one question about space shuttle

[Versus]

What was the initial purpose of the space shuttle?<br />Was it “conceived” as a military project or was it intended for civilian use?<br />

 

[ve7rkt]

As I understand it:<br />1) NASA wanted a new manned spacecraft after Apollo, to be a cheaper way to fly satellites and probes, and maybe build a space station or Mars ship<br />2) USAF wanted a manned spacecraft so they could be all military-y in space, with manned spy stations, satellites, and maybe research into orbital bombardment (see DynaSoar, RoBo, etc.)<br />3) US Congress said... why pay for two? You and you, make nice and work together. <br /><br />BAM! Space Transportation System.

 

[Versus]

So it is all in one solution?. Thanks, that explains a lot...I'll write more later

 

[j05h]

You can compare it to a Swiss Army Knife - it does a bunch of things, none of them well. I'd much rather have a dedicated carving knife and screwdriver (but am a sucker for my Super Leatherman). Shuttle was designed by committee, it shows especially in these last years of the program. <br /><br />A smaller spaceplane for USAF and continued Saturn development would have gotten us a lot further along. But that doesn't help us today. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

It was the Air Force that demanded the 13x60 foot cargo bay. Because of that, the orbiter could no longer be on top of the launch stack Apollo-style. <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>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Ah, so their to blame for the on the side stacking and foam damage.<br />I never knew there was plans for the Obiter to go on top of the stack. <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>

 

[nacnud]

I'm not sure that there was, the current orbiter engines are run from lift off to orbit. I don't know how this can be done without side stacking. <br /><br />Take a look here:<br />http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld018.htm<br /><br />There are alot of concepts that were floating around at the time, most seem to have paraellel staging.

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Thanks Duncan!<br />Wow, if Nasa had've gone with the retractable wing design, then the chances of a Columbia type accident would have been remote. <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>

 

[nacnud]

This seems to have been the last set of choices for the majour STS layout. The orbiter always seems to be side mounted. Link<br /><br /><font color="yellow">After NASA reluctantly dropped its Saturn V-derived manned flyback booster, the only options left were large unmanned rockets that would be recovered and reused after falling back into the sea. NASA's Marshall Spaceflight Center had proposed a large, simple liquid propellant rocket motor that would not require costly turbopumps since the propellant injection would be pressure-fed. The tanks would have to be strong and heavy to withstand the pressure, making it relatively easy to recover them at sea. NASA wanted its contractors to investigate the pressure-fed unmanned booster option during Phase B double prime in October 1971-March 1972. The main alternatives were now:<br /><br /># Parallel expendable solid rocket motors. Proposed concepts: [1] McDonnell-Douglas/Martin Marietta, [5] North American Rockwell/General Dynamics, [8] Grumman/Boeing.<br /><br /># Parallel recoverable pressure-fed liquid rocket boosters. [2] McDonnell-Douglas/Martin Marietta, [4] North American Rockwell/General Dynamics, [7] Grumman/Boeing.<br /><br /># A single recoverable pressure-fed liquid rocket booster. [3] McDonnell-Douglas/Martin Marietta, [6] North American Rockwell/General Dynamics.<br /><br /># A single recoverable liquid rocket booster derived from the Saturn S-IC stage. [9] Grumman/Boeing.</font>

 

[lbiderman]

Anyway, the shuttle became just too heavy to be of any use to the military, so they bailed out. After that, basicly NASA got a vehicle that was not what it wanted, because it was a compromise. Many design and performance flaws can be tracked to that.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">No, the large wings were a AF requirement for crossrange. The large wings prevented the possibility of having the Orbiter on top of the stack.</font>/i><br /><br />And sadly, the shuttle was never used for polar orbits (i.e., a motivation for crossrange), but the side effect of the requirement (side mounting) has had a profound and negative impact on the shuttle program.</i>

 

[Versus]

