Why not Modify Shuttle and Re-use it?

[scottb50]

That's where the accumulator works, it would push out the propellant mechanically. With a pressurized system I don't see gravity, or lack of it, causing a problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"They would say fix the problem and keep flying the manned Shuttle." <br /><br />Shuttle is TOO OLD AND DANGEROUS to fly with crew!<br /><br />Columbia was damaged by a piece of foam!<br /><br />A PIECE O FOAM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />NASA may fix the "foam" problem (and one hundred other problems) but can't predict the next UNKNOWN problem that will kill another Shuttle's crew when reentry with a so OLD (1970's technology) machine! (often repaired with some surplus electronic parts bought on eBay...)<br /><br />Imagine (as a paradox), that a Rat (living near the Shuttle's launch pad, and survived to alligators) visits the Shuttle while it waits for launch and bites a main energy cable so it will go in short-circuit at reentry destroing another Shuttle and seven lifes...<br /><br />What do you think NASA will say the day after?<br /><br />"Sorry, (dead) crew #3... we will resolve the problem with a new "CATS-SQUAD" assumed these days thanks to the additional $104 billion CEV budget!"<br /><br />There are hundreds unexpected problems that may happen on so OLD machines!<br /><br />If that unexpected problems will happen on a CREWLESS Shuttle NASA will lose only a lot of money, not human lifes!<br />

 

[nacnud]

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[najab]

My friendly advice to you - don't ever make such a poorly thought out, inflamatory post on these message boards again. There are many people who frequent these fora who you have directly insulted, and many more who may not work in the industry but who actually <b>understand</b> the complex political and economic issues surrounding the Space Shuttle Program and justifiably have been angered by your infantile comment.<br /><br />We welcome all opinions, but ask that you present them in a respectful manner.<br /><br />My request to anyone who might be preparing the verbal napalm, please ignore the above post like the flame-bait it is.

 

[gaetanomarano]

I ABSOLUTELY DON'T WANT TO INSULT ANYONE!!!<br /><br />My intention was ONLY to be a bit ironic (with the story of cats...), because all the technical and logical arguments explained in the Shuttle page and in my previous posts was not sufficient to demonstrate what (for me) is OBVIOUS: drive an OLD car is TOO dangerous, fly with an OLD II-WAR plane is TOO dangerous, go undersea with an OLD submarine is TOO dangerous, fly with an OLD spacheship is VERY dangerous!<br /><br />(all I write are with the better intentions in mind)<br /><br />If someone have mis-understand my intention I wish to excuse me with You, with shuttle_guy and with all readers of this forum.<br /><br />consider that if you hear similar "hard", but ironic, words in a Letterman's or Leno's show you smile, don't want to prepare "verbal napalm" for me...<br /><br />but, again, I'm sorry<br /><br />(next days, I'll post a "curious" image about CEV, do You will accept it ironically or in the same way of my last post??)<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">fly with an OLD spacheship is VERY dangerous<br /><br /><font color="white">Soyuz isn't dangerouse</font></font>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"Soyuz..."<br /><br />it is controversial, Soyuz is older than Shuttle, but the percentage of successful flight is better (so far) and because some of the risks of the Shuttle are inborn in its design (like the giant fuel tank right under the astronaut's seats and the fragile and vital thermal shield in "open air" while the Soyuz thermal shield is completely "protected" until the reentry day)<br /><br />

 

[najab]

><i>...the percentage of successful flight is better...</i><p>However, they have had the same number of fatal accidents.</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

There have also been a number of non-fatal accidents that are worth being aware of. However, Soyuz has undergone so many changes and modifications that it's not really the spacecraft it was in the beginning.<br /><br />But age of the vehicle and age of the design are not neccesarily indicators of risk. New designs and new construction can also have unexpected failures. In fact, new vehicles are generally regarded as <i>more</i> risky because their very newness means there has been less time for those unanticipated problems to come up and be dealt with. The more times a vehicle flies, the more meaningful its safety record becomes.<br /><br />A new vehicle has no safety record at all, so it's really not sensible to assume it will be less risky purely by virtue of not being "old". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...they have had the same number of fatal accidents..."<br /><br />probably right, but in the inverse way:<br /><br />Soyuz have had some accidents in the early years (some probably hidden by soviet regime) and, after, has become more reliable (NASA and ESA use it to travel to ISS) while the Shuttle was an advanced and reliable (or, simply, lucky) machine for over 100 missions (-2) but to-day appear very risky (due to the age, the bad design, its complexity, etc.)<br /><br />the NASA statement that the CEV (similar to Souyz design) will be ten times safer than Shuttle is absolutely true (the main problem of CEV is that is a very old-looking and poor machine to go space)<br /><br />also, each Shuttle accident kills SEVEN astronauts while a (possible) Soyuz accident will kill three (three are many, but less than seven, expecially if You see that event from the point-of-view of the four that remain alive...)<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...new designs and new construction can also have unexpected failures..."<br /><br />I completely agree with you.<br /><br />And, for the same reason, NASA will need much more time (than the 7 years planned) to be confident to launch manned CEV and SDLVs with expensive payloads!<br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

