Three examples over 40 years is not evidence of systemic bad decision making and bad engineering.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
- Status
"Endeavor has just gone through a complete upgrade; it’s basically a new orbiter."<br /><br />It is not. It was refurbished but is not like a "new" orbiter. The structure and major systems are the same.
I have always thought it strange that Gus Grissom almost drowned because his hatch for whatever reason opened and his ship sank and then he died in Apollo 1 because he could not open the hatch.<br />
One can argue that Apollo 1 accident was due to communications failure between contractors.<br /><br />Challenger accident was weather related. Who know it could get so cold in Florida.<br /><br />And the foam impact on Columbia was due to a lack of vision. The engineering of NASA is pretty sound. <br /><br />I wonder if your saying its 'bad engineering' because you may not understand what engineering actually is. Most people do not understand it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
Let's remember that the two Orbiters we lost did not fail in and of themselves, but rather were both casualties of the launch vehicle.<br /><br />I think that's important to remember. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
"Let's remember that the two Orbiters we lost did not fail in and of themselves, but rather were both casualties of the launch vehicle. "<br /><br />Wrong. It was the Orbiter's TPS that failed. Debris shedding is a KNOWN environment on all launch vehicles. It is impossible to prevent it. The flaw is than orbiter's TPS was not robust enough to survive the environment for which it would operate in. It is the equivalent of trying to reenter the orbiter with just aluminum skin (sans TPS). Aluminium can not handle the environment so TPS was added. NASA crutched the TPS issues by trying to eliminate debris shedding: LO2 beanie cap, jet engine blowers at VAFB, hundreds of foam mods, etc<br /><br />The unfortunate design of the side attached orbiter places the TPS in the bad environment but that is another story
It's not that I don't agree with your points, but I do hate the way you make them. Ever heard the story of Columbus and the egg? How much sense would it make for you if I submitted a lengthy post of the shortcomings of the Santa Maria, and how naive the the man was thinking he'd landed in India?<br /><br />Flaws or not the STS program represents a HUGE engineering accomplishment. Of course it's not beyond critique, indeed given that we're in the process of developing it's replacement it's quite releavant. But can't you even muster the tiniest bit of respect at the same time? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
I do respect much of the space program - the parts that aren't fatally flawed.<br /><br />Holmec - I do understand engineering, having gone to a technical college. When you make an engineering mistake, you drop that path, learn from your mistake and make it better. You don't keep putting bandaides on your engineering mistake with your fingers crossed for good luck.
When you look back to the original design, the shuttle was a different animal. Politicians cut funding (Keep them away from the military and ANY engineering) and military demands changed the design to what we have now.<br />The shuttle IS a prototype that made it to short line production. There will be problems, errors and yes, possible deaths. But that is the nature of the beast. Space is dangerous.<br />How many were injured or killed when the first canoe was floated back in history, horses tamed or more recently, the first flying machines?<br /><br />The shuttle is not bad engineering (yes, I am a fully qualified engineer working full time at it too...) but based on demands and funding by non-qualified people, we have the shuttle as we know it. Marketing and finance departments can do more damage to a product than you can believe. You specify one material and finance says its too expencive, use the cheaper stuff.<br /><br />Apollo 1 accident, one near accident with 17 flights (manned & unmanned). Not too good.<br />100+ flights and 2 accidents? Damn good record for a prototype<br /><br />I am quite sure, the techs and engineers who work on the tanks, sank in their seats in frustration and exhaustion when the news was released.<br /><br />Sorry for the vent, but I get ticked when the engineers, technicians et al get flamed for moronic politicians meddling. (cutting back on the coffee as well today)
The biggest problem with the shuttle is that every one of them was essentially a prototype, a test plane. Each shuttle had certain things that were corrected or altered throughout it's years of operation. The system has really never been "finished" in it's design because all we've done is keep altering it, which is not what any other series of vehicles does. Whenever the air force builds a new jet they make an X plane as a proof of concept before designing the production version, which gives them the ability to build the new version better and cheaper than the x plane. The point is that you don't keep useing the X plane version. If we had wanted to keep the shuttle going we should have retired the original shuttles and created a version that we could somewhat mass produce cheaper and better than the originals, perhaps have a fleet of about 20 or so improved shuttles that would allow us to fly much more often. In general, making something to be mass produced necessitates in improvement in overall quality, safety, reliability, and a decrease in cost and maintenance time.
you mean to tell me that these past thirty years have been an STS flight test program?<br /><br /><br />That's a pretty weird way of looking at our space program! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Asked then if I would consider going up some classes & driving a De Tomaso Mangusta my first response was "Are you outta your f'ing MIND? NO!!" <br /><br />If your sqweerd, git a dog!