I thought that it was something like that, dual-purpose craft. What about X-33 and X-34, are they also a dual role crafts? It would be sad to make the same mistake again…Sigh.<br /><br />It is still unclear to me how did they come up with that idea, to make compromise between two very different things. I mean, if something is build for military purpose it is very much different than something that is build for civilian usage. <br /><br />I just do not get it no matter how hard I try and it makes me sad...<br />

 

[j05h]

> It is still unclear to me how did they come up with that idea, to make compromise between two very different things. I mean, if something is build for military purpose it is very much different than something that is build for civilian usage.<br /><br />The multi-user argument was made as a compromise to ensure it's creation. There was a time when the Shuttle was going to be the ONLY launcher in the US. Luckily, the Air Force saw it's own mistake and kept the (expensive, reliable) Atlas and Delta models flying. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[Versus]

I know, but still...it leaves bitter taste in my mouth...<br /><br />Oh, well one day things will get better, I guess.

 

[willpittenger]

Titan keep flying too. We have it to thank for many missions to the outer planets. However, I think, due to the deadly potential of the hypergolic fuels, it was a poor choice for a man-rated mission like Gemini. If there had been a pad explosion, the astronauts would have only a split second to choose between ejecting into the poisonous fireball and attempting to ride it out in the capsule. There were stories of how either Grissom, Cooper, or Schirra that refused to eject during a situation that they thought the booster was about to explode. Wikipedia does not mention the episode. <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>

 

[qso1]

willpittenger:<br />There were stories of how either Grissom, Cooper, or Schirra that refused to eject during a situation that they thought the booster was about to explode. Wikipedia does not mention the episode. <br /><br />Me:<br />Your right, Schirra was the one who chose not to eject and at the link I posted, there is a brief mention next to the crew pic.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_6A <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]

True, and I mentioned "Chose to eject" rather than "Refused to eject" for that reason. I didn't specify why because I couldn't recall the particulars. <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>

 

[drwayne]

A general note:<br /><br />Like with many ejection seats, particularly of that time, the process of ejection was a VERY violent, sure to ruin your day and quite possibly the rest of your life.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

"Hard on the shorts!" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

 

[willpittenger]

Sorry, I did not look at anything other than the pages on the Astronauts themselves. While reading that article you mentioned, I found the following quotes.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In an early test of the system involving a dummy the hatch had failed to blow off and the dummy's head was rammed into the side of the spacecraft.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I just love safety systems that actually save lives. Throw this lemon back. The point to have the ejection seat was.... what to kill someone?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Also all ejection seats cause compression of the spine and these were designed to send the astronauts a couple of hundred metres away from an exploding rocket.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I think the more recent seats do better. Early seats used a single charge to eject the seat and then a rocket took over. Modern designs have a series of charges followed by the rocket. None of the explosive charges can provide much Delta V on their own. This slows down the acceleration and reduces stress on the body. <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>

 

[qso1]

Not sure why your apologizing but I read what you posted and one things for certain, one is virtually guaranteed some kind of injury upon ejecting from high performance air/spacecraft. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

I apologized for not searching Wikipedia throughly. <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>

 

[qso1]

Gotcha, I 've been guilty of the same. <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>

 

[vulture2]

The military asked for both the crossrange and the large cargo bay. The military used the shuttle until after Challenger, then they decided to rely on the Titan IV, which then had some spectacular failures itself. I remember a general talking confidently about putting military crews into polar orbit. I might also mention that there was an extensive study on using liquid fueled boosters for Shuttle after Challenger, but the money wasn't there to change the design. <br /><br />Finally, I remeber the Redstone booster from Alan Shepherd's flight was found floating vertically in the ocean after the launch by a navy destroyer and towed back, apparently the first booster to be recovered. One of the V-2 type steering vanes that extended into the exhaust stream is on display at the CCAFS Space Museum, though ironically there is no explanation of how it came to be there. Obviously it is at least possible to recover a pump-fed cryogenic booster at sea, because it has been done, although it would be preferable to use a parachute.

 

[mcs_seattle]

help me understand why large wings prohibit putting the shuttle on top of the stack<br /><br />Thanks