I would think your rats could do the same thing to the latest model spacecraft they could do to Shuttle. This insistance that the Shuttles are old and delapidated is just not true and there are quite a few WWII and pre-WWII aircraft still flying quite safely also. I think they will quit flying because of the cost of upkeep and fuel before they come close to wearing out. <br /><br />The problems that have killed Shuttle crews stem from two places, redesign required by the Air Force and politicians wanting revenue in their districts. Both are just a fact of life, why is NASA in Houston and the Shuttle launched in Florida? Where was LBJ from?<br /><br />The vehicles themselves, structurally, are no more unsafe than a 20 year old airliner and probably a lot safer because of over design. Next time you get on a Northwest DC9 just remember it is probably at least as old as any Shuttle and has multiple thousands more takeoffs and landings.<br /><br />What I see is CEV and all these projects being pushed now going down in flames before they reach the hardware stage. Where is the money coming from? So much has been frittered away, or transferred to haliburton, in the last 5 years there is no way any of this can happen, at least if you expect NASA to do it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"The vehicles themselves, structurally, are no more unsafe than a 20 year old airliner and probably a lot safer because of over design."<br /><br />Also keep in mind the incredible level of maintainance performed on the shuttle, and the relatively small number of flights.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

Agree on the politics, but when was the last time that DC9 operated it's engines at 106% capacity? The airframe's strength is not the problem, there are other, much more dangerous failure modes in engines, TPS, SRBs and caustic fuels.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[drwayne]

But in the case if the DC9, you have daily altitude cycling, and problematic maintainance.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...structurally, are no more unsafe than a 20 year old airliner..."<br /><br />WWII airplanes that fly are very rare and many crashes during air exibitions...<br /><br />I don't know one airplane with two SRB and a giant hydrogen-oxygen tank under the wings...<br /><br />...and no one airplane model that crashes 2 times every 100 flights! (not even the Comet...)<br /><br />I have another poll in mind... ("do you wish to fly with the next Shuttle launch..." Yes/No)<br /><br /><br />Why we don't think the Shuttle as a bigger and very useful reusable Progress?<br /><br />Why don't use this magnificent (but dangerous) hardware for 50, 100 or more cargo flights without risks?<br /><br />Why send them to Smithsonian Museum after the next 19 flights?<br /><br />Why SDLV's fans think that SDLV flights will cost less than crewless Shuttle flights if only the five SSME of SDLV's first stage (that burns in atmosphere) cost over $200 million in total (to-day, but, probably, twice in 2015...)?<br /><br />

 

[launchme]

"I have another poll in mind... ("do you wish to fly with the next Shuttle launch..." Yes/No) "<br /><br />I believe you would find that most of the people here would jump at that chance. I know I would!!<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

Probably they want to become famous... (like Marylin Monroe... James Dean...) and have their personal Mars' hill...<br /><br />in fact, we remember the names of Apollo 1 crew* but only a few names of Shuttle's astronauts that come alive to earth...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />* Grissom, White, Chaffee

 

[gaetanomarano]

I have a proposal...<br /><br />please, convince NASA to give me one of the three Shuttles and the engineers to convert it to crewless (so, I will use it 50 times for MANY useful things), and I leave the remain two to You so you can use them for (a few) very exciting flights! (exciting like russian roulette...)<br /><br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

I have another poll in mind... ("do you wish to fly with the next Shuttle launch..." Yes/No)<br /><br />Absolutely yes, tell me when to be there!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I agree with SG. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[launchme]

"Probably they want to become famous... (like Marylin Monroe... James Dean...) and have their personal Mars' hill... <br /><br />in fact, we remember the names of Apollo 1 crew* but only a few names of Shuttle's astronauts that come alive to earth... "<br /><br />I don't care about the being famous part, I would just love to be in space. But, I can't speak for everyone else.<br /><br />As for making the shuttle crewless... With the shuttles being retired in 2010, I can't see them spending the time and money to do it. Even if it is a good idea.<br /><br />

 

[lclark2074]

rember the pads were made for anouther HLB caled apllow and i think thy can make the pad do all three rockets <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Agree on the politics, but when was the last time that DC9 operated it's engines at 106% capacity?</i><p>Just a little clarification on this point. When the SSME's were being devloped there was a design requirement to produce a certain amount of thrust. Since the engine is throttleable and they needed to have a scale to measure the throttle setting by, they set design thrust as 100% rated thrust. As it turns out, the engine was designed by so well by engineers who believe in saftey margins that it's actual, <b>physical</b> safe operating limit is much higher than 100% rated thrust (I'm not sure the actual figure but I believe it's somewhere around 115-120%, though I wouldn't be suprised if it is even higher than that).<p>The upshot of this is that the 105% throttle setting is <b>well</b> within the safety margins of the engine.</p></p>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...I would just love to be in space..."<br /><br /><br />I wish to point that I am a space enthusiast EXACTLY like you (probably more than you).<br /><br />I "FEEL" space flights (expecially the Apollo missions) like I'm part of the crew!<br /><br />Probably, if NASA will offers me to fly with a Shuttle I ACCEPT to fly (like you), depite the risks of fly with so OLD machines!<br /><br />But You must consider that TIMES ARE CHANGED.<br /><br />In the first 30 years space flights was made FOR the astronauts (to send one in space, on the moon, on mars, etc..) and to demonstrate the power of human mind and of the nations.<br /><br />To-day, space flights CAN'T be made to excite some astronauts (and space fans) and increase their adrenaline!<br /><br />Shuttles, Rockets and SDLVs are only TRUCKS to send some payloads in space without risks for human life!<br /><br />It is less fascinating, but, now, astronauts are only "truck's drivers" (and "space workers" that assemble some parts) that must come (and want to come) back home alive after each travel.<br /><br />If You want to increase your adrenaline you do some launches with parachute.<br /><br />But, if you take a taxi to go to airport with your family, you DON'T WANT that taxi driver runs at 200 Mph or jumps from bridge to bridge with an old car like a stunt-man!<br /><br /><br />