StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2852131.stm

The $500 million dollar turkey takes flight again...

This autumn?! That seems a bit early given they don't really have the full picture yet.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:This autumn?! That seems a bit early given they don't really have the full picture yet.

Quite. They seem to be making far too many assumptions on the contents of the nowhere near finished investigation board report.

I wouldn't call it a turkey, Enlightenment, just in need of replacement. It's done it's job, time for something better.

Enlightenment wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:This autumn?! That seems a bit early given they don't really have the full picture yet.

Quite. They seem to be making far too many assumptions on the contents of the nowhere near finished investigation board report.

I forgot to post a link yesterday, but apparently the NASA engineers wanted the US military to allow them to use their spy sats to check for supposed damage on the Columbia but were denied. They probably couldn't have done anything anyway.

Frank Hipper wrote:I wouldn't call it a turkey, Enlightenment, just in need of replacement. It's done it's job, time for something better.

At $500+ million dollars a flight it's a turkey. In terms of weight lifted to orbit, it's one of the most expensive launch systems on the planet. NASA could have done a lot better.

Enlightenment wrote:

Frank Hipper wrote:I wouldn't call it a turkey, Enlightenment, just in need of replacement. It's done it's job, time for something better.

At $500+ million dollars a flight it's a turkey. In terms of weight lifted to orbit, it's one of the most expensive launch systems on the planet. NASA could have done a lot better.

Didn't Russia try a system analogous to the Shuttle, and then scrap it because of its expense?

Vorlon1701 wrote:

Enlightenment wrote:

Frank Hipper wrote:I wouldn't call it a turkey, Enlightenment, just in need of replacement. It's done it's job, time for something better.

At $500+ million dollars a flight it's a turkey. In terms of weight lifted to orbit, it's one of the most expensive launch systems on the planet. NASA could have done a lot better.

Didn't Russia try a system analogous to the Shuttle, and then scrap it because of its expense?

The Buran? Yeah, it still exists if you want it, rust is thrown into the deal for free.

Vorlon1701 wrote:Didn't Russia try a system analogous to the Shuttle, and then scrap it because of its expense?

Buran aka Shuttleski . It died because the Soviet Union collapsed. I don't know if anyone ever did any hard-economics on its operating costs but I suspect it'd be just as expensive as the shuttle given that both vehicles made almost exactly the same design compromises.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:(...)
I forgot to post a link yesterday, but apparently the NASA engineers wanted the US military to allow them to use their spy sats to check for supposed damage on the Columbia but were denied. They probably couldn't have done anything anyway.

Wouldn't had helped, since the problem would still be there, and the astronauts couldn't do a thing. Besides, that operation would have required repositioning of any satelite, and... that's a no no, specially in these days. (yeah, I know it was a few weeks ago.)

Warspite wrote:Wouldn't had helped, since the problem would still be there, and the astronauts couldn't do a thing.

There was a narrow window of opportunity when the crew could have been rescued. If the problem had been identified on the first day or two of the flight then a heroic effort involving stretching consumables and a resupply flight launched on an expendable might have kept the crew alive long enough to be recovered by the next Shuttle flight in early March.

What i would like to know is why after Chalenger in 1986 the jerks in charge did`nt think of making something to protect the astronauts inside the shuttles,are they waiting for a third shuttle to blow-up before acting

Montcalm wrote:What i would like to know is why after Chalenger in 1986 the jerks in charge did`nt think of making something to protect the astronauts inside the shuttles,are they waiting for a third shuttle to blow-up before acting

Mach 25 tends to shred anything. Heck, Mach 1 tends to shred most things. It's pretty much impossible to have a viable escape method that doesn't involve keeping the shuttle intact.

Beowulf wrote:Mach 25 tends to shred anything. Heck, Mach 1 tends to shred most things. It's pretty much impossible to have a viable escape method that doesn't involve keeping the shuttle intact.

Also considering they're probably bracing against their seats with all the G's being applied. I doubt they'd be able to go much of anywhere, much less outside the shuttle (also a bad idea).

Montcalm wrote:What i would like to know is why after Chalenger in 1986 the jerks in charge did`nt think of making something to protect the astronauts inside the shuttles,are they waiting for a third shuttle to blow-up before acting

There's basically nothing that can be done to protect people during reentry. The thermal and aerodynamic regime is just too harsh for ejection seats or anything of that sort.

