Shuttle Replacement

[jimfromnsf]

"NASA doesn’t have the balls anymore to do big science; when you see astronauts driving across the country wearing a diaper charged w/ attempted murder, and lunatic subcontractors shooting their coworkers at the JSC, "you know your are baring witness to the last days of NASA.<br /><br />The only thing that makes me optimistic is that the graduate student community around the globe will produce the next generation of affordable space flight."<br /><br />Those incidents are completely irrelevant and actually reflect society in general. They are nothing unusual. Workplace violence is commonplace.<br /><br />If I were to continue your false line of reasoning, then there is no hope for since the student community is shooting itself up

 

[docm]

Yup, but they (wrongly) thought foam wouldn't do damage even at high velocities. <br /><br />This "it's too low in density to do damage" mentality is common in those not trained in ballistics. Some aspects of F=ma seems to have been lost to them.<br /><br />If they'd consulted a decent ballistics expert they would have known otherwise; a lot of people have been killed and objects destroyed by the paper wads in blank rounds. Some just by unburned powder. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Yup, but they (wrongly) thought foam wouldn't do damage even at high velocities. "<br /><br />Actually, they didn't think the foam would deaccelerate as quickly as it did , to reach the velociities that would cause damage

 

[MeteorWayne]

Interesting factoid.<br />The piece of foam that hit Columbia was about .75 kg (1.7 lb) and hit with a velocity around 850 km/h (530 mph) equalling about 29,000 j.<br /><br />A Leonid meteor that weighed 0.008 (!!) gram would have the same kinetic energy due to it's vastly higher impact velocity.<br /><br />KE= 1/2 mv^2.<br /><br />It's why a decision was made to not fly during the Leonid storms. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">Actually, they didn't think the foam would deaccelerate as quickly as it did</font><br /><br />Either way they were fools or worse. What boils my blood is that knowing that shedding was happening from almost day one of foams use they never got around to;<br /><br />1. determining the relative velocities involved<br /><br />2. firing a worst-case piece into the leading edge carbon-carbon<br /><br />until Columbia's post mortem.<br /><br />A legal-eagle friend of mine still wonders why negligent homicide charges weren't brought against someone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Criminal....nothing short of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> <br />It is worse than that.... a flight before the Columbia flight shead THE SAME piece of foam that took down Columbia. However it missed the Orbiter and dented in a SRB electronics box. The fleet should have been grounded when they found that hit.</i><br /><br />That goes beyond negligence. Unbelievable, and yet you have no reason to lie. Who/how can charges be pressed? It dented an SRB box? Nobody involved thought that was a problem? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[nwade]

Once again I encourage you all to read the CAIB report. It is really revealing and full of interesting information about the successes and follies of the whole Shuttle system.<br /><br />Regarding the "worst case scenario" issue: As I understand it, the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon leading edge panels were tested for _some_ impact resistance during the original TPS development. Unfortunately no one knew how these panels would age and IIRC what they found after Columbia is that these panels were getting more and more brittle with age. So not only was the impact of the foam on Columbia worse than what they'd tested for, but the panels weren't as strong or damage-resistant as they were thought to be.<br /><br />--Noel<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The fleet should have been grounded when they found that hit.</font>/i><br /><br />I wonder if "the powers that be" felt that they had no alternative. Look how long and how much money it took to RTF, and even now the problem hasn't been eliminated (just the probability reduced). It might be very hard to justify a stand-down of 2-3 years, while still funding the shuttle program at $3-4 billion per year (so $6-12 billion spent without a flight) without an incident of the magnitude of Columbia.<br /><br />On the other hand, if they knew it was a risk and chose to fly anyways, why did the shuttle program managers deny a request for additional imagry which might have shown the extent of the damage?<br /><br />By the way, this is one of my pet peeves about funding ATK for Ares I work: Ron Dittemore is now the Senior VP of ATK's Launch Systems Group. The Director of the Space Shuttle Program when these disastrous decisions were being made should not be given a lead role in the development of the next manned rocket.</i>

 

[mcs_seattle]

Helps explain the multi-million $ payout to the families of the astronauts doesn't it?

 

[halman]

NWade,<br /><br />I have to wonder if, in the thirty years since the original shuttle design was finalized, a superior material has been discovered for use in wing leading edge segments. Or, perhaps, a different design for the panels, which would substantially reduce the chance of damage from impacts. Of course, if the shuttle were launched from the back of a flying wing, this whole problem would be academic, wouldn't it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"if the shuttle were launched from the back of a flying wing, "<br /><br />Still need the ET for the orbiter engines

 

[jimfromnsf]