<font color="yellow">If your sqweerd, git a dog!</font><br /><br />Well, there must have been lots of "sqweerd" drivers 'cause they never found one for that coffin. Not long after they switched to a Porsche. <br /><br />It was never a case of "sqweerd" anyhow; it was prudence. <b>Experienced</b> racers want to go home after the event. If <i><b>you're</b></i> willing to drive poorly designed dragsters (per your profile), open wheel, production or otherwise well, it's your funeral <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I was thinking, that with todays technology and what we learnt from running the STS program, making a new whole orbiter would be pretty cost efficient. <br /><br />The big question that if this was attempted, is, do we have TPS system good enough to fit the criteria eg:Weight and strength? <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>
"making a new whole orbiter would be pretty cost efficient. "<br /><br />Not really. The whole concept is inefficient. Don't need a man in the loop for delivering payloads to orbit nor 250klb for 50klbs of payloads. Also, the reduction in the cost per flight wouldn't still offset the high cost of development
<br />I figure that as well. Not sure about the tps thing cause the speed difference between an falling item and a side mounted item could be pretty big. However, I think that if NASA had chosen to evolve the shuttle it could get better a lot better. <br /><br />I was looking at some of the proposed upgrades back when they had planed to keep flying till 2020(Thank god they are not doing that…and I am a shuttle supporter). <br /><br />Replacing the APUS with batteries, electrical systems in place of hydraulic. Five segment SRB’s. All this upgrading for 1970’s technology. <br /><br />I was also thinking of some of the technologies that have yet to see use. For instance the x-37 was(or is not sure about it’s state) was to have similar tiles as the shuttle but thinner on top of a metallic allow that could stand a tad more heat. I have also seen Metallic tiles and the like be developed for spaceflight. <br /><br />I think they could fix most the tps reusecost problems easy. I think they could trade some cargo carring capacity for safety while still retaining a large enough vehicle to do some work in. <br /><br />Something that could easily shuttle Astronauts and some cargo to a station. Something that could bring something down and land on a runway. I think sooner or latter we are going to have to have shuttle type vehicles even if the shuttle maybe a bit ahead of it’s time. <br />
"Not really. The whole concept is inefficient. Don't need a man in the loop for delivering payloads to orbit nor 250klb for 50klbs of payloads. Also, the reduction in the cost per flight wouldn't still offset the high cost of development "<br /><br />I don’t see a shuttle replacing expendables but having a person on hand can be a handy thing. It also depends on just what the cargo is. If it is parts to be assembled into something larger then perhaps having a person there is helpful. If it a human directed experiment that could be helpful. If it is just a satellite forget it. <br /><br />Another problem with the shuttle is it’s capacity. For most of it’s life it was the 2 nd most powerful rocket in the US inventory with the a cargo bay bigger than most expendable rockets. In fact the only rocket that was more powerful and had a larger sized cargo shroud was the Titan IV and that poor thing was too expensive costing almost as much as the shuttle. Using an expendable for some items could have drastically altered their missions. Hubble might have had to have a smaller mirror for instance. <br /><br /><br />
Venture Star had a swappable module for manned and unmanned missions, if I remember correctly.<br />That would be the ideal solution. If I'd known in the late 90s how things would progress I don't think I would have gone to school for aerospace 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>Expendables have replaced the shuttle. When was the last time the shuttle deployed a satellite. Having a crew does increase the chances of mission success. If it is human directed experiment, send it to the ISS on an ELV and let the ISS crew play with it. If it needs assembly, send it to orbit on an ELV and send the crew up on another safer vehicle to play with it. Or design the component like MIR, which didn't need launcher based assembly <br /><br />T-IV was not anywhere as expensive as the shuttle. Using ELV's would have enhanced more of the missions, since the spacecraft would not have been compromised by manrating requirements. HST would have had the same mirror size on a T-IV. <br /><br />The shuttles capacity was often wasted by the additional structure needed to hold payloads. The T-IV, D-IV and A-V can carry more.
How about fitting the orbiter with hard covers over the fragile bits? The covers could be jettisoned at the same time as the ET or even just prior to re-entry.<br /><br />We could even make the covers out of the same stuff as the ET foam... it seems pretty tough <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Probably a bit too much of a redesign at this stage in the programme but thought I'd mention it anyway.<br /><br />
"Holmec - I do understand engineering, having gone to a technical college. When you make an engineering mistake, you drop that path, learn from your mistake and make it better. You don't keep putting bandaides on your engineering mistake with your fingers crossed for good luck"<br /><br />What about the aviation industry. Ive just watched a program now infact about an investigation into a plane crash. It said that the company knew the plane had a deisgn flaw but still flew with it, ending up in 9 dead.
"It said that the company knew the plane had a deisgn flaw but still flew with it, ending up in 9 dead."<br /><br />Now that the flaw is out in the open - is that plane still allowed to fly with the flaw?
No, they fixed it. However they knew there was a fault that could result in bringing a plane down, and were given x amount of time to fix it (while the plane was still in operation)<br /><br />I understand you point tho. But take Columbia and the foam damage that brought it down. Its common knowledge that foam breaking off the ET is inevitable and cant be stopped. But nasa are doing things to minimise the risk. Re-designing the tank, having cameras to film the launch, taking pictures of the shuttle using the robotic arm a nd performing a RPM
This entire thread is totally academic! NASA is NOT going to stop flying the shuttle because of anything that anybody on these threads is saying. Under those circumstances there is no practical point at all to this entire discussion.<br /><br />NASA is coming up with an entirely different system to replace the shuttle. A system that many on these boards are unhappy with as they feel it is a step backwards to the Apollo era. I don't feel that way myself, but many do.<br /><br />One of the points for the new system is that it will be far safer than the current shuttle, but whether or not that would satisfy someone such as askold I just don't know.<br /><br />Almost all of us (myself certainly) that do support the manned flight systems of NASA also fully support the continued funding of the robotic programs also. Unfortunately in the case of askold the reverse does not seem to be also true. Askold knows his reputation on these boards, and that is why he started this particular thread with the disclaimer that it wasn't just another shuttle bashing thread. And then of course proceeded to bash the shuttle!!<br /><br />We ALL know the continued dangers of the shuttle system, but NASA is committed to a great many people to finishing the ISS at this time. And the only system available to NASA that has the capability of doing this is the shuttle.<br /><br />And THAT is the truth of the matter at this time!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 191
-
-
What has to happen in 2025 to move the UAP story forward?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram