<font color="yellow">Absolutely not...</font><br /><br />Ok, one failed design goal. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">It's a truck, a big 18 wheeler that happens to have space for seven crew</font><br /><br />You make the crew sound like an afterthought, leading to the next question.<br /><br />Does the Shuttle design improve safety as was originally claimed?
- Status
I don't think anyone was arguing that it had managed that goal as the goalposts were moved (noted in previous post).<br /><br /> />You make the crew sound like an afterthought, leading to the next question.<<br /><br />Not at all, but at the same time it's not just crew transportation - something that was strangely claimed in a "Soyuz or STS" debate a while ago. Apples and Oranges.<br /><br /> />Does the Shuttle design improve safety as was originally claimed?<<br /><br />You'll have to give me the actual claim for me to answer that (was the claim post STS-1...and aimed to compare with Apollo?) I need to see that actual claim to fully answer your question, otherwise it's too loaded.<br /><br />However, taking it as it's posted, I absolutely believe so. I know people will say "but, Challenger and Columbia" and I'll go "Challenger was a management error launching below specified limits (temp) leading to the O-Ring failure on the SRB. Columbia was hugely unlucky in the incident...again management get a big slice of blame from the CIAB findings."<br /><br />The DESIGN though...over 100 flights succesful - and what would you compare it with. What else is out there as a template to compare it with?
Well they should have gone with a crew capsule, that was just that. They could then fly people back and forth to space stations on a smaller rocket. A capsule of the same size could carry cargo only.<br />Build a heavy lifter that could carry large modules into space. The important thing was to get the balance between the frequency of construction correct and the crew turn over. With out the russians the shuttle frequencies would have been the same to the ISS, resulting in waste.<br /><br />So essentially a larger Soyuz+Progress system and the abilty to get skylab sized modules into space. Going with what works. I hope that I would have gone with that system, but I might have been seduced by the idea of a rocket plane. Thats the advantage of the word mistake- meaning that there was a mistake in the logic of a descision or one of the assumptions was incorrect.<br /><br />This system would not have had the ability to return satellites to earth however but overall it would have done more for less.
Then it beckons the question - given they were already kinda doing that with the Saturn 1B to Skylab - why they then went to STS....done a fair bit of reading into that and I'm sure you have too.<br /><br />I honestly think a lot of people would not be talking about the STS if it hadn't of been the management error on STS-51L (which really changed everything for the STS).<br /><br />Also, there's a hell of a lot you can't do with that Soyuz/Progress type capability, noted on the points about 100 posts ago! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I do think a lot of people who don't support the STS are of the mindset that they never wanted to go to STS in the first place. So let's take it past that as I'm a pretty much present tense person, so that doesn't fit with me.<br /><br />Would you have ended STS flights post STS-51L? Is there a point you'd of then said "We need to stop and come up with a different design"?
If the Shuttle had a crew escape system would it have worked during the ascent of Challenger? If I remember correctly there were warning signs in the telemetry pointing to major failures with pressure drops indicating a ET leak, a large thrust imbalance in the SRBs and the SSMEs fighting for control. Could these be reliably handled in a failsafe escape system and was there enough time? I have no idea. Of course the Shuttle doesn't have an escape system because the design makes it pretty damn hard to implement.<br /><br />As for Columbia, if the Shuttle wasn't a side mount design then falling insulation hitting the tiles wouldn't be a problem.<br /><br />Anyway, before Challenger the failure rate as stated by NASA management was losing 1 per 100,000 flights. The engineers on the other hand hit closer to the mark saying instead that it was closer to 1/100. <br /><br />Another point as stated above is that because the Shuttle lacks any kind of crew escape system, if anything really bad happens during the flight, your screwed.
I think most engineers thought that they needed a different design when they realised that the crew had no escape option. Every other manned launcher did and perhaps they had gotten too complacent. I find it terrifying that theres an SRB to the right of me, SRB to the left and I'm stuck in the middle with a LOX/LH fuel tank.<br />Perhaps they could have just added a crew escape ability but you still lacked a heavy lift system.<br /><br />If challenger hadn't occured then perhaps things would have gotten more frequent and cheaper, but even so I don't recall there being enough of a market for the STS satellite capabilities to satisfy the initial design goals.<br /><br />They might have had enough of a market to move on to moon+mars missions but I would not have counted on it.
I'm wondering...has a crew escape system ever gotten a real-life test? That is, an actual failure where the abort motors would activate, separate the crew comparment from the booster, and bring them down safely?<br />In the Russian space program maybe? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow">I'm wondering...has a crew escape system ever gotten a real-life test?</font><br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyzt101.htm
orrey21 thanks for pointing out permanent.com to me. I was unaware of that website. I just wasted the better part of an hour looking it over.<br /><br />I enjoyed it very much.
>If the Shuttle had a crew escape system would it have worked during the ascent of Challenger? If I remember correctly there were warning signs in the telemetry pointing to major failures with pressure drops indicating a ET leak, a large thrust imbalance in the SRBs and the SSMEs fighting for control. Could these be reliably handled in a failsafe escape system and was there enough time? I have no idea. Of course the Shuttle doesn't have an escape system because the design makes it pretty damn hard to implement.<<br /><br />One for SG...but I think they couldn't of escaped with the SRBs still burning. I'm taking that from the RTLS abort - so clarification is required. RTLS is something they can use (to avoid being "screwed") or the version of it where they are heading back uprange for a ditching (escaping down the poll beforehand).<br /><br />There was a crew escape on STS-1 at least - remember the call "Negative Seats" - but I believe that's just for a pilot and commander as it was with Young (my hero) and Crippen.<br /><br /> />Anyway, before Challenger the failure rate as stated by NASA management was losing 1 per 100,000 flights. <<br /><br />Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but have you got a link to the LOV of 1/100,000 - as I've never heard that before! As you know it's currently a 1/200 LOV I believe....and that would give the basis to your previous question.
>I think most engineers thought that they needed a different design when they realised that the crew had no escape option.<<br /><br />See above post.<br /><br /> />Every other manned launcher did and perhaps they had gotten too complacent. I find it terrifying that theres an SRB to the right of me, SRB to the left and I'm stuck in the middle with a LOX/LH fuel tank.<<br /><br />SRBs scare me too - given once you fire them up you can't stop them - but Griffin himself gave a glowing report on the SRBs during the ESAS/VSE conference.<br /><br /> />If challenger hadn't occured then perhaps things would have gotten more frequent and cheaper, but even so I don't recall there being enough of a market for the STS satellite capabilities to satisfy the initial design goals.<<br /><br />I think this is where the USAF pulling away hurt that market. They were going to be launching at the rate of nearly one a month during 1986 before we lost Challenger at the start of that year.
amazing. look at that thing blow.<br />not including an escape system on the shuttle seems even more like a CRIMINAL oversight! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow"><br />Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but have you got a link to the LOV of 1/100,000 - as I've never heard that before!<br /></font><br /><br />I remember seeing this figure quoted by Feynman as stated by someone in NASA management during the Rogers Commission investigation into STS-51L. This link is not a direct quote from NASA but does mention that figure:<br /><br />http://www.ralentz.com/old/space/feynman-report.html
"If I remember correctly there were warning signs in the telemetry pointing to major failures with pressure drops indicating a ET leak, a large thrust imbalance in the SRBs and the SSMEs fighting for control."<br /><br />Keep in mind that things did not become obviously off nominal until the last few (literally) seconds. An automated process will have a difficult time making sense of this data vis'a'vis triggering a dangerous abort, and real time, man in the loop is too slow.<br /><br />The closest thing we have to this in history is my famous/infamous story of the Apollo 13 center engine POGO incident.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
That's a great read, thanks.<br /><br />While "someone in NASA management" said it - if that was an official LOV figure, then - as the commision says - that would be a very strange figure (in the Shuttle, and the Orbiter - even though the Orbiter has never failed).<br /><br />I had the same reaction to the CEV 1/20,000 LOV figure. I've no idea how they work these figures out, but anything over 1/1000 is practically saying "it'll never fail".<br /><br />Conclusion, the LOV figure is unfair in regards to the aforemention question on increasing safety...while absolutely conceeding the point on that parameter.
drwayne, when such a large mass like an engine is jumping around so violently, couldn't the computer detect that pogo oscillations were taking place and shut it down? My understanding is it was pure luck that the Apollo 13 center engine actually did get shutdown.
Challenger was in engine shutdown shortly before break-up (Challenger never exploded, contrary to popular belief.)
My understanding is that the tower had indeed gone by then, the 2nd stage shut down and the Soyuz service module engine was fired to separate the spacecraft, the reentry module then carried out a high G reentry and landing.<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>
As far as escape towers go, hasn't the Soyuz version been used once (not the 2nd stage abort mentioned above)? One of the advantages of a capsule is that it's strength and shape should allow it to survive the kind of breakup that destroyed Challenger. Remember, the orbiter was destroyed by aerodynamic loads; the pressure hull came out of the fuselage more-or-less intact. I think a capsule would have a good chance even if the tower didn't fire at first.
The supply trips only have to be one way to the moon. They can take along time and so they can use more efficient routes. It would also have put emphasis on more efficient recycling systems, apparently on the ISS they try not to reuse any water! With gravity, it would be far easier to grow plants, and so less food has to shipped up.<br /><br />The people on the moon are only 3 days from being back on earth, and the escape craft would be able to keep them alive that long. The ISS has the ability to go for quite a while before it needs to be re-stocked.<br /><br />Also the ISS has no way of restocking supplies from the environment whilst a moon base probably would. Also the ISS does not kill the crew if the progress launch has been delayed by a few days so I see no reason why the same would not apply to a moon base.