The only way to radically reduce reentry risks is to cancel one's orbital velocity under power and fly down at a safer speed. Unfortunately this is technically infeasable in the absense of massive on-orbit refueling capabilities or high-thrust nuclear propulsion systems.

Enlightenment wrote:Buran aka Shuttleski . It died because the Soviet Union collapsed. I don't know if anyone ever did any hard-economics on its operating costs but I suspect it'd be just as expensive as the shuttle given that both vehicles made almost exactly the same design compromises.

The Energia-Buran system was actually more cost effective than our system, because:

1) The orbiter didn't have large rockets built into it, thus allowing for a larger cargo capacity (it could easily have launced some ISS modules that wouldn't fit in the NASA shuttle)

2) Energia is completely reusable, unlike the NASA system. It can also haul a lot more weight, allowing for larger and heavier payloads.

I think that Energia Corp. is trying to get international interest back into the Energia booster, although not necessarily the shuttle design. They still have all the equipment and parts necessary to build more Energia boosters, but lack one critical thing--funding.

Crayz9000 wrote:

Enlightenment wrote:Buran aka Shuttleski . It died because the Soviet Union collapsed. I don't know if anyone ever did any hard-economics on its operating costs but I suspect it'd be just as expensive as the shuttle given that both vehicles made almost exactly the same design compromises.

The Energia-Buran system was actually more cost effective than our system, because:

1) The orbiter didn't have large rockets built into it, thus allowing for a larger cargo capacity (it could easily have launced some ISS modules that wouldn't fit in the NASA shuttle)

2) Energia is completely reusable, unlike the NASA system. It can also haul a lot more weight, allowing for larger and heavier payloads.

I think that Energia Corp. is trying to get international interest back into the Energia booster, although not necessarily the shuttle design. They still have all the equipment and parts necessary to build more Energia boosters, but lack one critical thing--funding.

Well the Russians certainly have the skill, they've already helped NASA and ESA build better rockets since ours were second rate compared to some of their designs.

Maybe we need them to get a new orbiter in the works since I hear the X-33 is effectively canned.

Fine by me. The problem is mostly understood.

Enlightenment wrote: resupply flight launched on an expendable might have kept the crew alive long enough to be recovered by the next Shuttle flight in early March.

Apparently Discovery could have launched within a week with a two man crew if they really rushed the process.

Enlightenment wrote:The $500 million dollar turkey takes flight again...

Uhm, don't you mean "$500 million dollar brick with wings?"

Renewed_Valour1 wrote:Apparently Discovery could have launched within a week with a two man crew if they really rushed the process.

Unless you've got an authorititive source on that I'm going to say that shaving three weeks off prep time for Atlantis STS-114 is a fantasy. The people on sci.space.shuttle who did/do orbiter prep work are generally of the opinion that STS-114 could have been pulled back by one week by doing a rush job and pulled back by no more than two weeks by skipping pretty much all safety checkouts. Atlantis was six weeks away from launch when STS-107 was launched and four weeks away from launch when Columbia disintegrated. It is simply not feasable to condense either six or four weeks of work into one week.

One possible Columbia rescue plan:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/878887.asp?0cv=CB10

Hyperion wrote:Uhm, don't you mean "$500 million dollar brick with wings?"

No. A brick with wings might be useful. The Shuttle simply consumes huge quantities of pork for no substantive purpose.

Instead of the Shuttle, what platform should have been used over the past decade for experiments in space?

Uraniun235 wrote:Instead of the Shuttle, what platform should have been used over the past decade for experiments in space?

That question assumes that performing 'experiments in space' is a valid goal in and of itself. This is part of the problem with the Shuttle rather than a design direction for what to build next.

Shuttle doesn't bring humanity closer to being a spacefaring civilization, to substantively advancing the boundaries of science or engineering. Indeed, all it does is turn out pretty pictures, jobs in key districts, and steaming piles of PR. In short, it does nothing of any value. Replacing Shuttle with another vehicle that has 1/10th, or even 1/100th, the cost to orbit doesn't change this; it simply means that the US is wasting less money to do absolutely nothing.

The core problem isn't Shuttle, it's that human spaceflight policy is utterly broken. What space policy needs is not another vehicle but rather a substantive goal; then and only then should vehicles be built for the specific purpose of seeing the goal realized.

Enlightenment wrote: No. A brick with wings might be useful. The Shuttle simply consumes huge quantities of pork for no substantive purpose.

*points at top secret DoD shuttle flights, then remembers that unenlightened
is a rabid furriner who hates the US, and runs like hell*