It aways seemed to me the shuttle was a "concept" vehicle

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

askold

Guest
It was designed at a time that NASA didn't know what technologies worked best, so they threw in the kitchen sink when they built the shuttle.<br /><br />It's got solid rockets and it's got liquid rockets. It's got an external tank and it's got internal fuel. It has main engines and it has orbital maneuvering engines. It's got wings; it goes up like a rocket and it comes down like a plane.<br /><br />The only thing it's missing is a Chrysler 440 Hemi and a propeller.<br /><br />That complexity has not served the vehicle well.<br /><br />I think NASA should have taken what it learned from the shuttle a decade ago and designed a new vehicle using the technology that worked the best. Maybe there should be a rule that no single NASA vehicle program should go on for more than 25 years, including design time.
 
S

spayss

Guest
Fortunately we've lessened our 'worship at the altar of technology'. Folks actually boasted at the complexity of the Shuttle as if it was an attribute. The more miles of wire, the more dazzling, etc.<br /><br /> We still don't know what technology works best. That's never going to be resolved as long as humans keep pushing the envelope. What we have learned is that a bicycle will get you around the block just fine. <br />
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
This post also goes for spacefire. Now that I have (from other threads and posts) discovered that you are NOT just being negative for the sake of being negative I will respond with as much information as I can give an honest seeker of knowledge!<br /><br />Just a few minor points first. ANY vehicle that intends to operate in space MUST have some sort of rocket engines for maneuvering. There is NO air or affective gravity (if you are going at least orbital velocity) in space. So a reaction type of engine that carries its own air with it, is the only type of engine that can allow someone to move in different directions from the initial direction that the vehicle entered its orbit with!<br /><br />This is why the orbiter has to have reaction engines on both the rear and the front of the orbiter. The Orbital Maneuvering engine (larger engines in the pods at the rear of the orbiter) are further required to slow the heavy vehicle down from orbital velocity to allow it to drop into the earths atmosphere for an eventual landing. As both of these systems are pure rocket systems, they carry their own fuel and oxidizers with them in tanks in the orbiter. Thus the need for the rocket engines and internal tanks that you refer to.<br /><br />From the pure technical side of things the reasons for the solids are indeed for cost purposes. However, they are not powerful enough to get the orbiter into orbit on their own. This is why the SSME's (Space Shuttle Main Engines) are also needed. The solid rocket motors are what are called boosters, and the liquid engines are what is called sustainers. The liquid engines use up far more liquid oxygen (the oxidizer) and liquid hydrogen (the fuel) than could possibly be carried internally in the orbiter. Hence, the use of the large external tank. <br /><br />The take off sequence is as follows. The SSME's are started initially, their performance must come up to a certain value in some four seconds (something so difficult it is truly amazing
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
I guess my post would also appy to you then. Just one thing more, the technology to place delicate human beings into the most hostile evironment you can almost imagine, and even allow them to do useful work there is somewhat more complicated than riding a bicycle around the block!! If that happens to include miles upon miles of wiring then so be it!
 
P

propforce

Guest
Great job Frodo !!<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The final STS system was a set of compromises forced on NASA when the STS System was being designed. It was forced on NASA by a congress that was more interested in funding a war in Southeastern Asia than in building a truly effective STS system. And THAT is the simple truth. Good Lord I hope we are NOT going to see this happen again!! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

spayss

Guest
"If that happens to include miles upon miles of wiring then so be it! '<br /><br /> No If it HAS to include miles and miles of wire 'to get the job done' then so be it. Unfortunately many of those miles of wire accomplish nothing and cost billion of dollars when stting on the ground for 2.5 years.<br /><br /> The next manned vehicle will not be sold by anyone waxing over it's complexity. The vehicle will be put forth as a work horse that can be tweeked and modified with some degree of rational use of time and money.
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
You are correct. Saving money (by congress) up front eventually ended up costing more in the long run!<br /><br />However, I would NOT unfrotunately say that it is not going to happen again! After all, congress now has another war to consider!!
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Where do you get your information that there are miles and miles of wiring in the space shuttle that do absolutely nothing?<br /><br />The only thing that I can say might happen in this direction is that the shuttle is indeed (or at least has until now been) an ongoing project. Sometimes when newer systems are installed there still exists the older systems wiring. Sometimes quite frankly it is almost as expensive (and downright dangerous to a delicate wiring system) to un-install the wiring. So I can indeed see instances where the older wiring would be more expensive to remove than to just leave there. If it IS doing nothing then at least it is NOT harming anything now, is it?
 
G

georgeniebling

Guest
As most of your prolly realize I'm a HUGE Shuttle and NASA supporter ... but I have to admit .. askold's comment:<br /><br />"The only thing it's missing is a Chrysler 440 Hemi and a propeller. "<br /><br />THAT cracked me up ... even if it was meant to be a slam on some of the most amazing technology ever developed.
 
G

gsuschrist

Guest
"The only thing it's missing is a Chrysler 440 Hemi and a propeller"<br /><br />So true. LOL<br /><br />"Fortunately we've lessened our 'worship at the altar of technology'. Folks actually boasted at the complexity of the Shuttle as if it was an attribute"<br /><br />Unfortunately also true but not so funny. The beast turns out to be as practical as buying a car needing redesigning each time the engine is cranked up. Once again it's back to the drawing board and no flight in September. <br /><br />
 
P

paleo

Guest
askold, on the plus side the Shuttle is mostly past tense. Intelligence is learning from one's mistakes and we've certainly learned a lot from the Shuttle misadventure. Fortunately spaceflight now includes some private enterprise, the Chinese, maybe the Europens around the corner and still the Russians and Americans.<br /><br /> The Russians may lead the way today but the Americans might catch up with a new spacecraft and who knows what the Chinese will do. The more players the better. It's going to take a lot of experimentation to pull together the technology for a rational moon programme. Apollo taught us that it's important to be daring but to also have a Part Two and the Shuttle that it doesn't matter what capabilities are included if the bird sits on the ground. Soyuz has taught us that the KISS principal isn't pretty but gets the job done.
 
A

askold

Guest
Yes, the Russians bear watching - they're masters at getting stuff to work, no matter how crude the machine seems to be. Just look at the MIGs - you can land one of those things on a grass field and maintain it out in the open. <br /><br />Simple can be good.
 
J

john_316

Guest
Well whatever the rationale was then it will reappear again soon as we go foward on the CEV project. I just hope the "miles" of wiring become the 25 feet of wiring and thats enough for me...<br /><br />SSTO can be done if you really want to do it....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Thanks, I guess I am somewhat behind the times. I didn't realize that. Once again, thanks for the compliment, coming from someone like you it really means something to me!!
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Thank you very much! All compliments are very kindly received!
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Thanks very much! I am very grratified to have recieved several such compliments on this thread! Was it you, or someone else before the great SDC crash, that like myself, (retired since 2000) worked for Rocketdyne?
 
G

gsuschrist

Guest
"Well whatever the rationale was then it will reappear again soon as we go foward on the CEV project. I just hope the "miles" of wiring become the 25 feet of wiring and thats enough for me..."<br /><br /> It's 'only' 230 miles of wiring in the shuttle. Nothing wrong with a lot of wire if most of it didn't have to be inspected after every flight. As stated above we've gotten over our 'Wow' response and entered the 'you've got to be kidding' mode. <br />
 
P

propforce

Guest
Hi frodo, sorry I seemed to missed your post on this one.<br /><br />Yes prior to the "great SDC crash", I worked for Rocketdyne at one time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts