Originally posted by Rock_It
I've been watching NASA at night and have watched the first flights of the Shuttle. It is a shame we lost that vehicle. I saw a special on Discovery where a person that worked for NASA quit because they tried to tell them about the foam and they weren't listening. He said he could not continue and watch it happen...and it happened. Even after it happened they were still saying in the press conferences that they were "going to look into it" but "didn't think that was the cause". They also said "they were not gonna rule anything out". Whaaaaaat? Rule something out they already were warned about? Reminds me of how Thiokol was listened to about the O-ring seals on Challenger...another lost vehicle.
I agree it is a shame, but it is an avoidable shame. The incidents that caused both shuttle faliures cannot happen on an expendable, linear staged launch vehicle (a la the Saturn V). This is a shame, but even with the o-ring and the foam issues, if the vehicle had the crew in a capsule on top of the rocket where it belongs, the disaster could have been averted.
Originally posted by Rock_It
It is sad that it takes the loss of two vehicles before changes in the way they do things were made. We lost the very first Shuttle to achieve orbit in history...a museum piece! That vehicle was a national treasure and was vaporized! A crew of 7 was lost, and those people cannot be brought back.
Again, absolutely agreed. This is why we need to go back to the safer design of an expendable launch vehicle that is parallel staged, with the people in a capsule on top.
Originally posted by Rock_It
I think the Shuttle is a grand vehicle. You cannot do much science work strapped down in a capsule. The Saturn vehicle and the Shuttle is the difference between night and day. Heck we could not build a Saturn vehicle again if we wanted to. The plans for them no longer exist and Von Braun is dead. It has even been talked about. It would cost twice as much as the development cost of the shuttle to accomplish, and then the vehicle would have to go through testing all over again.
Bull. The shuttle is a complete waste, and if you need more space to do science, do it in a space station. A good, expendable HLV could carry 5-6 times the cargo of the space shuttle into orbit for no more money per flight, less money (by quite a bit) if the vehicle only has to carry cargo, and is not man-rated. Think of it this way: the difference between the shuttle and a large, well equipped space station is night and day, but if the shuttle keeps eating up our budget, we will never achieve the completion of the station. As for twice the development cost? Maybe, but the operating and maintenance costs would be a fraction of the current cost of the shuttle. Development costs are a drop in the bucket next to operating costs for the shuttle. As for the plans? The documentation for the Sat V took up several large warehouses, and as such, was expensive to maintain. The critical data is on microfilm, and could be resurrected in a moment's notice. In addition, we have 2 of the darn things fully built - easy enough to figure out how to make one when you've got one already there.
Originally posted by Rock_It
There are those in NASA right now talking about using the shuttle's stack with a payload bay attached to lift heavy objects, but it's unmanned! Who is going to assemble those parts? Unless they are going to assemble themselves I don't see a point to a heavy lift vehicle. The shuttle is the only vehicle that is a heavy lift vehicle and can also carry a full crew.
Heavy lift?
Sure, if you use the whole mass to orbit, but by payload mass, the shuttle is hardly heavy lift. The shuttle can carry perhaps 20 tons to LEO per flight. While this is hardly dinky, compare this to the saturn V at 105 tons per flight (cargo), or the proposed HLV's, at 120+ tons per flight. As for assembly? This is unnecessary in many cases, and most current satellites are completely automated from the time of launch. However, if assembly is required, the much smaller crew vehicle can launch and rendezvous with the payload once the payload is safely in orbit. Also, making a vehicle carry a crew doubles the cost. The most cost - effective way of getting a LARGE payload and crew to orbit is a small rocket with crew and a large rocket with purely payload, not the solution many people believe of 1 vehicle.
Originally posted by Rock_It
Apollo was a great program, but it was a nasty ride. High G loading on the crew, vibration so bad you could not press a button or flip a switch if you had to. Astronauts from the program said you could not see to flip a switch if you had to. The vibes were so bad that everything was a blur.
Again, this was hardly unique to Apollo. The current space shuttle has enough acceleration and vibration, especially during the SRB burn, that from ignition through SRB separation, the astronauts are pretty much immobilized, and again as the fuel burns off and the acceleration increases approaching MECO. You underestimate the violence of the Space Shuttle liftoff immensely.
Originally posted by Rock_It
Riding a ballistic re-entry with nary a control input is scary to say the least. I cringe every time I see those Astronauts climb into that Soyuz. I do not trust it. It's like they are climbing into a coffin. I have seen the coors <sp?> docking system fail on that system twice and manual control had to be taken of the vehicle in both instances. That vehicle relies on pyro and retro to assure a soft landing on hard frozen ground. 50% of the time they end up on their side which takes a extra hour before they can be extracted. That's a hard hit for somebody whose bones are already fragile from being in space 6 months plus.
What do you mean "riding a ballistic reentry with no control input"?
The space shuttle has basically no control from when it begins to enter the atmosphere, as a slight deviation in angle can cause overheating or even for it to bounce off the atmosphere and reenter thousands of miles past the desired location. Once the reentry path is set (just before the first time they enter the atmosphere), they basically cannot do anything to control it, or the reentry will not go as planned. Similarly with a capsule design. The apollo capsules were actually a lifting body design when entering at high speed at a shallow angle, and had significantly more control than you might expect. They had an equal or greater amount of control at the early stages of reentry as the space shuttle. The only time the space shuttle gains the advantage on control is under 1500 mph, by which time you've either made it or you're dead.
As for landing on the side?
I'll take that anyday over burning up on reentry, and guess what? Not 1 soyuz, apollo, or other capsule has ever burned up on reentry. A space shuttle has.
Originally posted by Rock_It
We have a vehicle now that much is known about. Yes, it has it's dangers, but anything that has to do with space travel is dangerous, and spaceflight is dangerous. Then they are talking about making something totally foreign again, and with no money to do it. They are just now getting the shuttle relatively safe and are talking about scrapping it. There is nothing to replace it, and there won't be for another 10-15 years.
The shuttle is far from "relatively safe", and is by far the world's most expensive launch vehicle. As for anything having to do with space travel being dangerous? This is true to some extent, but that does not mean we should not push for safer options. The design for the CLV that is currently on the table would eliminate both of the accidents that the shuttle has had, and as for the "totally foreign" concept, it is a bunch of bull. We are returning to a proven, safe concept that worked for us for many years without a single flight-related casualty. The specifics of the design are new, but the safety dfeatures and design concepts are proven again and again. As for replacements? There is no need - the new designs do far better than merely replace the shuttle, they vastly improve on it, reducing the cost per launch, increasing the safety, and increasing the payload.
Originally posted by Rock_It
In 5-6 years we are gonna end up with a ISS that is not complete, billions of dollars in parts sitting on the ground. The shuttle fleet grounded because of cuts, and we'll have absolutely nothing to replace it. They are already saying that they can only fly enough shuttle flights to lift up the sections. Many other parts that billions were spent on will sit here on the ground. The equipment that was slated to go into those ISS sections is also going to sit on the ground. Much of this equipment was designed specifically for the shuttles payload bay, and the Rafaello cargo module.
We will end up with an incomplete one for a lot longer than that if we continue to use the shuttle. If we stop wasting money on the shuttle, and focus on getting the HLV off the ground, we can complete it in less time, with fewer launches and less wasted money. As for the designing for the payload bay? You'd save a lot more money by designing a way to fit 5 into the HLV, and putting ALL 5 at once up to orbit. High volume = low cost.
Originally posted by Rock_It
Without that Shuttle we are in deep deep trouble. Don't let the politics and the double talk fool you, they do not have the money to continue. Scientists are being lost at an incredible rate, and cannot be replaced. The ones they loose now will take 8-10 years to replace. The knowledge they have gained comes from many years of careful study and practical experience. When those people are gone they don't come back. I know of 10 separate unmanned missions that are grounded until further notice because of cuts and more are to be grounded if there are not allocations made to continue with them.
Bull. The current waste of money is the shuttle. It is a money pit, costing an incredible 750 million to 1.3 BILLION per flight. This amount is comparable to the saturn V, yet the space shuttle carries less than 1/5 the cargo. See a problem here?
The new HLV would cost significantly less than either, as it would not need to carry humans. This reduces the cost to $500-$700 million per flight, for 6 times the cargo of the space shuttle. This would pay for itself quickly, and be an incredible resource for the exploration of space.
Originally posted by Rock_It
The plan is to go to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond, and without money I don't see how we could make it out of LEO. It is very sad. The NASA Administrator has grand plans, but his hands are tied. He is charged with going forward with what is ordered of him, and he has no money to do it. It is very sad indeed.
The reason we have more money, yet again, is the space shuttle. Eliminate it from the program, and without any increased budget at all, we can easily afford the SDLV plans, and the associated CLV and HLV. There is no reason to continue with the space shuttle when the money could instead be going to the much more efficient, cheaper, and more economical option of the shuttle derived expendable launch vehicle.