Date Who From To<br />4/23/2003 Dittemore, Ronald D NASA SSP Director ATK Launch Systems, Pres<br />4/2/2007 Rudolphi, Mike NASA MSFC Engr Dir ATK HSV VP<br />7/1/2006 Panter, William NASA ISS Vehicle Mgr ATK Thiokol<br />9/28/2005 Horowitz, Scott J ATK Expl & SpTras Dir NASA ESMD AA<br />ibid. NASA Astronaut, Exec ATK Expl & SpTras Dir<br />11/13/2006 Halsell, James NASA Astronaut, Exec ATK Ares I US VP<br />10/27/2006 Rominger, Kent NASA Astronaut Chief ATK Launch Systems, VP-Adv<br />2005 Precourt, Charles J NASA Astronaut Chief ATK, Strat & BizDev, VP<br />8/25/2005 Bolden, Charles NASA Astronaut, Exec ATK lobbyist<br />8/25/2005 Chang-Diaz, Franklin NASA Astronaut ATK lobbyist<br />8/25/2005 Jones, Thomas NASA Astronaut ATK lobbyist<br />8/25/2005 Blaha, John NASA Astronaut ATK lobbyist<br />8/25/2005 Barry, Daniel NASA Astronaut ATK lobbyist<br />8/25/2005 Bursch, Daniel NASA Astronaut ATK lobbyist<br />8/25/2005 Weber, Mary Ellen NASA Astronaut ATK lobbyist<br />1/7/2004 Smith, Gerald W ATK Thiokol Prop, Pres Natl Space S&T Cent, MSFC

 

[marcel_leonard]

Look Holmec the reason I said you are looking at the last days of NASA is because the of the ass backwards policies of this current administration. They are stressing everybody out w/ their silly policies… <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[fatjoe]

The shuttle has a secure future because at the rate we’re going there won’t be a budget to do anything different for the next ten years…

 

[thereiwas]

But there won't be a budget to operate the Shuttle either.

 

[marcel_leonard]

That what is your argument; that we should schedule another mission to the moon, just so we can say we did it again? The whole idea of going back to the moon is being fueled by the notion that the People’s Republic of China has aspirations of landing on the moon. The politics says we were there first; so should be able to beat them to it. <br /><br />The fact of the matter is that Von Braun and all the founding scientist responsible for the success of the Apollo Mission died off a long time ago, and NASA current generation of scientists/engineers my not be up to the challenge of a lunar mission, seeing that the majority of science and engineering majors on our nation’s campuses all across the land are coming from places like Beijing, and Bombay as opposed to Boston, and Buffalo… <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

There is no engineering challenge to get back to the moon. NASA and its contractors have the know how. The issues are money and politics. Need reliable steady funding at a set level so that planning can be maintain and not redone at every funding hiccup. Politics is driving political solutions to engineering decisions. The ESAS is ruining NASA with its false conclusions. ESAS was a predetermined answer. Mikey wants his big rocket and the one of the ways of getting it, was to tie it to an abomination call ARES I.

 

[holmec]

I just saw on Discovery channel documentaries of space, and one subject came up on why back to the moon.<br /><br />The reason was a little unnerving. It was for helium 3 for fusion reactors. That's not the unnerving part. The unnerving part is that US and Russia both want it. Makes me think that China may want it as well. This supposedly has the potential to alleviating some of our energy concerns. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

I take some offense to your statements. At the undergraduate level the majority of students on US campuses are American ~90%; at the graduate level it is about 50% American. None of the international engineering studenets I met in college came from Bejing. If there were international they came from either western Europe, or India. I know it may be sterotypical but the engineers coming out of India are great at book work and even research but they have yet to develop the type of thinking that will create good engineers for desiging things. It is a cultural thing involving independant thinking. <br /><br />Lastly when Von Braun passed we didn't forget everything that he knew. We know much more. He never had CFD. Combustion instabilities in an rocket motor was a bit of a black science in the 60's. Now we can model them, understand their natural frequencies and model around them. Many things that were graduate level studies in the time of VB are now taught as undergrad courses. Stuff that was top secret can be purchased on Amazon.com The world is a different place.<br /><br />I challenge you. If given 10 engineers and an adequate budget I could send 3 men back to the moon. It might not be the optimual design, but it would get the job done.

 

[jimfromnsf]

Helium 3 is just an excuse RSC Energia is using to get funding. He 3 has yet to be proven viable

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The unnerving part is that US and Russia both want it. Makes me think that China may want it as well.</font>/i><br /><br />China has already mentioned this:<br /><br />China goes to the Moon for Helium 3 by 2024<br /><br />Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel<br /><br />And many more. Just type<br /> <i>China Moon Helium</i><br />into Google.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Helium 3 is just an excuse RSC Energia is using to get funding. He 3 has yet to be proven viable</font>/i><br /><br />Fusion reactors are always about 20-30 years off. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Seriously, ITER is the current big fusion project (EU, US, China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea are all participating), with a projected cost around $12 billion I believe. While that may seem like a lot, it is tiny compared to the indirect costs of our current coal and oil-based energy efforts (including health effects (e.g., lung cancer), global warming, the long-term military operations in the Persian Gulf, etc.).</i>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Helium 3 is just an excuse RSC Energia is using to get funding. He 3 has yet to be proven viable<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />apparently helium 3 is viable if you have a deposit of it to mine, according to the documentaries. It allow for power and not much neutrinos output which is the problem with hydrogen. The large quantities of neutrino output deteriorates the walls of the fusion reactor. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Fusion reactors are always about 20-30 years off.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm get the feeling that this effort for helium 3 is a separate effort and should shorten that length of time considerable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>