Shuttle's up!

[Chilly]

Best Launch Ever

[TheMadCap]

Although an even bigger problem is the SRBs are, in fact, solid rocket boosters. Solid rockets can't be controlled in-fligh; they burn until they're out (the SRB thrust is actually modulated in-flight by the changing shape of the central cavity in the solid fuel, which increases or decreases the burn rate - so it's actually pre-defined and fixed). At any point in flight after the SRBs, the shuttle engines can be powered down (or up, sometimes) in case of an emergency. While the SRBs are burning, it's "Ride it until they're done, and God help you if something goes wrong." For that reason alone, crew evac is virtually impossible from a rising shuttle.

 

 

And, indeed, the 11-point star design of the solid fuel is the reason the thrust can be reduced to pass through the MAX-Q point of ascent. Liquid boosters would have been much better from a propulsion and saftey standpoint, but it was decided not to pursue them due to cost.

 

Those are also the only solid rockets in history to be man-rated, for the simple reason that the thrust is uncontrollable real-time. Even the Soviets, with their greater willingness to take casualties, never man-rated a solid rocket.

They'd have to be. And that in itself says volumes about how badly managed the shuttle program has been. Had the SSMEs been properly engineered from the start, they wouldn't need to be completely different engines now. Instead, they still had unexplained failure modes on the shuttle's 60th "operational" flight and beyond.

 

718528[/snapback]

 

I agree, and that being said it is a friggin miracle there has never been an actual catastrophic failure of and engine in-flight. There was one close call, averted by a resoursfull engineer at Mission Control. Surprising, considering a SSME failure was originially thought to be the most likely cause of a LOV...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I agree, and that being said it is a friggin miracle there has never been an actual catastrophic failure of and engine in-flight. There was one close call, averted by a resoursfull engineer at Mission Control. Surprising, considering a SSME failure was originially thought to be the most likely cause of a LOV...

718559[/snapback]

 

There've been at least two abort-to-orbits that I know of due to SSME failure. One, I think, involved the failure of two of the three engines - which may be the incident you're talking about, as it came uncomfortably close to resulting in the loss of an orbiter.

 

And I've read, too, about the general sense of relief and confusion during the Challenger investigation when the SSME team found out that their technology wasn't responsible. "Whaddaya mean? It wasn't the main engines? Of course it was...wasn't it?" Of course, that was still back in the days of "Uhhh...this engine failed the bench test. It's got a 10kHz vibration. We don't know why. But you can't use it."

 

The shuttle's a case study in how not to do engineering.

[TheMadCap]

There've been at least two abort-to-orbits that I know of due to SSME failure.  One, I think, involved the failure of two of the three engines - which may be the incident you're talking about, as it came uncomfortably close to resulting in the loss of an orbiter.

 

And I've read, too, about the general sense of relief and confusion during the Challenger investigation when the SSME team found out that their technology wasn't responsible.  "Whaddaya mean?  It wasn't the main engines?  Of course it was...wasn't it?"  Of course, that was still back in the days of "Uhhh...this engine failed the bench test.  It's got a 10kHz vibration.  We don't know why.  But you can't use it."  

 

The shuttle's a case study in how not to do engineering.

718569[/snapback]

 

On that point, Tom, I must humbly offer a correction.

 

I believe there was only one ATO, on 51-F. That was also the flight where the second SSME almost shut down, would have shut down in fact, if not for a manual override initiated by a flight controller. To my knowledge (I haven't looked it up to verify) this remains the only actual infight failure of an engine.

 

It is true that the initial suspected cause of the Challenger accident was a faulty SSME. Once those videos of the flame breaching the o-ring were seen, that immediately was dismissed. In fact, engineers took the two year down period as a chance to do some upgrades on the engines, replacing the powerhead and heat exchanger, and some more powerfull turbopumps...

[Just Jack]

Something suitable for a one-legged spherical gecko. 

 

Of course, I'm assuming your question is merely rhetorical and sarcastic, and choose not to respond seriously...

718451[/snapback]

Actually, it was a serious question.

[TheMadCap]

Actually, it was a serious question.

718807[/snapback]

 

 

For one, a craft which has a realistic escape system for the crew during launch. Ideally, one which also wouldn't cost billions of dollars a year to keep in flying shape, as the shuttle is essentially rebuilt after each flight. I really like the new Ares design. Check it on the web...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Actually, it was a serious question.

718807[/snapback]

 

Oh, okay...

 

Split the shuttle mission into two different missions: putting people in orbit, and putting cargo in orbit. For the first, design an "Apollo capsule with wings" (what the shuttle was supposed to be to begin with), that'll carry 4-8 people to the ISS with a 3-day endurance on its own. Small, simple, easy to maintain (relative terms, obviously ). The hell with launching reusable cargo capacity - the expense of bringing back empty space is not worth the effort. Bring back the truly complex and expensive stuff - the life support - and reuse it, toss the rest.

 

For cargo...use existing shuttle technology to build a heavy-lift LEO disposable rocket. Right now, the shuttle system launches about 120 tons into low earth orbit including the weight of the orbiter. Most of the weight of the orbiter is dedicated to maintaining it in orbit and bringing it back to earth...make a disposable launcher out of the launch components, and you might get as much as 70 tons into LEO at a shot, which is stupid heavy in space flight terms. That's maybe $200M a launch (a rough guess - last I checked, a shuttle flight was about $1.2B, a billion of which went into readying the orbiter for flight) for 140k lbs of payload - about $1300/lb, which is cheap as launches go.

 

Then...design and build a reusable trans-stage to get satellites from LEO to GEO (roughly half the payload of a satellite launch now is the disposable trans-stage to shift a satellite to its proper orbit). Refuel it from the space station. Launch fuel on the heavy lift booster. Launch satellites in bulk on your heavy lift booster (along with the fuel - you've got 70 tons of payload to play with). Launch astronauts on your space taxi. Astronauts stay at the ISS. Satellites and fuel go to the ISS. Astronauts refuel trans-stage, mate it to a satellite, ship satellite to its proper orbit, recover trans-stage...and repeat until you're out of satellites. NOW you've reduced your cost to geosynchronous orbit drastically, in addition to giving the ISS the purpose it sorely, desperately lacks. Hell, do that and you might even make space economical.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

For one, a craft which has a realistic escape system for the crew during launch. Ideally, one which also wouldn't cost billions of dollars a year to keep in flying shape, as the shuttle is essentially rebuilt after each flight.

718810[/snapback]

 

Swap those. Realistically, it shouldn't cost billions of dollars to rebuild after each flight. Ideally, it should have a realistic escape system.

 

Because that's really all that is. Idealism. A "realistic" escape system from a space-bound multi-stage rocket? Realistically, it's either the fervent invocation of deity or what's sometimes known as "raspberry jam delta-v". Sometimes you just have to roll the dice and take your chances...

[GoodBye]

Just walked outside my house to watch the launch. Looked good from here (60mi away).

718307[/snapback]

Is that what I saw moving in the sky last night while waiting for fireworks and stargazing?

[ajzepp]

Oh, okay...

 

Split the shuttle mission into two different missions: putting people in orbit, and putting cargo in orbit.  For the first, design an "Apollo capsule with wings" (what the shuttle was supposed to be to begin with), that'll carry 4-8 people to the ISS with a 3-day endurance on its own.  Small, simple, easy to maintain (relative terms, obviously  ).  The hell with launching reusable cargo capacity - the expense of bringing back empty space is not worth the effort.  Bring back the truly complex and expensive stuff - the life support - and reuse it, toss the rest.

 

For cargo...use existing shuttle technology to build a heavy-lift LEO disposable rocket.  Right now, the shuttle system launches about 120 tons into low earth orbit including the weight of the orbiter.  Most of the weight of the orbiter is dedicated to maintaining it in orbit and bringing it back to earth...make a disposable launcher out of the launch components, and you might get as much as 70 tons into LEO at a shot, which is stupid heavy in space flight terms.  That's maybe $200M a launch (a rough guess - last I checked, a shuttle flight was about $1.2B, a billion of which went into readying the orbiter for flight) for 140k lbs of payload - about $1300/lb, which is cheap as launches go.

 

Then...design and build a reusable trans-stage to get satellites from LEO to GEO (roughly half the payload of a satellite launch now is the disposable trans-stage to shift a satellite to its proper orbit).  Refuel it from the space station.  Launch fuel on the heavy lift booster.  Launch satellites in bulk on your heavy lift booster (along with the fuel - you've got 70 tons of payload to play with).  Launch astronauts on your space taxi.  Astronauts stay at the ISS.  Satellites and fuel go to the ISS.  Astronauts refuel trans-stage, mate it to a satellite, ship satellite to its proper orbit, recover trans-stage...and repeat until you're out of satellites.  NOW you've reduced your cost to geosynchronous orbit drastically, in addition to giving the ISS the purpose it sorely, desperately lacks.  Hell, do that and you might even make space economical.

718819[/snapback]

 

 

This is nothing but bull sh--, Tom.....everyone knows it's all ball-bearings nowadays.

[ajzepp]

Is that what I saw moving in the sky last night while waiting for fireworks and stargazing? 

718836[/snapback]

 

You sure it wasn't the reflection of the moonlight on your urine stream?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

This is nothing but bull sh--, Tom.....everyone knows it's all ball-bearings nowadays.

718846[/snapback]

 

That you, Mr. Nugent?

[GoodBye]

You sure it wasn't the reflection of the moonlight on your urine stream? 

718847[/snapback]

Hey!! Noooooo, that only works when I'm in Allentown, PA.

[ajzepp]

That you, Mr. Nugent?

718859[/snapback]

 

How the hell do you know all this stuff about the space program, anyway??

[ajzepp]

Hey!!    Noooooo, that only works when I'm in Allentown, PA. 

718861[/snapback]

 

I think those people are on the constant lookout for Oregon plates from now on

[GoodBye]

I think those people are on the constant lookout for Oregon plates from now on

718863[/snapback]

Guess I'll have to get plates from a different state then. Like...OH?

[TheMadCap]

Split the shuttle mission into two different missions: putting people in orbit, and putting cargo in orbit.  For the first, design an "Apollo capsule with wings" (what the shuttle was supposed to be to begin with), that'll carry 4-8 people to the ISS with a 3-day endurance on its own.  Small, simple, easy to maintain (relative terms, obviously  ).  The hell with launching reusable cargo capacity - the expense of bringing back empty space is not worth the effort.  Bring back the truly complex and expensive stuff - the life support - and reuse it, toss the rest.

 

For cargo...use existing shuttle technology to build a heavy-lift LEO disposable rocket.  Right now, the shuttle system launches about 120 tons into low earth orbit including the weight of the orbiter.  Most of the weight of the orbiter is dedicated to maintaining it in orbit and bringing it back to earth...make a disposable launcher out of the launch components, and you might get as much as 70 tons into LEO at a shot, which is stupid heavy in space flight terms.  That's maybe $200M a launch (a rough guess - last I checked, a shuttle flight was about $1.2B, a billion of which went into readying the orbiter for flight) for 140k lbs of payload - about $1300/lb, which is cheap as launches go.

 

718819[/snapback]

 

 

That's kind of ironic, what you have described above is EXACTLY project Constellation. Except for the wings part...

[TheMadCap]

Is that what I saw moving in the sky last night while waiting for fireworks and stargazing? 

718836[/snapback]

 

Perhaps.

 

Was it a small, non-flashing point of light, moving fairly quickly across the sky? It was probably a satellite...

[GoodBye]

Perhaps.

 

Was it a small, non-flashing point of light, moving fairly quickly across the sky? It was probably a satellite...

718867[/snapback]

Yes, that's what it looked like. Someone told me that it was a space station.

[ajzepp]

Yes, that's what it looked like.  Someone told me that it was a space station. 

718870[/snapback]

 

Was his name Obi-Wan?