WSJ article on the shuttle

[n_kitson]

The following is an editorial from today's Wall Street Journal:<br /><br />Way Too Many Astronauts<br /><br />By HOMER HICKAM <br />August 10, 2005; Page A10<br /><br />The test flight of the space shuttle Discovery accomplished several major goals, including a safe landing. Unfortunately, it is still not a reliable vehicle and never will be. You simply don't place a fragile bird at the base of a big, quaking nightmare of rocket engines and a massive, debris-shedding fuel tank and get anything but an engineering debacle.<br /><br />As that great American philosopher Kenny Rogers once said, "You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em." That's not just smart poker. That's smart engineering, too. When your design stinks, Engineering 101 says admit your mistakes and go back to the drawing board. I would like all top NASA managers to read the following words very carefully: The space shuttle is a Rube Goldberg contraption that is never going to be reliable no matter how much money, time, and engineering careers you throw at it. Thank you for your attention.<br /><br />This is not the fault of the present generation of NASA engineers. Most of the ones I know have wanted to retire the shuttle for a very long time and build a reliable spaceship worthy of our country. But any time these engineers have suggested this idea over the past decade, they've had their heads served up on a platter and told to get behind the shuttle. They've even been branded as having a special "culture" that is dangerous and (dare we say it?) risky. This is, of course, a lot of hooey. There may be a failed culture inside NASA but it does not include its engineers. Maybe it includes the people who agreed to build the International Space Station with a vehicle that is notoriously unreliable. Any engineer would have been happy to run out a simple statistical analysis that would have predicted a problem.<br /><br />I confess I love engineers. I believe they are the true heroes of this country. They d

 

[spacefire]

Pretty good article by the Rocket Boy...I wholly agree. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

NASA is already on this one. They have stated that the 2004 astronaut class will, most likely, not fly on the Shuttle. They also have started a process to get as many of the unflown astronauts as possible onto a mission before the Shuttle is retired.

 

[lunatio_gordin]

That's a really good thing. I'm glad they'll get to put their training to use...

 

[najab]

You really need to stop holding working for NASA against people...there are a <i>few</i> NASA types who aren't bad. Look at it this way: John Young worked for NASA for many years and he didn't turn out too bad. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I can't stand columnists, so he's on a loser with me already.

 

[frodo1008]

I am sorry, but for now the shuttle is going to continue to fly until all the components of the ISS that we have promised our partners in the ISS would be delivered by the US, are delivered. It may be possible to deliver some of the smaller components by other means, such as EELV's, but the larger components are going to have to be delivered by the shuttle. I think that Mike Griffen indeed wants to fly the shuttle as little as possible, so I think that this may result in as little as 15 future shuttle flights. I also understand that he wants to retire individual shuttles as early as 2007. I am NOT such a supporter of the shuttle itself as to even think of disagreeing with this scenario. But I am a patriotic enough American to believe that the word of the US is very important. Now, to redesign all of that ISS equipment for another method to get it all to the ISS some other way will cost far more than just using the shuttle to get it up there. This increased cost would of course have to be taken from the CEV and CXV projects, and I don't think that you would want that now would you?<br /><br />The shuttle IS safe enough to fly to the ISS, where if it were damaged enough on ascent to warrent abandoning that particular shuttle, the crew (which I believe should also be kept to a minimum to finish the ISS) and rescuing the crew, which would either be done by another shuttle or soyuz capsules. Maybe even t-space CXV's in the future. <br /><br />Until this particular task is completed the shuttles are not going to be retired, NASA needs to get some perspective here, if they can indeed find a better way to stop the sheding of material from the tank, then fine (as long as they can do it in a reasonable time), if not then fine, finish the ISS and retire the shuttle! What could possibly be any simpler than that!

 

[steve82]

I take exception to this statement:<br /><br />"This is not the fault of the present generation of NASA engineers. Most of the ones I know have wanted to retire the shuttle for a very long time...."<br /><br />Most of the engineers I work with have not wanted to retire the shuttle for a very long time. Sure, it will be fun to get rolling on the next vehicle, but this turning up the heat on dis-ing the shuttle almost seems contrived sometimes to build the case for the next generation. The STS is the most capable manned spacecraft in existence and we are years and years away from even beginning to cut metal on any vehicle that equals its capabilities. None of the proposed CEV designs come close to the shuttle in upmass and none of the proposed ELV's have any downmass capability at all (almost as important) or reliable human services for the payloads and robotics. Just remember, NASA danged near put expendable rockets out of existence when they were first trying to create a dependance on the shuttle, so watch out that they aren't trying to put the shuttle out of business to create a dependence on the CEV.<br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I didn't know you are with USA, Steve?

 

[spacefire]

hihi his post makes sense now <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br /><br /><br />the scientist astronauts will not be needed for a while, since the CEV will require test pilots and flight test engineers for its first flights. Also the remaining Shutle flights, if any, will be dedicated to the completion of the ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Well, we don't know if he is..I was trying to tactfully see if he is <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Having said that, half of MSFC lurk on here (*waving at the MSFC lurkers*) <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>hihi his post makes sense now <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />hi hi ???? <b>Hi Hi ??? !!! ???</b> What kind of laughter is Hi Hi ???!!! ???<br /><br />Listen buddy, in this country we laugh as hee hee !! or heh heh !! but never as hi hi !!!<br /><br />Now get with the program !!!<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I confess I love engineers. I believe they are the true heroes of this country. They do the heavy lifting that keeps us technologically afloat, but they are underappreciated, especially at NASA.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hear hear !! ... I need another raise.... the gas prices, sheesshhh !! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

ha. ha. that better? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[steve82]

<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Close, but no cigar.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">So let's put the shuttles on the shelf right away and give engineers the gift of designing and building new ships to carry humans into space. These are already on the drawing boards and I believe NASA Administrator Mike Griffin (an engineer) is itching to make them a reality. </font><br /><br />the shuttle became a jury-rigged contraption due to budgetary constraints. It was supposed to be fully reusable, and without solid boosters. Trying to simplify the design instead of pushing the cutting edge-solid rockets, a disposable tank insulated by foam!!!-yielded an expensive, unsafe contraption.<br />The CEV is also a poor man's spacecraft, with limited capabilities and as little technological investment as possible. Doesn't mean it's going to be cheaper to operate, but it won't tax your resources in terms of technology investment. It's a dumb, unimaginative man's spacecraft! It's an accountant's spacecraft (sorry MrMorris), who can't see past next year's budget!<br />If you want Engineers to build something good, give them a good amount of money from the outset. Otherwise, you'll pay up later! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"the shuttle became a jury-rigged contraption due to budgetary constraints."<br /><br />"If you want Engineers to build something good, give them a good amount of money from the outset."<br /><br />How do you think the present time is different than the environment in which the shuttle came into being?<br /><br />The answer is very little has changed. The political process has not changed. (Attention spans/budgeting cycles/consistency measured in months, not years - thats even worse now) We are in a war. There are serious budget issues (actually worse now). All of that is the same or worse than when the shuttle was planned/created.<br /><br />Now, there is another effect that you don't see people talk about. Its the not effect. At times like this, there is a tendency to put together programs in which the guiding principle is that the follow-on *not* do what the program before it did. I mean not for the sake of not, not because not is better. So you trade the devil you know for the one you don't know (other than its not the predecessor). When you run into the new devils problems, you work around them, and end up with another kluge, just not the one that came before it.<br /><br />Finally, I have said this before ad nausium, but the fact of the matter is that if you shut the shuttle program down tommorrow, that money is *not* going to be spent on building something better. It is going to go bye bye into the general fund.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Close, but no cigar.<<br /><br />Hmmm, I was going to go around the houses with facilities, ..but close........hmmm....<br /><br />Is Boeing/Florida-KSC in your e-mail sig? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[askold]

It's about time that somebody stood up and said, "the Emperor has no clothes".<br /><br />Time to put the shuttle out to pasture before it becomes an even bigger embarrassment to the US space program.

 

[cdr6]

Clothes or is it brains? Somebody explain it to me, how come we are calling for the retirement of a perfictly good vehicle (the Orbiter) who's success rate is 100%. Then keeping the booster (Soilds and ET) who's dismal safety record includes the distruction of two of the said orbiters, including the loss of 14 lives. Worse yet we are betting the farm on them for the future of manned space flight. Logic fails me on this one.... The Soilds and ET are in fact not safe to fly.

 

[spaceiscool]

yes and demolish the vehcle assembly bay as it is the largest tombstone in the world.

 

[nasa4now]

Mr. Hickam says, "Bear in mind that the next time you hear an astronaut support the shuttle even though the U.S. is presently fourth in the ability to put humans reliably into space, behind Russia, China, and Burt Rutan."<br /><br />Homer is some comedian! <br /><br />China has managed to launch ONE person into a single orbit in a modified diving bell, Yuri Gagarin-style. ONE<br /><br />Rutan wants to send people "into space" duplicating what Chuck Yeager did nearly 60 YEARS AGO.<br /><br />The current Russian manned space program is being subsidized by NASA (ie the American taxpayer). <br /><br />To contend that NASA is somehow lagging behind the above 3 space pretenders is laughable. Unfortunately, methinks that he may be serious?<br /><br />

 

[john_316]

"The Soilds and ET are in fact not safe to fly. "<br /><br />I think any current or even past space vehicle whether 100% successful in flight is never always safe to fly. Eventually you will have a bad day in space flight. You have bad days everyday in car wrecks around the world.<br /><br />So to put it mildly you will never have 100% reliability in all facets of rocketry. You can only hope too.<br /><br /><br />Now for other business I can't think of any other way to go ahead with CEV other than a simple design such as the capsule. The lifting body is great for the ISS concept but not the moon or Mars concept.<br /><br />Sure if they said tomorrow that the X-37 or X-38 designs would be used I will support it. If they say were going capsule I support it. If they say were gonna build Soyutz like capsules, I'll say just buy em off the Russians and stop wasting our time. But the Soyutz design wont happen for our manned space program because then everyone will say it looks too Russian.<br /><br />If the X-38 design is used or was used for ISS taxi service I will support it becuase I think the concept is sound and has a little flexibility. <br /><br />Now will the CEV have flexibility? It all depends on what you want to have it do. It is meant to just ferry passengers or what? Did anyone say it will support a crew for days or weeks on end? I have no clear idea here. <br /><br />Someone who works with the project would know and for now they are mum on whats going to go down.....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"There are serious budget issues (actually worse now). All of that is the same or worse than when the shuttle was planned/created. <br /><br />... When you run into the new devils problems, you work around them, and end up with another kluge, just not the one that came before it. "</font><br /><br />Ayup. This is one of the many reasons I think (and have said again and again and again... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) that the CEV should be a capsule design largely based on what was learned from Apollo. Going with a known design makes the R&D cheaper to start with -- reducing budgetary pressure and the tendency to reduce capability in order to save money. It also means that this <b>isn't</b> a new devil. Unless the chosen design does something really bizarre -- the development path for a capsule-based CEV should be very straightforward -- no unobtanium or even hardtogettium required. The simpler the CEV is, the less likely it is that development will run into problems, the less likely that a change will have to be introduced that compromises the craft.

 

[spacefire]

yeah but the success rate for the past ten years does show the US lagging behind the other 'competitors'<br />so in a way he's right. <br /><br />and yeager never flew in space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>