for the fuel cells to support longer missions) into the other orbiter. Columbia would've taken over the smaller payload flights to ISS, and the other orbiter would've taken over things like launching massive space telescopes. But as fate would have it, that was not to be.<br /><br />One of the frequently overlooked losses of STS-107 was the unfortunate loss of the EDO pallet. That marked the end of long-duration Shuttle flights, because the budget isn't really there to build a new one, not when there's nothing that absolutely requires it. Also the Spacehab module was lost.<br /><br />Indeed, Columbia would've been able to accomodate an MPLM. It could not have carried something like Destiny or the P6 truss, but it could've carry logistics without difficulty. <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>

 

[commander_keen]

I think the shuttle is too risky to use. It does not make sense that we have to ground an entire shuttle over one foam incident, when we do not even realize that we are sending it into one of the most hostile environments imaginable.

 

[willpittenger]

Could Columbia have handled Destiny pallets or the Cargo modules? (I assume in the later case, the weight would have to be watched.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

The biggest reason why the shuttle had no where to go for 20 years? The STS system itself cost to much. That can be blamed on design changes down the road to accommodate the Air Force. Then they back out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The STS system itself cost to much. That can be blamed on design changes down the road to accommodate the Air Force. Then they back out.</font>/i><br /><br />Well, it is all very complex, but if someone asked me for a single explanation, I think that is as good as any.<br /><br />Had NASA been able to do then what NASA is planning now, namely separating crew from cargo, then NASA could have had a better chance with good, small shuttle for delivering crew and a small amount of supplies to Earth orbit. Large cargo could continue to go up separately on expendables.</i>