"drwayne, when such a large mass like an engine is jumping around so violently, couldn't the computer detect that pogo oscillations were taking place and shut it down? My understanding is it was pure luck that the Apollo 13 center engine actually did get shutdown. "<br /><br /><br />Pure luck is somewhat strong. The computer did detect variations in the pressure in the feed lines, and shut the engine down. It was *very* close though to not doing it in time.<br /><br />I believe that was the only time the pumps went into cavitation. A "fix" had been applied to Apollo 14's bird, but the decision was made to fly 13 as-is, as it was already stacked.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
Shuttle_RTF said: "If that's something you agree with, or something you don't think is a big deal, then tell that to the familes of the 14 dead astronauts we've lost on the STS program. Tell it to the workers that have put their life work into this 'mistake' because of lot of this people working on that 'mistake' will get you to back to the Moon and Mars."<br /><br />I'm sorry -- this type of response is a thoroughly irrational, overly emotional mishmash that doesn't add anything useful to the conversation.<br /><br />Everybody regrets that 14 astronauts died. Everybody who participates in these forums can recall where they were and what they were doing on Saturday morning, Feb. 1, 2003 when the Columbia distintegrated on reentry. But it doesn't follow that if someone suggests now that the shuttle program is misguided, that it dishonors the astronauts who died. Nor did Michael Griffin dishonor them when he admitted that the shuttle and space station programs -- as executed -- were mistakes. Indeed, a frank admission now that the shuttle program is flawed will help to ensure that more astronauts don't die.<br /><br />I find it disturbing that the conversation in these forums sometimes breaks down along very emotional "pro-shuttle" or "anti-shuttle" lines -- or "pro-ISS" or "anti-ISS."<br /><br />When we emotionally commit our allegiance to hardware systems, we truly miss the point of what space exploration ought to be about. Whether we love the shuttle or hate it -- or love the ISS, or hate it -- is really irrelevant. Rather than arguing over emotional attachments, we should be talking about what we think will WORK. What we think will GET US THERE (whether "there" is the moon, or Mars, or the near-earth asteroids) in a manner that WE CAN AFFORD.<br /><br />Instead, we should be pro-space exploration. Arguing over Chevy or Ford just doesn't add much that's of value. Nor do discussions over whether the Ford president erred in publicly admitting what everyone already knew -- that <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
lampblack,<br /><br />THAT IS THE BEST POST I HAVE EVER READ HERE IN OVER FIVE YEARS!<br /><br />THANK YOU<br />THANK YOU<br />THANK YOU<br />THANK YOU<br />THANK YOU<br />THANK YOU<br />THANK YOU<br /><br />Folks, please please PLEASE pleeeeeese read that post and understand.<br /><br />That means you too, gentle reader.<br /><br />There is no one here who would not benefit from taking that post to heart. I state that as a fact, and if you want to refute it, you're in for a tough debate.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
It ain't the hardware, folks, it's the people. It's all about what the people want. It's about what they can do. It's about developing the capability to achieve the dreams of the ages.<br /><br />It's about the people coming together to organize in whatever way they choose to organize and move into space. Whether they organize themselves as a democratic republic which creates a taxpayer-financed Space Agency or whether they organize themselves into Space Societies or space clubs or an armada of private for-profit companies or charitable space foundations or international coalitions or world-spanning discussion boards or wild-catting enterprises or whatever. It's all good. It all advances us into space.<br /><br />It's about wanting what you want but accepting what your fellow people come up with. Or not accepting it and going about the business of working with others to do better. It's not about tearing down the works and words of others who want the same basic thing that you want: Space Development.<br /><br />Ideally - yes I am an unapologetic idealist, among other things - it's about making rational decisions based on perfect information. Well of course the info will never be perfect, but as long as we separate ourselves into warring factions the info will never even be good enough to make rational decisions.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
So I had a real problem with this thread from the start. Not only does the emotionalism of this thread work against rational decision making, but there were insinuations and perhaps even accusations made that I cannot abide. <br /><br />For starters, I saw a member of the Space Press - a rare member in terms of journalistic integrity and Caring About That Which Counts - suggest that the truth need not be told because some people cannot handle it: that touched a nerve. The Press has privileges, they earn them by telling the truth. They maintain their right to a free press by a frank, earnest and never-ending pursuit of the Truth and while most of the mainstream media may have forgotten the terms of that societal compact, there is still hope for one man in York and his most worthy enterprise. 
<br /> <br />No amount of truth, no matter the forum, can detract from the heroism of our dead Astronauts and Cosmonauts and test pilots and ground crew, nor does it detract in any way shape or form from the lesser heroism of those who have devoted their professional career to space flight. To suppress the truth is the insult.<br /><br />Truth is good. Taking the other side of that debate? Good luck.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br /> <br />No amount of truth, no matter the forum, can detract from the heroism of our dead Astronauts and Cosmonauts and test pilots and ground crew, nor does it detract in any way shape or form from the lesser heroism of those who have devoted their professional career to space flight. To suppress the truth is the insult.<br /><br />Truth is good. Taking the other side of that debate? Good luck.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
What time is the NASA Parker Solar Probe's closest sun flyby ever on Christmas Eve?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram