# Shuttle fleet grounded after Discovery lands



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Just saw this on CNN.

That piece of the External Tank foam we saw fly off on launch was the same size as the one that punctured Colombia and caused its death. The difference being that the foam _missed _Discovery. But they're not going to take the chance again. NASA announced today that no shuttle will fly again unless they can solve the tank foam problem.

Frack.

Oh, and everyone is quick to assure us that there *was no *damage this time! Discovery is nominal, the crew is in no danger.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

MSNBC showed some amazing close-up footage from where the crew inspected the tiles with a camera on the arm.

I guess we shouldn't be totally shocked, it's amazing the tank foam stays on at all with the vibrations and stress it's subjected to.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

What I don't understand is, is this a new thing, the foam falling off like this? I don't recall hearing of anything along those lines prior to _Columbia's_ sad demise in February '03. And while I appreciate their safety concerns, I think it's an awefully expensive and extreme reaction to take considering how expensive those shuttles are. 

Oh, well. I'm glad there's apparently no damage to _Discovery_ and no risk to the crew members. Hopefully they'll come down w/o a hitch. Maybe it'll push NASA engineers to finally come up with something better and even more versatile. _Orion III_, anyone...?


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

They either have to start clearing the girlie-boys out of NASA or buy them all diapers. Better yet, put the Air Force back in charge.

These flight delays are absolutely insanse. They are trying to make space travel as safe as a Carnival cruise. You can't make any progress waiting two or three years between shots. For cryin' out loud...when Apollo 13 damn near blew up it only took nine months to fly Apollo 14. When Apollo 1 caught fire, they had the whole ship redesigned and flying as Apollo 7 in a year and a half.

The astronauts accept the risk and it's time that everybody else did. Neil Armstrong figured the chances of Apollo 11 succesfully completing a safe moon landing and return at "50/50".

Most of the great test pilots died doing their jobs...Eddie Allen, Mel Apt, Ivan Kinchloe, Glenn Edwards, Joe Walker, Carl Cross and hundreds more. It's the price of progress. It's the reason we don't fly in fabric covered, biplane airliners.

You're not going to get anywhere if you pee your pants and stop flying everytime you detect something that COULD HAVE caused a problem. Work the problem like you work every other problem and keep flying.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yeah, Jeff, apparently this does happen every time. One of the NASA guys even said this particular launch had less crap fall off than usual.

Actually, Brent, I think it's high time to get off their asses and build the next-generation shuttle system. What we have now was never meant to be more than a first step. It's a model-A Ford. Enough of the budget slashing and project cancelling on the X-projects, aerospikes and SSTOs. Just build one of the frigging things already!!!


----------



## 747 (Oct 11, 2001)

Looks like NASA wants new toys too. Let's just hope nobody calls their bluff. Having said that, I doubt they would close down the ISS, so they are going to have to do _something_.


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

Seriously, I think part of the problem is that they have TOO MUCH equipment for detecting problems...and I'm not kidding.

When chemical detectors started becoming extremely sensitive, people were finding toxic chemicals in EVERYTHING. I used to go 6 years between the discovery of dental cavities UNTIL my friggin' dentist bought a bunch of high tech micro cameras for inspecting teeth. Now he finds three cavities every time I visit and I'm spending $1300.00 a year on my teeth!

So they put cameras on the external tank and they have 200 engineers looking for damage. That's no joke. They reported earlier today that 200 engineers were looking at imagery trying to find damage. Well, guess what? You get 200 engineers looking for damage on ANYTHING you can bet the farm that they WILL find damage.

Certainly time for something new although, in fairness, I'll restate something I said a couple of years ago: No failure has ever been triggered by the orbiter. The orbiters have performed to an extremely high standard with nothing more than insignificant glitches. The only significant problems have always originated from sources external to the orbiter: failed SRB O-rings and wonky tank insulation.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Maybe they need to paint the external tank, like they did when the shuttle program started. that might end the foam chunks from coming off.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Maybe they need to paint the external tank, like they did when the shuttle program started. that might end the foam chunks from coming off.


 Paint weighs just too darned much. Cuts down on payload capability tremendously.

So on the one hand...we can launch with less crapsicles falling off and much lighter payloads...

Or, we can continue to find more ways ( and Engineers ) to preventET insulation incidences...

Or...we can get in gear and finally get a new alternative off the ground. 2010 is JUST around the corner gang...if Pres. Bush's mandate is to be followed.

Oh, I agree with the comments that the Orbiter itself has been stellar. The launch system? Full of bugaboos from day one.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Brent Gair said:


> They either have to start clearing the girlie-boys out of NASA or buy them all diapers. Better yet, put the Air Force back in charge.
> 
> These flight delays are absolutely insanse. They are trying to make space travel as safe as a Carnival cruise. You can't make any progress waiting two or three years between shots. For cryin' out loud...when Apollo 13 damn near blew up it only took nine months to fly Apollo 14. When Apollo 1 caught fire, they had the whole ship redesigned and flying as Apollo 7 in a year and a half.
> 
> ...


 "And let's not kid ourselves that there is no potential danger in this. They used to say if man could fly, he'd have wings. But he did fly. He discovered he had to.

Do you wish that the first Apollo mission hadn't reached the moon or that we hadn't gone on to Mars or the nearest star? That's like saying you wish that you still operated with scalpels and sewed your patients up with catgut like your great - great - great - great - grandfather used to.

I'm in command. I could order this. But I'm not ... because ... Dr. McCoy is right in pointing out the enormous danger potential in any contact with life and intelligence as fantastically advanced as this. But I must point out that the possibilities, the potential for knowledge and advancement is equally great.

Risk...risk is our business. That's what this starship is all about.

That's why we're aboard her."

- James T. Kirk, captain, USS Enterprise, NCC-1701


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Yep...the Shat-Man's best lines right there. ^ Sums it up nicely.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

I think NASA's trying to make the case publicly that they NEED the new ship and flight system the president called for -- and they need it NOW.

The system was supposed to stop flying years ago. It's WAY past its prime. And with this new moon/Mars schedule, it's supposed to call it quits in another five years, anyway.

I want to see them refitting 39A for HL booster launches, and tomorrow. I know the new guy in charge is leaning toward cobbling together a launch system using existing shuttle components, but I want a big heavy-lift vehicle that looks cool on the pad the way the Saturn V used to. 

Hey, I can dream, can't I... :thumbsup: 

Anyway, if this grounding lights a fire for getting the CEV in the air that much sooner, fine with me.

Shane


----------



## Spellbinder99 (May 19, 2000)

Buran/Energya didn't have foam to fall off.
It didn't have uncontrollable once lit solid boosters.
It flew to orbit and return on remote control with 80's Soviet technology.

If it was not for the economic collapse of the USSR, the Russians would be laughing their asses off right now....

Just a thought..

Cheers

Tony


----------



## Orne (Feb 23, 1999)

The original tanks were painted before NASA decided the weight penalty was too high - I remember the actual weight quote for the paint was eight hundred pounds. (Less than the combined weight of two MoPar big-block V-8s.) A little less cargo carried aloft versus grounding the shuttles indefinitely while they make another go-around trying to make the foam safer to use (doubtful): NASA should get out the sprayguns and start shooting paint again.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Really, folks, you think a layer of PAINT is a satisfactory buffer against whatever aerodynamic and mechanical stresses are causing the foam to fracture and delaminate from the tank structures?

Don't think so.

They painted ETs for STS-1 and STS-2 because it looked pretty for the media. They didn't have to worry about a payload hit at that time.

I'll have to research again (been awahile since I studied my handbooks) but they may have also painted the tanks as an environmental barrier for the foam; protection from moisture ingress, UV, etc. Not entirely sure. At any rate, they obviously decided it wasn't worth the time, effort, money and payload.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Brent Gair said:


> Certainly time for something new although, in fairness, I'll restate something I said a couple of years ago: No failure has ever been triggered by the orbiter. The orbiters have performed to an extremely high standard with nothing more than insignificant glitches. The only significant problems have always originated from sources external to the orbiter: failed SRB O-rings and wonky tank insulation.


 Very good point!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Spellbinder99 said:


> Buran/Energya didn't have foam to fall off.
> It didn't have uncontrollable once lit solid boosters.
> It flew to orbit and return on remote control with 80's Soviet technology.


 It flew ONCE and was then turned into a kiddie park. I don't think we have any idea if anything fell off during launch. Did the Soviets tell us anything other than it was a glorious, successful test? And we beleived them? :freak:


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

As I understand it (and I don't profess to be in any way knowledgeable on this topic) the tank insulation is there to prevent the formation of ice on the tank. That's because the fuel inside the tank is extremely cold. NASA's web site notes that the tank contains 231,000 pounds of liquid hydrogen at -423F in one cell and 1.4 million pounds of liquid oxygen in another cell at -297F. 

And the outside environment, being Florida, is quite hot and humid. So, the big external tank is like a cold beer just taken out of the fridge on a really humid day. You quickly get water condensation on it. The fuel tank has so much cold fuel in it that the condensed water on the tank can freeze, even in Florida. That ice could fall off during launch and really damage the orbiter extensively.

So, can the launch facility be relocated to a suitably dry climate like Arizona or Nevada? That way the tank may not need insulation or perhaps less insulation would be required and the resulting weight bonus allotted to making the new insulation layer more able to withstand launch vibration etc.

NASA's site also notes that they are now using the 58,000 lb dry weight Super Lightweight tank. The early tanks weighed up to 77,000 pounds.

Huzz


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

Dave Hussey said:


> As I understand it (and I don't profess to be in any way knowledgeable on this topic) the tank insulation is there to prevent the formation of ice on the tank. That's because the fuel inside the tank is cold, while the outside environment, being Florida, is quite hot and humid. Its like taking a cold beer out of the fridge on a really humid day. You quickly get water condensation. The fuel tank has so much cold fuel in it that the condensed water on the tank can freeze. That ice could fall off during launch and really damage the orbiter extensively.
> 
> So, can the launch facility be relocated to a suitably dry climate like Arizona or Nevada? That way the tank may not need insulation or perhaps less insulation would be required and the resulting weight bonus allotted to making the new insulation layer more able to withstand launch vibration etc.
> 
> Huzz


They also need the spin southern florida helps impart. There was a launch site originally built at Edwards (I think) for the spook payloads that needed a polar orbit.

(Edit: the alternate site was Vandenberg AFB in California. Nixed due to an Indian curse it seems.)

The tank isn't beer can cold, it's liquid oxygen/hydrogen cold (brrrr). Besides helping with condensation, it needs to be cold or it boils away. Arizona wouldn't help this. Besides the way it is now it might melt the o-rings.

What they need are some adhesive experts to advise them. Any volunteers?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Cool Steve!

And I would guess that another job of the insulation is to keep the fuel cool in the Florida heat.

But how would relocating the launch site affect the o-rings, and I presume you mean the ones on the solid rocket boosters?
Huzz


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

Being facetious. The heat generated during launch would be more than Arizona summers. But the insulation is important to reduce the amount of fuel that boils away prior to launch.


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

I certainly have no expertise (I once dead sticked a Cessna with carburetor ice?) but, like any Monday morning quarterback with an interest in space, it's an issue I think about.

We know that falling ice is just a fact of the fuel/oxidizer. We've seen it for about 50 years. Anybody who saw the movie APOLLO 13 has seen that virtual avalanche of ice (CGI in that case but closley matching reality) falling from the rocket.

There comes a point when, if you can't SOLVE a problem, you can just try to avoid it. The real problem seems to be (to this amateur) that the orbiter is BESIDE and slightly BELOW the fuel tank. In the "old" days, anything falling off a rocket fuel tank (which was the skin of the rocket) would hit the ground. On the shuttle, anything falling off the tank either hits the orbiter or passes nearby it.

So maybe (for future designs) they should just say, "We CAN'T solve the ice problem". Anything on the surface of a cryo container is bound to fall off whether it be insulation or ice. Any container using cryogenic components has to go UNDER the crew vehicle like in the old days. Of course, that can cause major inconveniece because it you have a big crew vehicle and 200 ft long fuel tank it makes for a darn big machine...but the Saturn V was 365' tall and they launched them 40 years ago.

But if you can't stop falling ice or insulation, put the source of the problem where that falling debris can't do any real damage.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

In my best Don Adams voice:

"The old 'being facetious" trick, eh? Missed it by that much."

Huzz


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

That's a good idea Brent. The old Apollo ships could probably have taken direct ice hits and not suffered any real damage. The re-entry heat shield of the capsule was up high away from falling ice (as you suggest for future ships) plus it was protected because it was inside the vehicle during launch.

I wonder if there is a way to incorporate both of those features into the next generation of vehicles.

Huzz


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

Yeah, it seems ice and insulation falling have been a headache from day one. Here's more.

And it seems preventing ice from forming is the major purpose of the stuff (nod towards newfoundland). I remember watching Saturn V launch and huge chunks of ice falling off. It held more fuel, just as cold, and didn't need a beer cozy.

They don't launch from the West coast it seems because they really want an ocean to fall into if the launch fails (guess they always launch to the east to get the jump start from the earth's rotation). But the southern locale also gives them some more spin. When Vandenberg is used, the launch is to the south over the pacific giving them lots of room to splash if necessary, but resulting in a polar orbit rather than an equatorial orbit.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Brent Gair said:


> There comes a point when, if you can't SOLVE a problem, you can just try to avoid it. The real problem seems to be (to this amateur) that the orbiter is BESIDE and slightly BELOW the fuel tank. In the "old" days, anything falling off a rocket fuel tank (which was the skin of the rocket) would hit the ground. On the shuttle, anything falling off the tank either hits the orbiter or passes nearby it.
> 
> So maybe (for future designs) they should just say, "We CAN'T solve the ice problem". Anything on the surface of a cryo container is bound to fall off whether it be insulation or ice. Any container using cryogenic components has to go UNDER the crew vehicle like in the old days. Of course, that can cause major inconveniece because it you have a big crew vehicle and 200 ft long fuel tank it makes for a darn big machine...but the Saturn V was 365' tall and they launched them 40 years ago.
> 
> But if you can't stop falling ice or insulation, put the source of the problem where that falling debris can't do any real damage.


Like this?

Just put the orbiter on taller supports to keep it further away from the tank. That would give the clearance for stuff to fall off the tank and not hit the vehicle.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I doubt that's really a viable option, as it will likely throw the center of gravity off.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

This would add weight .... but how about an inner liner that has foam on the inside of the tank instead ... maybe sandwiched between the outer tank skin and and inner one. Or ... a foam that can have direct contact with the fuel on the inside. This way if anything breaks off, it happens in the tank. Not sure this is viable .... but whatever.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Instead of re-designing the whole vehicle stack, why not just put a sheet metal fairing over those remaining portions of foam that are in the danger area? Or perhaps better still, submerge a plastic (or metal if the launch loads are too great for plastic) netting inside the foam coating to strengthen it, like putting rebar inside cement? There will be a weight penalty of course but most any solution will involve one, unless they can just eliminate the foam somehow.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I like Opus' idea of insulting the _inside_ of the tank! As if I had any say in what NASA ultimately decides to do here!

Huzz


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

I just skipped down to here So forgive if this has been mentioned BUT frankly I'm a little concerened for these Guys who are currently in Space.
Last Night I was watchin' NBC News and the Headline was.." Trouble With Discovery" and they went on to Discuss these very same Problems with the "Tile" etc as in 03' So I'm just Praying for these Folks Safe Touchdown/Landing When is the Landing supposed to be anyway?

John/Lonfan and BTW ZIZ -Which TOS Episode did that Beautiful Kirk Quote come from?


----------



## DinoMike (Jan 1, 1970)

From what I'm reading in news stories, it seems the falling debris that concerns NASA isn't anything from the external tank... seems that something fell off the shuttle itself during launch. Current thoughts are that it may have been a protective cover from one of the tiles near the nose gear well.


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

Griffworks said:


> I doubt that's really a viable option, as it will likely throw the center of gravity off.


That's absolutely correct. You want the thrust line as close to the CG as possible. This isn't just a spacecraft issue. It's a an old and common aviation issue. I have a 60 year old book that says flying boats can never be efficient for that same reason...by putting the wings high to avoid spray, the thrust line is moved so high that constant forces must be applied to counteract the problem. Same with a rocket. The farther you move the thrust line from the center of gravity, the more external force (aerodynamic control surfaces or smaller steering rockets) must be applied to counteract the offset.

And the problem with an insulated tank liner is that the inner liner would have to be the same size as the current metal tank structure in order to maintain the same volume of fuel (simple math). So, if the inner liner is the same size as the current tank, then the outer structure would have to be even bigger. that wouldn't be a small weight penalty...that would be like lugging a battleship anchor!

Definitely a mind bender this one!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Lon and Dino, relax. They've been emphasizing that the vehicle is fine and the crew is in no danger. The piece that fell off the orbiter is a 1 1/2" square chip of tile from near one nose wheel door. They've lost entire tiles on past missions without a problem.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

And Lon, they can also sleep on the couch in the space station in the remote case that the orbiter is found unsafe for reentry.

Brent - Opus also had another idea, using a net to hold the insulation in place. I'm thinking of something akin to a hairnet tightly adhered to the tank. _Relatively_ light in terms of the overall weight penalty but perhaps effective in eliminating falling debris.

Also, can they build a special test sled to launch the SRBs and the external tank in a flight test without an orbiter mounted? That way they could see if their next solution is working, at least for the SRB portion of the flight, without risking loss or damage of an orbiter.

Huzz


----------



## miniature sun (May 1, 2005)

How about coating the underside of the orbiter in some kind of ablative covering which protects the tiles during launch and then burns away on re-entry. I'm sure something similar was used on the X-planes.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Dave Hussey said:


> I like Opus' idea of insulting the _inside_ of the tank! As if I had any say in what NASA ultimately decides to do here!
> 
> Huzz


I think insulting the tank might work too ... but then you might hurt it's feelings.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

LOL!!! :thumbsup: 

Huzz


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

They are in Florida, so get a big sheet of the mesh they make oranges bags out of and make a "condom" for the top of the tank.

If that doesn't work, *then* insult the inside of the tank! Any suggestions?


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

So they're surprised that spray foam won't stay on a hypersonic rocket? Maybe they couls use paper machie overtop.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

How about they just forget the whining of the environmentalists and go back to the foam formulation they _used_ to use, which was a _lot_ sturdier but used minimal greenhouse gases in its production?

Ever since they switched to this 'new' foam they've had nothing but trouble -- not to mention we lost a shuttle crew in horrific fashion. 

But we've put off 'global warming' by seven seconds, so I guess that's worth a few lives.  

Shane


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

miniature sun said:


> How about coating the underside of the orbiter in some kind of ablative covering which protects the tiles during launch and then burns away on re-entry. I'm sure something similar was used on the X-planes.


 So, you're saying, put an old-fashioned ablative heat shield on _top _of the new hi-tech non-ablative heat shield tiles?

Calling the department of redundancey department!


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Actually, according to the article that Steve244 posted, the foam problem seems to pre-date the switchover to the new, more environmentally friendly, foam formula. I think (and my aerospace engineering degree came from the same place as many of yours) that the problem is much more complex - terryr alluded to it - the possibility of a fundamental flaw in the concept of a sprayed foam coating on a supersonic structure.

As others have said in this thread, all of this highlights the need to move on - to a new vehicle concept - as soon as possible. I really want all three remaining orbiters to one day be sitting, safe and sound, in museums around the country for all to marvel at. No more hangars full of pieces, please.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> How about they just forget the whining of the environmentalists and go back to the foam formulation they _used_ to use, which was a _lot_ sturdier but used minimal greenhouse gases in its production?
> 
> Ever since they switched to this 'new' foam they've had nothing but trouble -- not to mention we lost a shuttle crew in horrific fashion.
> 
> But we've put off 'global warming' by seven seconds, so I guess that's worth a few lives.


It seems that there was a problem with the old foam as well but it got a LOT worse when they went to the new foam and probably made the difference in getting back alive or not. 

Let's not forget that the _Challenger _was lost due to the use of asbestos free O-ring sealant that crumbled when exposed to cold temperatures. 

Enviro-wackos have 14 notches on the stock of their propaganda machine. I'm sure they're proud. 

The whole situation reminds me of a fellow who denigrated the _CSS Hunley_ as being a crew killer that didn't return from its one successful mission. I doubt he'd be so critical of the shuttle and it has the advantage of 150 years of technology and engineering and developmental procedures in addition to postdating successful manned launch systems that were disposable but the same cost or cheaper. The _Hunley _was a desperate measure during a desperate war where it was expected for men to give their lives in such a fashion. 

The shuttle comes about in a completely different environment with a different set of priorities. The object of the shuttle was to take large payloads of military and civilian origin into space at an economical cost on a routine basis. It was meant to be a 'space truck' making space travel safe and affordable. 

It has accomplished nothing but delivering the majority of its payload. It is a system as expensive as the Apollo missions. It is only partially reusable. It is inherently unsafe. There is no way to fix the system. Even if there were, it is uneconomical to do so considering the age of the vehicles and the relatively ancient technology in use.

We, the taxpayers, have been throwing good money after bad for some time now. The shuttle system has been perverted by politicians and bureaucrats into a cash cow for congressional districts, contractors, bureaucrats, and yes, even a propaganda machine for the enviro-wackos who've killed 14 astronauts and two shuttles. A lot of the Federal funding for the study of so-called ozone depletion and greenhouse gases has gone to NASA and experiments and payloads on shuttle missions.

It's long past the time to dump the shuttle and go on to something that truly is much safer ("passenger rated" in the way airlines are safer), economical, 100% reusable and without the bureaucratic overhead which, itself, was the mechanism by which the two shuttles' destructive fates were sealed.

Politically, the government space program cannot survive if it keeps destroying vehicles and killing crews. In addition, the US gets to look like the world's biggest fools. Goodbye, shuttle--and good riddance!


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Krako said:


> Actually, according to the article that Steve244 posted, the foam problem seems to pre-date the switchover to the new, more environmentally friendly, foam formula.


True, but foam loss back then was minimal and rare. Since the change, the problem has increased dramatically and chunks flying off has become the norm.

Shane


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Are people _really _upset that the dinosaur is being put into a museum?

If so, why the emotional attachment to such an antiquated killing machine?

Should not we sci-fi fans, of all people, look forward to newer designs and potentially much safer, more routine, and much more frequent and reliable earth to orbit transportation systems?

This junking of the space shuttle should rapidly accelerate the US' creation of a replacement system.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Whoa, "inherently unsafe" and "worlds biggest fools"?

That might be over stating the case just a tad... 

"Inherently unsafe" will apply to the next space transportation system (STS) as much as it does to the current one. That moniker is certainly not sufficient reason to give up on a given system or technology. Have any of you ever driven on the LA freeways..? Know what I mean? Talk about "unsafe"!

The next shuttle will be built under the same constraints as the current one, namely; lowest possible budget and minimal technology to get the job done. Many of you recall (I hope) that the current shuttle was originally proposed as much more robust and reusable system. Then congress saw the bill... SHHWWINGG! Budget cuts and attendant redesigns led to the minimalist system we have today. That will not change during the next go-around and anyone who thinks so is simply exercising some wishful thinking, IMO.

The US looks like fools for trying to field the world's only real re-usable space transportation system? Under conditions of extreme budgetary hardships? How many hundreds of missions have successfully been flown with only two fatal losses? Over how many years? Two losses makes us look like fools?

I don't think so. I don't aim the following comments at anyone in particular (really, I mean that) but comments similar to those above are what we usually hear from left-wing extremists these days who typically demand and expect 100% perfection in all things. The left basically lives and breathes visions of "utopia on earth", whether it be dreams of the imagined virtues of "socialized medicine" or a world free of anything "offensive". The problem with these schemes is always the same one, imperfect humans are all that are available to run these various "utopias" which means that in the end, they are always corrupted. In the real world we must take into account these imperfections and accept the fact that any high-tech endevour such as space flight is "inherently unsafe" by its very nature.

The Space Shuttle was built and is operated in an imperfect world (not utopia) by imperfect humans. The next shuttle system (STS) will be too and there will be fatalities then as well. IMO we must either give up or decide to live with that fact, just as we have decided to live with the ever-present danger when driving on our highways (among countless others). There are probably millions of people in under-developed non-technological parts of the world today who would say that we are fools for doing that too. Personally, I'd much rather live here than there, inspite of all the dangers we face, and continue pressing forward in our exploration, even if the "next generation" STS crashes too (yes, I would go up if asked, risks and all). Whatever our opinions are here, the basic facts of space exploration will not change, it will always be dangerous and cemetaries will slowly continue to be filled as we move forward.

Accept it, live with it, honor it.

"There is something to be said for a life spent in quest, rather than in ease"
Source unknown.

I think the ol' "flying brick" has served us well.


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Are people _really _upset that the dinosaur is being put into a museum?
> 
> If so, why the emotional attachment to such an antiquated killing machine?


Sheesh.

Hyperbole aside, that American dinosaur is generations ahead of ANYTHING flown into space by ANYBODY. Any statement to the contrary can be proven false.

The shuttle remains, TODAY, the most technologically advanced vehicle to ever fly. It astounds me as it has always astounded me. Whatever eventually replaces it, will likely not be half as impressive. For cryin' out loud, it's a huge spaceplane...that's freakin' incredible and NOBODY else can build one. That's impressive. And if that doesn't impress you, then you don't know what the rest of the world is doing. I don't see France, England, Germany or Japan putting guys in orbit.

I saw an interview with former shuttle commander Rick Hauck (hope I spelled that right) in which he described the shuttle as a "research and development" vehicle. Of course, he's absolutely correct. We long-ago gave up on the idea of the cheap space pickup truck. And NASA was 100%, absolutely correct to build it. You can't make progress with paper studies and guesswork. You need to fly hardware. NASA built a stunning piece of hardware. The lesson learned is that it's damn hard to make a reusable fleet of winged spacecraft..damn hard. Just like everything worthwhile is hard. 

Do these words ring a bell, "We choose to go to the Moon and do the other things not because they are easy but because they are HARD..."?

However, if we look at the timeline of progress, the time between the last of the X-1 flights and the first X-15 flights was about 10 years. Those were the granddaddy's of research and development aircraft. No individual craft was designed to have a specific, practical, commercial purpose. They weren't supposed to be safe. They were supposed to teach us, just as the shuttle has taught us lessons. And it has done so magnificently.

But you can't fly the same R&D craft for 25 years. There comes a point at which the lessons learned no longer advance the science. The shuttle is due for replacement NOT because of it's failures which have been minor. Yes, two spaceplane crashes in 25 years is minor. The reference to it as a "killing machine" is nonsense. It is due for replacement because, after 30+ years of development and 25 years of flying, there is little left that it can teach us.

Trust me, though. There will be time in 30 years or so when Americans will be flying in 3 man Crew Exploration Vehicle capsules and will be telling our grandchildren, "You know, when I was younger, Americans flew into orbit in a giant spaceplane...". People will think of the shuttle and wonder how men in the late 20th century managed to build something so incredible.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Good article on the added risk from 'environmentally friendly' foam:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_August_19/ai_106701624

Long and short of it: "Freon-free foam had destroyed 11 times as many of the shuttle's ceramic tiles as had the foam containing Freon. "

Edge


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Brent, that was a beautiful post.


Edge, another article I read said that on the last flight with Freon Foam, the shuttle suffered 40 minor nicks from foam bits falling off. On the first flight with the Freon-Free Foam, there were _308 _nicks.  HELLO, NASA! THAT'S CALLED A _CLUE!_!


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Okay, so the new foam formula (say that ten times fast) is more brittle, or breakable than the old foam. I'll give you that. I also want to join Brent's chorus in praising the technical marvel that is the shuttle. I hope my last post didn't sound too anti-orbiter. I do, however, think that the launch system is the 'weak link' in the deal, and also believe it's time for something different. 

Now on to the hard stuff... I have to say that I'm surprised and a little confused that partisan points of view have snuck into this thread. I work in politics, and thus talk it a great deal more than most. I guess that's what I love so much about this hobby - it can bring people together and emphasize similarities rather than differences.

I need to stand up now to be counted among those who care about the environment, and those who are on the "left" (what a dirty word that is  ). Maybe that makes me less of a model builder in your eyes. Who knows. 

What a strange time we live in - a time filled with examples of easy intolerance on both sides of the spectrum. I'd hate to think that my favorite forum -about model building no less- iwould become the latest arena in which the personal beliefs of some are held in less esteem than others.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

lastguardian said:


> True, but foam loss back then was minimal and rare. Since the change, the problem has increased dramatically and chunks flying off has become the norm.
> 
> Shane


Actually the foam loss has never been minimal or rare dating back all the way to the first use.

The danger isn't that foam has flaked off, but that occasionally the flakes are large and strike in an inoppurtune place.

The make the external fuel tanks here in New Orleans so it's covered in a lot greater detail here then most places.

It should be noted that both with this last launch and with Challenger's O ring problem the ships were on the platform WAY longer then any of the engineers would have liked.

Was it just a problem with the foam?

Remember that because of the as yet unexplained fuel gauge failure, the tank was completely emptied of sub-freezing fuel and warmed so that engineers could climb in and examine the fuel guages, then the tank was yet again filled with sub-freezing temperature fuel.

Each application of foam is designed to be applied ONCE and redone after the tank is recovered.

The foam becoming susceptible to flaking may have a LOT to do with the fact that they totally emptied the tank of sub-zero temperature fuel, warmed it to the point that engineers could climb inside and inspect it, and then RE-filled it with sub-zero temperature fuel yet again.

The seperation of the suitcase cased sized chunk of foam *may have* had more to do with the unanticipated wild temperature fluctuations that occured *as the metal beneath the foam contracted and expanded* with the sub-freezing to normal temperature - to back to subfreezing temp swing caused by unloading and reloading the fuel.

Just as the O-Ring was probably blown because of the temperature fluctuations it was exposed to prior to Challenger's loss.

BTWay: this is not to say Michoud isn't perhaps largely responsible as they installed the fuel gauge as well(which was allegedly working when it left the factory). My point is that whenever these launch components are exposed to wide temperature fluctuations bad things happen.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Krako said:


> Okay, so the new foam formula (say that ten times fast) is more brittle, or breakable than the old foam. I'll give you that. I also want to join Brent's chorus in praising the technical marvel that is the shuttle. I hope my last post didn't sound too anti-orbiter. I do, however, think that the launch system is the 'weak link' in the deal, and also believe it's time for something different.
> 
> Now on to the hard stuff... I have to say that I'm surprised and a little confused that partisan points of view have snuck into this thread. I work in politics, and thus talk it a great deal more than most. I guess that's what I love so much about this hobby - it can bring people together and emphasize similarities rather than differences.
> 
> ...


 
I don't see the point in praising one part of the craft above any other.
The whole damn thing needs to be replaced.

Without the launch system the orbiter is a billion dollar flying brick...

Without the orbiter the launch system is pretty much pointless.

Again, the whole damn thing needs to be replaced.

If this were the days of the Cold War we would have replaced it two decades ago. 

We're flying equipment that's seen almost 30 years of service but that is based on 1970's technology that didn't forsee it being used for half the time it has been.

We need a new, non-bean counter designed spacecraft.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Brent Gair said:


> There will be time in 30 years or so when Americans will be flying in 3 man Crew Exploration Vehicle capsules and will be telling our grandchildren, "You know, when I was younger, Americans flew into orbit in a giant spaceplane...". People will think of the shuttle and wonder how men in the late 20th century managed to build something so incredible.


True enough. But I'd reserve the description 'incredible' for the Saturn V.

Don't get me wrong -- I like the shuttle and I think it's a great achievement, technologically speaking. But the measure of a machine shouldn't be the machine itself, but what it allows us to accomplish. 

Apollo and its Saturn V were incredible because they allowed us to fulfill a dream of millennia -- a journey to the moon. Apollo accomplished its designed goal. The Saturn V was a modern day wonder on par with the pyramids of Egypt, and _it_ should be the one technological achievement for which the 20th Century is remembered.

True, the STS carried Hubble and any number of ISS components into orbit -- but as for _stretching_ the boundaries of exploration, I just don't see it. Its heavy-lift capacity was less than its predecessor's. Skylab went up in _one_ piece in _one_ day atop a Saturn V, and if not for repeated delays in getting the shuttle up (a strap-on booster was needed to lift Skylab into a higher and more stable orbit, and the shuttle was supposed to have delivered one) the station would have been up there for at least an additional decade. The shuttle really didn't accomplish anything scientifically that Skylab (or an orbiting Apollo spacecraft, for that matter) couldn't have. Nor did it carry anything into LEO that the Saturn V couldn't have carried cheaper and better. It is true that _Hubble_ literally opened new vistas in science -- but had the shuttle not been there to carry it up, some other system would have. 

I'm not blaming any of this on the STS, or on NASA. Had they been given the money they needed and been allowed to build the system they wanted, its safety margins would have been dramatically increased and its cost per pound into orbit would ultimately have dropped. Those margins were shaved _so_ thin during the final design phase that the military deemed the end configuration too unsafe for the launching of military (and often nuclear-powered) surveillance and weapons systems into orbit -- 1 in 25 was their estimated catastrophic failure rate.

Challenger in January 1986 was the 25th launch.

The military backed out before Enterprise flew. Vandenburg didn't become the planned second STS launch site. And the final irony is that, without its promised military capability, STS would never have been funded in the first place.

In the end, it was a _truck_ without a destination, meant originally to service a space station concept that never materialized, to help in the building of interplanetary spacecraft that were cancelled long before the first thermal tile was glued into place. Measured by what it ultimately accomplished, based upon the purposes for which it was designed, the system was a colossal failure. Its entire functional life consisted of 'Plan B.'

Now, it's time to get NASA back on track. It's time for the agency to have a purpose again. A goal again. A _destination_ again. LEO is not a destination, its a rut.

Those '3-man CEV capsules' you belittle -- if they're allowed to do so -- thirty years from now will be taking men to Mars. Our grandchildren may well be asking, "Why did it take you so long to get to Mars after landing on the moon? Why did you waste all that time with the shuttle?"

I'm not trying to rain on any parades. Yes, the shuttle was a wonder in its day, but that day passed about twenty years ago -- and wasn't as impressive as the one that had preceded it. 

Shane


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Okay...I may be reaching...I may be thinking too simply...I may be restating an idea that someone else came up with who knows how long ago, but here goes:

We have planes that take off horizontally, and fly around the world, carrying people and their baggage, and cargo, etc., without the need of a huge external source of thrust, right? They've been around for about 100 years. So why are we still using vertical take-off to get into space? I mean, if the Boeing 7x7 series of jetliners had been flying since the 60's, before the Apollo series of rockets were even lauched, why weren't the new orbiters designed for horizontal takeoff in addition to landing in the 70's? Like I said, I'm not an aerospace engineer, so I really don't know...is there a reason that orbit couldn't have been/couldn't now be achieved from a horizontal takeoff. The average passenger liner gets into flight altitudes averaging 25,000-30,000 feet in a matter of minutes...why not space? I know that there is the issue of the extreme heat involved, but the orbiters have those heat shield tiles for just that reason.

SO...if someone can explain in a civil, non-"you stupid idiot" way, why such an idea wouldn't have worked then or wouldn't work now, I would appreciate such an explanation. Otherwise, if it IS a possiblity...someone care to explain why it's not been put into a practical application?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I think the weight and size required to re-enter the atmosphere are the factors that restrict that type of craft, if I'm not mistaken.

If you remember from Chuck Yeager's book, "The Right Stuff" he once took an X-15 to an altitude that technically took him into outer space. But he didn't have the control systems needed to manuer outside the atmosphere, so the plane didn't make it back in one piece.

Remember, as advanced as it is, the shuttle orbiter is basically a big brick glider that would fly like a rock if it weren't for computer control. It couldn't take off horizontally if you had a 50 mile runway and differently designed engines.

I might be mistaken, but from an interview on the question you asked, 1701ALover, of an aeronautics engineer I saw televised years ago an aircraft capable of powered flight into orbit from a conventional (horizontal takeoff) and reentry into the atmosphere would have to have a wingspan that would make the Flying Wing look like a tiny craft, not to mention it couldn't carry very much payload.


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

The Saturn V was spectacular...but it was spectacular in a "brute force" kind of way.

It took what was mostly known rocket science and made it all HUGE. Impressive, spectacular and real, real big.

Nevertheless, it remained a ballistic missile. The mother of all ballistic missiles with enormous engines, lots of engines, and enormous fuel tanks but a ballistic missile. It was the massive, yet logical development of the previous 20 years of liquid fueled ballistic missiles and engines.

I would use this analogy: Look at a Boeing 737-800 and an Airbus A-380. The A-380 would be a breathtaking sight next to a 737. It's orders of magnitude bigger, with bigger engines...twice as many of them in fact. But the technology of the A-380 is not substantially different than the 737. For all of it's magnificence, the A-380 merely represents the largest application of airframe and engine technology as we know it.

The shuttle was a true leap. NO orbital space plane existed before it. Nothing with wings had re-entered from orbit. No manned spacecraft had every been reusable. Manned flight went from a 3 man capsule which parachuted in the pacific ocean to a huge reusable flying space plane...with no intermediate steps! That's like if the Boeing 707 had never existed and passenger planes evolved directly from the DC-4 to the Concorde.


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

do you really know what you're talking about? A really good book about the o-ring problem is discribed in a book "surelly you must be joking Mr. Fiendmen". yes the book has humor but also info on what was discoverd about the o-rings (made of rubber by the way). I see no "enviro wacko" explanation for the chalanger disaster. By the way we all can still buy products containing asbestos, asbestos is not an "enviromental" harm but more of a health hazerd, as it is a naturaly abundant mineral that is indead a health risk if handled carelessly.


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Brent Gair said:


> Manned flight went from a 3 man capsule which parachuted in the pacific ocean to a huge reusable flying space plane...with no intermediate steps!


That is the wrong comparison. Manned spaceflight went from _landing on the moon and walking on another world_ to going around and around in low earth orbit, something even Sputnik and Mercury had accomplished.

There were _lots_ of 'intermediate steps.' The STS did not happen in a vacuum. They were developing and testing the space plane concept throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The X-15, the Dyna-Soar (in research), and the HL-10 (among many other vehicles) all paved the way for the shuttle. Flights, wind tunnel tests, you name it. Millions of structural experiments and airflow analyses took place. If you mean no winged _end product_ had flown, you are quite correct. But by the same token, the Saturn V was also an _end product_, one made possible by the experience gained with the V-2, the Redstone, the Atlas, etc.

Please don't belittle the Saturn V because it was "just a ballistic missile." It was a _monumental_ achievement, one the Russians were unable to match (thanks to its incredible F-1 engine), thus ending the space race (though the Russians had little trouble later building Buran). It _never once_ failed in flight, and even shrugged off multiple lightning strikes moments into the Apollo 12 mission. 

I think you are confusing technical achievement with the 'coolness' of a winged vehicle. And as for being 'reusable,' the shuttle wasn't exactly 'gas-n-go.' It was hugely expensive to maintain, underwent constant replacement of major components, and had nowhere near the launch turnaround time such a system _should_ have had. 

Again, you don't judge a machine by its inherent properties, but by what it allows you to _do_. A hammer made of Waterford crystal would be impressive, but you aren't going to get much built with it. The shuttle took us into low earth orbit, but its _many_ design limitations (no onboard primary fuel supply, no ability to traverse translunar space, no ability to land without an atmosphere, and a marked inability to survive any re-entry faster than that generated by LEO, among others) didn't allow it to do anything else. The Saturn V took us to the _moon_. 

And as for the value of a simple 'capsule,' ask any astronaut in NASA with which vehicle he'd (she'd) rather face re-entry, a command module or the shuttle. They've petitioned NASA to give them a CEV based on Apollo, without wings.

As I said, I _like_ the shuttle. I like its design. I respect its accomplishments, limited though they were. But I also knew Apollo. 

And the STS was no Apollo.


Shane


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Chuck P.R.

The external fuel tank is *NOT* recovered, it burns up in the atmosphere.
The solid rocket boosters are recovered, and on a good day, so is the shuttle
itself.

Edge


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Krako,

I care about the environment too. However, NASA had been granted a waiver, so
they could continue using the CFC based foam, but decided to switch anyway. When
it was found that it was more dangerous, and proven more dangerous with the loss
of Columbia, they did not switch back.

Realistically, which would cause more damage to the environment: 
1) Using CFC based foam on the tank?
2) Having a shuttle disengrate in the upper atmosphere?

Edge


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

And by the way, no one inserted Politics here, we simply pointed out the facts
as we know them. If there are Politics behind the facts, that is not our fault, 
blame the people making the decisions based upon Politics and, apparently,
not safety.

Edge


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Without the launch system the orbiter is a billion dollar flying brick...


 Without the launch system, it ain't a *flying *anything! :lol:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

1701ALover said:


> Okay...I may be reaching...I may be thinking too simply...I may be restating an idea that someone else came up with who knows how long ago, but here goes:
> 
> We have planes that take off horizontally, and fly around the world, carrying people and their baggage, and cargo, etc., without the need of a huge external source of thrust, right? They've been around for about 100 years. So why are we still using vertical take-off to get into space? I mean, if the Boeing 7x7 series of jetliners had been flying since the 60's, before the Apollo series of rockets were even lauched, why weren't the new orbiters designed for horizontal takeoff in addition to landing in the 70's? Like I said, I'm not an aerospace engineer, so I really don't know...is there a reason that orbit couldn't have been/couldn't now be achieved from a horizontal takeoff. The average passenger liner gets into flight altitudes averaging 25,000-30,000 feet in a matter of minutes...why not space? I know that there is the issue of the extreme heat involved, but the orbiters have those heat shield tiles for just that reason.
> 
> SO...if someone can explain in a civil, non-"you stupid idiot" way, why such an idea wouldn't have worked then or wouldn't work now, I would appreciate such an explanation. Otherwise, if it IS a possiblity...someone care to explain why it's not been put into a practical application?


 Well, the primary problem there is speed. The fastest airliners do around 600MPH. The fastest military plane, the SR-71, tops a little over mach 3. The fastest manned airplane ever, the X-15, did mach 6, which is around 4,000 MPH. It got into space, but not fast enough to orbit. The get into orbit, you need to do _17,500 MPH_.

But there HAVE been plenty of plans for horizontal flight-to-orbit systems. Piggy-back orbiters on high-altitude motherships. There have been launch ramp concepts like in When Eorlds collide. I guess everybody has just decided that the standing-start, brute-force booster is the simplest, cheapest way to do it.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> If you remember from Chuck Yeager's book, "The Right Stuff" he once took an X-15 to an altitude that technically took him into outer space. But he didn't have the control systems needed to manuer outside the atmosphere, so the plane didn't make it back in one piece.


 Tom Wolfe wrote The Right Stuff, and Yeager was flying an NF-104, and it had the proper control systems. 

The NF-104 was a standard F-104 Starfighter with a rocket booster built into the tail. It was designed to test high-altitude control systems and train X-15 pilots how to steer. To that end, it had an RCS thruster system built into the nose. Yeager's accident occurred because his climb topped out above air that would be thick enough for the aerodynamic control surfaces to bite, but was still too thin for the RCS thrusters to be able to move the airplane against air resistance. The wing stalled, the engine stalled, and it fell into a belly-down flat spin. Had it fallen nose-down, he could have relit the main engine when he got to thicker air. But in a flat spin, there's no air going through the intakes. No engine, no hydraulic power, no control. When he got low enough he punched out. Burning fuel from the ejection seat rocket got on his helmet visor, burned thru and burned his face.

The scene as filmed in the movie version of The Right Stuff made it look like he was stealing a bizarre experimental plane ("What the hell is that?!" the guy in the tower says  ) and trying desperately to reach space in some pathetic self-pitying cowboy moment over not being chosen as an astronaut. In reality, it was a scheduled test flight in a slightly refitted version of a plane that had been around for years, and Yeager was in command of the astronaut training school at the time. Basically just another day at work for him.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Edge - In answer to your question... I'd add a "number 3" as my preference for a solution - A new launch system that doesn't use foam - except maybe to pad the astronaut seats.  On the other issue, I was responding to some of the comments in the thread that could be considered just a teeny bit partisan (liberals, extremists and whiners, oh my!). That stuff seems a tad over the top, IMHO. 

Really, when considering the shuttle's development, the ultimate irony is that the shuttle was a Nixon initiative. Its NASA-proposed development budget was slashed (deliberately, some say - Nixon wanted to eliminate human space flight programs altogether) almost in half by him before the project even started. I wonder if a better launch system would have developed if NASA would have had the resources they requested for the project.


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

Arthur Clarke and I prefer to take an elevator. More.

But I agree something more viable/cost effective is needed in the short/medium term.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Hell, Eugen Sanger had a better launch system in 1944. Horizontal ramp that arcs up at the end, with a booster behind the bird.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

grantf said:


> do you really know what you're talking about? A really good book about the o-ring problem is discribed in a book "surelly you must be joking Mr. Fiendmen". yes the book has humor but also info on what was discoverd about the o-rings (made of rubber by the way). I see no "enviro wacko" explanation for the chalanger disaster. By the way we all can still buy products containing asbestos, asbestos is not an "enviromental" harm but more of a health hazerd, as it is a naturaly abundant mineral that is indead a health risk if handled carelessly.


Yeah, I know what I'm talking about.  I read some of the reports on the commision's findings as they occurred. There is a putty used to hold the rubber o-rings in place and to protect them. It was replaced by an asbestos-free substitute that resulted in burn throughs on several missions before finally killing the _Challenger _crew.

The 'enviro-wacko' connection to the asbestos being removed is that the over-reaction to asbestos (not all types of which are harmful) was to throw out the baby with the bath water and ban all types of it in hundreds or thousands of useful applications. 

I know it's a naturally occurring mineral. I don't know if the wackos are aware of that, however.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> "Inherently unsafe" will apply to the next space transportation system (STS) as much as it does to the current one.


I suppose, if you consider airlines and cars to be inherenly unsafe. I was speaking in the context of making it safer so that it can be used to transport families in a reasonably safe manner such as on airlines and in cars.



> The next shuttle will be built under the same constraints as the current one, namely; lowest possible budget and minimal technology to get the job done. Many of you recall (I hope) that the current shuttle was originally proposed as much more robust and reusable system. Then congress saw the bill... SHHWWINGG! Budget cuts and attendant redesigns led to the minimalist system we have today. That will not change during the next go-around and anyone who thinks so is simply exercising some wishful thinking, IMO.


Check your history books. The shuttle was originally meant to be smaller. It was made bigger to handle military satellites and such (possibly before they were made smaller due to miniaturization of many electronic components). A smaller shuttle would have been safer and less expensive.



> The US looks like fools for trying to field the world's only real re-usable space transportation system?


Well past its intended lifespan, yes. Despite losing two out of five shuttles, yes. Oh, and re-usable it ain't. Only the orbiter is 100% reusable. The boosters are virtually rebuilt every time and the tank of course is a total loss.



> Under conditions of extreme budgetary hardships?


Due mainly to a huge bureaucratic overhead, yes.



> How many hundreds of missions have successfully been flown with only two fatal losses? Over how many years? Two losses makes us look like fools?


Well, if the losses are so inconsequential, why is NASA junking it now? 
We're talking about technology from the '60s and '70s here. Are we supposed to be so enamored of it that we keep it around for another 30 years--for ol' times' sake?



> I don't think so. I don't aim the following comments at anyone in particular (really, I mean that) but comments similar to those above are what we usually hear from left-wing extremists these days who typically demand and expect 100% perfection in all things.


I am anything but left wing so I suppose you're not aiming those comments at me.  




> The left basically lives and breathes visions of "utopia on earth", whether it be dreams of the imagined virtues of "socialized medicine" or a world free of anything "offensive". The problem with these schemes is always the same one, imperfect humans are all that are available to run these various "utopias" which means that in the end, they are always corrupted.


Agreed. The biggest problem (besides being old) with the STS is that it was developed in an environment that seeks to engineer out ALL risks ahead of time and NAZA wound up creating a Frankenstein's monster of safety devices and detectors--so complicated that it is ridiculously expensive and difficult to operate and unreliable to boot. It was the victim of a system that attempted to be all things to both military and civilian agencies. It has failed.



> In the real world we must take into account these imperfections and accept the fact that any high-tech endevour such as space flight is "inherently unsafe" by its very nature.


Well, sure, airplanes were extremely unsafe at first but we have airlines that work with a reasonably small failure rate (safer than automobile travel). Is it asking too much to have the same with space flight? We've been at manned space flight for about the same time I've been alive. From 1903 to 1946, we saw airplanes become much safer and routine with passenger airlines operating. In this age of accelerrating technology, where have we got today in regards to space? A single spacecraft system that until recently was using IBM 8088 computers to run its avionics. 



> The Space Shuttle was built and is operated in an imperfect world (not utopia) by imperfect humans. The next shuttle system (STS) will be too and there will be fatalities then as well.


Well, let's not _design _it to kill people. And (once it's past its developmental stage) if we can keep the fatalities down to anywhere near what we get in the airline industry, I'll be more than happy. :thumbsup: 

BTW: the shuttle system IS ballistic in nature. Despite its gliding back in on wings (that are only usable during that phase of the flight--useless weight, otherwise) it depends on just a few engines (two of which--the boosters--can't even be turned off) to achieve orbit. Until we develop a system that can abort at ANY phase of flight after losing an engine or two (like an airliner) we will not have gone past the primitive ballistic tech that we've been using since the beginning of space flight.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

1701lover & John P,

The most commonly cited reason for the use of the vertical space launch mode is basically that the shortest distance to space is straight up. To launch horizontally one needs wings which in space are nothing but dead weight, this weight cuts into your useable payload margin. This is actually an argument with clearly defined factions on both sides within the space launch community. Two groups, those who want wings for take-off and landing and those who want the extra payload capacity. Both can make good arguments for their version, in the end it is a matter of which factor is more important to the proposed mission. Economics drive the debate usually. The "rocket scientist" that I know personally is a believer in vertical launch (why haul all that dead weight into space?) but there are many supporters of the winged vehicle approach who disagree with him.

Sanger's rail launch is very inefficient and his booster as-proposed has recently been shown (through simulation) to have been unable to accomplish its intended purpose. The simulation showed that he would have needed 25 (!) of the V-2 type engines to achieve the required boost needed by the "Silverbird" for launch, not two. This of course would have also required an increased fuel supply and therefore a much larger booster assembly. Very quickly you begin to chase "increases" here, the rail must be longer and heavier, the drag increases because of the increased size and the increased mass will quickly have you wanting to increase the power. It becomes a vicious circle.

John P,

Actually, Mr Yeager's NF-104 exited the density of atmosphere needed by the air-breathing engine to continue to function so it stalled, as planned. The onboard RCS worked just fine, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that Mr Yeager screwed up. He forgot to put the elevator control to neutral before the flame-out, like he was supposed to. Instead he left it in a high rate pitch-up position which he had been using for the initial climb to altitude. This meant that when the plane dropped back into the sensible atmosphere, the elevator began to bite and the nose pitched up, then the plane would stall. He could not neutralize the elevator position without the engine running because there was no hydraulic power without it. He could not restart the engine until he could get air moving through it to spin up the turbine blades. He could not get the air moving through the engine until he could get the nose down so air would enter the intakes at a high rate of speed. Each time the plane began to recover from the stall, the nose would quickly pitch up and it would stall again. Finally he was left with no option but to bailout.

For those here who don't know, Chuck Yeager never flew the X-15, he was serving in the Pentagon for most of the time that program was operational. "The Right Stuff" movie implies that he did fly it but that is just another bit of Hollywood fiction.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

PerfessorCoffee,

I regretted posting the liberal comments after hitting the post button. The whole "left/right" politics thing enters this board from time to time and is really un-necessary, so here I am contributing more hot air to it. I will say "sorry" here to all the members for that. Although politics does play an imortant role and has an enormous influence over the fate of our space exploration so perhaps it is not possible to discuss this particular subject without it rearing its ugly head.

There have been hundreds of missions so far and only two crashes, that is a pretty good safety record in my book. Also, spaceflight is magnitudes of orders higher in complexity than airline travel so that will never be a reasonable comparison, anymore so than comparing airline travel safety to that of bicycle safety.

The Shuttle is so complex for the very purpose of increasing safety, not decreasing it. That very complexity is what allows the launches to be aborted when one of the engines is not performing adequately (for example). That complexity is what allows the engineers to track the "health" of the onboard systems, and provides backup systems for those that do fail during a mission. I don't really see future systems becomming less complex.

There were many, many design proposals in the early days of the program. Some larger and some smaller.

BTW, the Douglas proposal for the Shuttle (the final version) included a solid fuel pad-abort motor imbedded between the main engines which would have provided the final link in crew safety in all phases of a given mission. Pad abort has not been needed so far but personally I'd rather have a shuttle that included it. Instead, they went with the design that excluded it and used the weight for payload. Economics trumped safety.

There are designs for SRBs which are not only throttleable but can also be shut down (essentially). This is another feature which would be good to add to the current STS.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Thanks! I was close!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> PerfessorCoffee,
> 
> I regretted posting the liberal comments after hitting the post button. The whole "left/right" politics thing enters this board from time to time and is really un-necessary, so here I am contributing more hot air to it. I will say "sorry" here to all the members for that . . .


No problem, X-15! I don't take such things personally. I enjoy good, healthy debate on these kind of things immensely. I know in the end, we'll all probably just agree to disagree, anyway. I still like to hear the varying opinions, however. Whenever you're in a conversation, I'm bound to learn something new (which I did) so I'm grateful for your input. :thumbsup:

By the way, that was the prototype for the F-104 that was skimming the atmosphere??? If so, no wonder it was called the "Starfighter" and was the perfect aircraft to put in a Star Trek episode.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Thanks, X15. Someone mentioned the Buran in this thread. I know it was basically a copy of the US shuttle, but was the soviet launch system for it markedly different? Maybe there are some technology/ideas NASA could look at from the Buran program to get the shuttle fleet operational quicker. Shane's comments about going back to a capsule-based system reminded me that we got to see a Titan II a couple of weeks ago at the Evergreen Aviation Museum (home of the Spruce Goose) in Oregon. I wonder how difficult it would be for NASA to simply use existing technology such as the Titan to create a capsule-based system for delivering astronauts and cargo to the ISS?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Edge said:


> Chuck P.R.
> 
> The external fuel tank is *NOT* recovered, it burns up in the atmosphere.
> The solid rocket boosters are recovered, and on a good day, so is the shuttle
> ...


Weird...
I just saw video of it falling through the atmosphere and splashing into the ocean yesterday. (I don't doubt it isn't reusable though.)

Guess it is too thin to avoid damage severe enough to render it un-reusable. 

Bummer.
Seems like a waste.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Yeah...I always thought ET-Sep happened well before achieving space and just after hitting max Q ( dynamic pressure of the atmosphere ).


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Has anybody looked into the removal and reloading of the sub-zero degree fuel as a possible major cause of this flight's foam problem?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck:

I don't know, but I'd imagine the foam was designed to withstand some loading and unloading of fuel since that would happen as a matter of routine. It does make sense that doing it a lot would stress both the metal and the foam, however.


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

For the sake of throwing a model into the mix, here's a fresh pic of a project I did awhile back. It's my version of a Crew Exploration Vehicle:



The vehicle itself is the silver capsule on the end of the service module. The forward, conical section is the flight deck for a two man crew. There's a docking adapter in the nose and three ballistic recovery parachutes (those small circular hatches). Just behind the flight deck but still part of the same module is a utility area that can be adapted for a variety of missions. For space station crew changes on short missions, you could install half a dozen jump seats. For longer missions like a moon orbit, you could carry a mission specialist and extra provisions and equipment. There is a large circular hatch of the side of the vehicle that can serve several functions. In it's most basic form, it's a crew entry hatch. It can also accept a portable airlock which could be used on satellite repair missions so that mission specialists could space walk without having to depressurize the whole vehicle.

Don't ask me to defend any of those ideas...I spent more time building the model than engineering the concept .


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

"Don't ask me to defend any of those ideas...I spent more time building the model than engineering the concept ."

That could be said of a lot of the contractors around in the late '60s/early '70s!!

LOL


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Thank you, all, for your responses. I appreciate all of them. I have further questions/observations: Okay...someone mentioned that the shortest distance to space is straight up...I understand that, and agree. But, which takes more fuel/makes more pollution, vertical or horizontal take-off? Not that I'm a big environmentalist...I'm a pragmatist...more fuel increases costs, and more pollution WILL, inevitably, end up harming the atmosphere and environment.

Someone else mentioned that, in order to take off horizontally, the vehicle would need wings that would become dead weight in space. We have had aircraft with wings similar to the orbiter (Concorde, namely) for a number of years, and we have aircraft that have wings that fold or hinge out when needed, and then tuck in when not in use. Could one of these technologies work for this type of application?

Again, thank you for all of your mannered replies. I'm very interested in what all of you have to say on this issue.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Funny, I did a search for Buran and found a bunch of pictures of the Buran on its Energiya booster, but not a lot of info on the Energiya booster itself. The pics weren't very good, but it doesn't look like they covered the boosster in foam. I wonder how they managed to insulate the tank?


----------



## lastguardian (May 20, 2005)

Brent Gair said:


> For the sake of throwing a model into the mix, here's a fresh pic of a project I did awhile back. It's my version of a Crew Exploration Vehicle:


Cool little model, Brent.  Is that something you did for yourself, or was it for a client?

It will be really interesting to see what the final chosen design looks like. We've got a pretty wide range of possible candidates right now.

Shane


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Krako,

"Existing" is a relative term when talking about those boosters (Titans). Do they still have the tooling for making either the engines or the airframes? I know that a lot of the Titan 4s were reconditioned ICBMs which had been removed from silos around the country. Anybody here know the current staus of the Titan program?

What booster you use is dependent upon what mission you plan. Generally speaking, the former ICBMs (Atlas, Delta, Titan) are not what you would call "heavy lift" vehicles. They might be fine for puting capsules into earth orbit but if we are talking about building space stations, bases on the moon or going to Mars then we are going to have to have a Saturn-class booster for really heavy payloads.

BTW, I recently found a copy of a AAIA paper presented in 1994 that explained Rocketdyne's position when it came to re-starting the F-1 engine line. They stated then that it would cost $500 million, at a certain build rate per year. They went on to state that todays developments in manufacturing technology (CNC, new materials, computer design, etc) would bring the costs down while quality would go up AND the engines could be substantially up-rated in terms of performance! Further, they could easily be made reusable! Remember when the politicians were saying (inside NASA and out) that the F-1 program could not be restarted because the drawings and tooling had been destroyed? That was a flat-out lie. Nobody asked Rocketdyne...

The Buran is greatly different from STS in that the main engines are located on the external tank rather than the Orbiter itself. The only engines on the Orbiter are their equivalent of the OMS. This is actually a better configuration if you ask me because the booster is designed to boost anything, not just the Buran. You can put most any payload on it so what you have is actually a very big general purpose booster which can also be used to launch a shuttle. That is a much more versatile system, to my mind.

PerfessorCoffee,

I don't really know which F-104s were used to make the NF-104s (there were three, I think?) but I don't think they were the prototyes. But who here knows? I don't know for sure one way or the other, perhaps someone else can give us the straight poop on it?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Thanks for the info, X-15. Too bad that the old soviet and American systems aren't more compatible. The US could probably secure permission to manufacture them domestically. 

Yeah, using older designs is probably not going to work, although that is interesting stuff about the F-1. Standing next to the Titan was amazing. Still, as large as it was, it was dwarfed by the Spruce Goose beside it. I have to admit, it would be cool to see some of the retro NASA stuff in action again, but with a modern updating.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

1701lover,

Folding wings have been proposed on many of the smaller USAF oribtal spaceplane designs. This is seen as a way of protecting them during re-entry as well as a way of configuring the vehicle for both hypersonic and subsonic flight. But these are designs for for delivering relatively small payloads into orbit or onto the earths surface (weapons). The key criteria of these designs (or one of them) is the ability to launch and land anywhere.

For boosting large payloads into orbit, wings are basically dead weight whether they are folded or not. Yes, you could build a vehicle that way without a doubt, the question is would you want to? You must pay to boost that weight into orbit with fuel. If there are no wings then that fuel goes for boosting that much more payload. I would also hasten to add a comment about the weight of the landing gear that goes along with a horizontal landing system. In commercial aircraft the landing gear accounts for over 25% of the overall dry airframe weight. That is a lot of dead weight for a spacecraft to carry, wings and gear.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Again, thank you. Like I said, I'm not an aerospace engineer...just an armchair one, you know. I've been fascinated by space travel ever since I first glimpsed the TOS Enterprise and saw my first shuttle launch, just a few years before the Challenger disaster...I was 10 when that happened, BTW! I still remember how completely devastated I was that day, and that feeling flooded back when Columbia died. Seeing as Discovery is the eldest of the remaining flying sisters (Enterprise never flew except for testing, and Atlantis and Endeavor aren't much younger...just a few years, if I remember correctly), she's the most likely to encounter problems.

I just really feel that space flight has stalled, and with "The Bush's" statement about wanting to put men back on the moon and on Mars, we better damn well fix the problem, or get a new ship, and get moving forward again. Otherwise, what is the point of keeping NASA going, except to ferry crew and freight to the space station and back?

Okay...end of rant!  Any further comments or thoughts would be appreciated!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The US as a whole has no interest in spaceflight and I place the blame squarely in NASA's lap. They have done everything (and I mean absolutely everything) they can to present space exploration solely as an elitist effort. You lowly commoners need not apply, period. So now they can't understand why the commoners won't support their efforts? Stupid with a capital "STU".

So I won't be surprized at all if manned space exploration in the US goes the way of the Dodo.

Chances are that the crew of the first manned moon base will be speaking Chinese.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> By the way, that was the prototype for the F-104 that was skimming the atmosphere???


 No no, not the prototype. The 104 had been around for a good many years by then. It was a regular F-104 that had been heavily modified for spaceplane control experiments by the addition of a rocket engine at the root of the tail, and an RCS thruster system in the nose. Google it, you'll find plenty.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> No no, not the prototype. The 104 had been around for a good many years by then. It was a regular F-104 that had been heavily modified for spaceplane control experiments by the addition of a rocket engine at the root of the tail, and an RCS thruster system in the nose. Google it, you'll find plenty.


Thanks, John! I was being lazy.


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Yeah, I know what I'm talking about.  I read some of the reports on the commision's findings as they occurred. There is a putty used to hold the rubber o-rings in place and to protect them. It was replaced by an asbestos-free substitute that resulted in burn throughs on several missions before finally killing the _Challenger _crew.
> 
> The 'enviro-wacko' connection to the asbestos being removed is that the over-reaction to asbestos (not all types of which are harmful) was to throw out the baby with the bath water and ban all types of it in hundreds or thousands of useful applications.
> 
> I know it's a naturally occurring mineral. I don't know if the wackos are aware of that, however.


Because of you turning the deaths of hard working outstanding Americans into a political forum I think I am out of here Sir! good by! and shame on you, you are no professer you are a right wing ditto head!


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Hard to keep politics out of it when we're discussing NASA and the bureauocracy that comprises it.

There WERE environmental concerns. When enviro-lobbyists have the ear of Congress and when Congress funds programs...oh YES, there will be politics. It seems naive to assume otherwise.

" No bucks? No Buck Rogers. "


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

No way! you cannot pass blame for the deaths of those astonouts on a politcal ideal! NO! no more of this! I support space exploration NOT political space exploitation.You and I fund space programs, Congress allocates the funds, fine vote but the smearing sounds alot like rush and karl.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Not passing blame SOLELY on political ideals, but also putting blame on taking shortcuts and using inferior materials because of budgeting concerns and management pressure. Doing so DOES lead to mishaps.

There are other factors at play, such as the monumental complexity of the shuttle, its systems and the complexity of the launch system.

What do Rush and Rove have to do with any of this? Now which of us is trying to make an overt political statement? As for me, I don't care if you do or not, but at least don't be hypocritical about it!


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

rush and rove have nothing to do with any of this any more than the " liberals or the "eco freaks".(if you look back in this thread). I never accused the right of killing ourselves.(almost made a number...) mainly I am upset because more than one tragedy has happend in the NASA's programe and I do not wish the NASA program to end. Than all of a sudden come blasting accusations that the left wing mentality is directly responsible for the deaths of the Chalanger crew. Now if you do not think that's crazy well I give up.I think it is down right discusting. I am not a fan of green peace (Wakos yes). but the Chalanger disaster was an engenering flaw not an eco freak flaw.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Hey, fellow, you can get upset if you want to when I express my opinions and the facts as I see them. I personally don't think it's worth it and the blame (IMHO) lies in your reaction, not in my statements of facts. I'm tolerant of others' ideas and opinions being expressed even if I disagree with them. 

If you want to get upset, get upset in the real world. Make something happen. We're just 'talking' here, exchanging ideas. If some them stick, so be it. If they don't, oh well. I've learned a lot by listening to opposing viewpoints and I hope I've brought out some aspects of the current NAZA situation.

BTW: I don't consider someone a hero just because he died in a tragic accident (that could have easily been avoided if it weren't for the bureaucracy). If my grandmother died in a car accident, she wouldn't suddenly be declared a 'hero'. If the astronauts were heroes (and I'm not saying they weren't) it's due to their going up into space and doing dangerous work to begin with. That makes all of them, living and dead, heroes of the same magnitude. There doesn't seem to be much sense giving someone extra 'hero' status for being unlucky.

And another thing: why ass-u-me that I'm some sort of 'raving' Rush Limbaugh fan? Ask anyone on the left or right that I know and you'll find that I disagree with them in principle about the same. (And, if you must know, I'm a Constitutionalist in the tradition of the (Anti-federalist) founding fathers. Give me that ol' time gov'ment! If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me. :thumbsup: )


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

My problem with the CEV concept is that we are going to replace the large manned spacecraft we have now with a smaller, less capable one. 

The fact that the shuttle orbiter can bring back large payloads doesn't get mentioned a lot, either. When we get back to the Moon and then on to Mars, do we really want the basis of what we decide to bring back to be whether or not it will fit into a 3 man ballistic capsule? I've read that a large unmanned cargo re-entry vehicle could be made that would will splashdown in the ocean and negate the need for the orbiter to return with cargo, but do we want to go back to fishing our spacecraft out of the water again? 

I think that having a mixed fleet is the best way to go. Save the Orbiter for lifting spacecraft components that could be returned to Earth for repair or refit. Resurrect the Saturn V for the serious bulk heavy lifting we will need to get Moon/Mars spacecraft supplies and tankage into orbit. I remember conceptual paintings from Boeing about how the S-IC could be recovered and reused - the fins would split open like the vertical stabilizer of the orbiter for speed and directional control as the stage decended under parachutes. I've even seen drawings of how the S-IC would have had wings and tail fins grafted on it and used as a Shuttle first stage. Use the CRV for crew transfer and light cargo lifting, a rescue vehicle and the Command Module/lifeboat for a much larger of Exploratatory Class of spacecraft. 

We keep and improve what we have, we bring back what we know worked well in the past and improve upon it, and we design and build a spacecraft that can be quickly serviced and launched, something we really need. 

It will never happen that way, but it should.


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Hey, fellow, you can get upset if you want to when I express my opinions and the facts as I see them. I personally don't think it's worth it and the blame (IMHO) lies in your reaction, not in my statements of facts. I'm tolerant of others' ideas and opinions being expressed even if I disagree with them.
> 
> If you want to get upset, get upset in the real world. Make something happen. We're just 'talking' here, exchanging ideas. If some them stick, so be it. If they don't, oh well. I've learned a lot by listening to opposing viewpoints and I hope I've brought out some aspects of the current NAZA situation.
> 
> ...


I made no referance to the word "Hero" and you never quoted Rush limbaugh so "peace" and this has become really stupid at least on my part.
Keep looking up.
P.S. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Feynman.html
or in brief:
After the explosion of NASA's Space Shuttle Challenger, Feynman was appointed to the council investigating the causes of the disaster. In his usual brusque and no-nonsense style, Feynman cut through the bureaucracy and identified the cause of disaster as the failure of an o-ring seal in the unusually cold launch-pad temperatures, even dunking a similar o-ring in a glass of ice water in front of other committee members to emphasize his conclusion. 

In the early 1980s, Feynman developed an abdominal cancer. After a five-year fight, Feynman succumbed in 1988 at the age of 69. Feynman was the recipient of numerous awards during his lifetime, including the Albert Einstein Award (1954, Princeton) and Lawrence Award (1962). Feynman was also a member of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Science, and was elected a foreign member of the Royal Society, London (Great Britain) in 1965


----------

