If the space shuttle is so fragile, how did it survive all these other trips? - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - If the space shuttle is so fragile, how did it survive all these other trips? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 8/3/2005 8:19:18 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
50% of shuttles have wrecked...not great numbers.

2 out of 6 = 50%

Is that new math ?

I thought there was four...?

~~Challenger, Columbia~~, Discovery, Endevor (sp?)

You forgot Atlantis and Enterprise. Enterprise was the first built and is too heavy to fly. (Oops! ANGST beat me by 3 hours)

The gap filler is there to keep super heated air from getting to the RTV 550 that glues the tiles to the aluminum airframe. The gap filler can trip the airflow causing turbulence that greatly increases heat transfer to the thermal tiles. The tiles can superheat and fail. Even the oils from a fingerprint can cause a hot spot that will destroy a tile.

Actually, gap fillers are there to protect tile edges from vibration on launch. It offers no thermal protection during reentry nor is there a need. Hypersonic reentry plus the low absolute pressure (and long mean free path at that pressure) means very little thermal energy can make it down a 0.002" crevice that is several inches long.

Posted: 8/3/2005 8:37:16 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.

... And just how else do you propose getting our top secret, critical military payloads into low earth orbit?
They're already launched from Vandenburg.

Kharn

And Virginia too.

Posted: 8/3/2005 8:49:26 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
When I was a kid I thought the shuttle looked cool...

As I got older and learned more about space flight I realized that spacecraft don't need to look like airplanes, they don't need to look cool, and they don't need to be reusable. They just need to be reliable and cost effective.

The shuttle looks cool, but is neither reliable nor cost effective. Of 5 shuttles that NASA has built for space flight, 2 have been destroyed with all hands lost. The shuttle is still by far the most expensive way to put payload into space. It is an enormously costly machine, and has been draining the NASA budget for many years now.

The ugly little Soyuz that the Russians use for manned spaceflight has not a fatality since 1971, and has proven to be both cost effective and reliable. It is modular, can be easily reconfigured for different types of missions, and shares components with other Russian space systems (such as the Progress resupply ship).

NASA needs a new system ASAP, and it needs to be a capsule!

The orbiters have been very reliable in all phases of flight. I will refer to Keith_J's very wise post as to why we lost the Crews of Challenger and Columbia. Regardless, the remaining shuttles will not be in service much longer if at all. Time to practice my "Sir, would you like paper or plastic" skills.

Posted: 8/3/2005 9:02:01 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
We will go back to capsule-based human space flight. How many times would you reload 40S&W brass?

Use once, learn, discard. We've gained little from a reusable vehicle. Fewer launches, fear of failure, etc.

Even the captured German scientists after WWII were anti-manned space flight. Not worth the extra cost to lug a fish out of his element.

Yeah! that water is heavy to haul into orbit!

Posted: 8/3/2005 9:02:15 PM EDT

[#5]

A little buffing and some

she'll be as good as new

Posted: 8/3/2005 9:03:01 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.

... And just how else do you propose getting our top secret, critical military payloads into low earth orbit?
They're already launched from Vandenburg.

Kharn

And Virginia too.

Boeing has some boosters for sale if you are in the market.

Posted: 8/4/2005 8:00:20 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.

Too bad the fucking sheep in this country are too lazy and gullible to really understand the impact the space program/space shuttle has on this country and the generations that will follow. The majority of the posters to this thread, or their fellow citizens, do not have a clue about the reliablity or function of the shuttle. Keep on believing what you see and hear on the news folks, it is very accurate non-biased reporting.

images.andale.com/f2/112/111/7410906/1123697902094_silversnoopy.jpg
Definitely don't listen to someone like me, I don't have a clue. God Bless the US space program, and all who support it, past, present, and future.

I think most of us understand that the byproducts of the space program help us everyday down here on the planet, but if I had a truck that couldn't reliably get my men to the jobsite and back safely then I would get a different truck to do it. I don't believe the press made up the story about trimmin the friggin tile packing. Some would say this is practice in case there is a real problem, but there is a concern about the the guy repairing the tile bumping into the other tiles and hurting them. That is just fucked if a bump into the damn thing could hurt it.

So if he could damage the thing by a bump then why risk the practice of cutting a unimportant packing. I must assume that there is risk of failure based on the fact that it was worth the risk of sending the man outside to fix the problem and risk possible additional collateral damage. If the packing between tiles is unimportant and can be pulled out why is it there in the first place?

I do agree that the press loves the suspense, but all this time fixing the problem and it aint fixed yet. Time to shit can some engineers and hire some new ones that can get the job done.

Posted: 8/4/2005 8:02:42 AM EDT

[#8]

If you had a car that every 9th or 10th time you drove it, it would
have some catastrophic failure you'd be unimpressed I think.

Especially if you spent Billions on it.

Posted: 8/4/2005 8:06:03 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... And just how else do you propose getting our top secret, critical military payloads into low earth orbit?
They're already launched from Vandenburg.

Kharn

And Virginia too.

The Air Force was.. manadated by Congress to soley use the shuttle for satelite delivery. that was one fo the concession in the 970 during the design, etc. After it was realized the shuttle sucked, th AF was allowed to (and did) return to the delta thingy rockets to put their spy shit in orbit.

Posted: 8/4/2005 9:55:35 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.

... And just how else do you propose getting our top secret, critical military payloads into low earth orbit?

Well, we have been doing it with rockets... We didn't launch any military birds in the two year the shuttle was grounded ? I don't believe that.

You're taking my post to say that I am anti-space program... I am not, I find it interesting and neater than shit. However, I think the Shuttle is a POS and if we are going to send people into space, we should build a better vehicle to do it... Will that cost money and is it expensive ? Yep. How much did the two Shuttles that were destroyed cost in terms of the vehicle and the personel ?
If your going to do it, at least do it right. Plus, I don't personally give a rats ass about the Shuttle, but I do give a rat ass about good people getting killed because we won't spring for something better.

I'm not a space historian or anything... But, look at what the US did in the 60's and early 70's compared to the Shuttle program... We lost, what, 3 people... and that wasn't even a launch, it was a pad accident.

Posted: 8/4/2005 10:14:56 AM EDT

[#11]

[images.andale.com/f2/112/111/7410906/1123697902094_silversnoopy.jpg

Mrs. Cool-E was awarded a Silver Snoopy award for the STS 98 mission.

Not that this has anything to do with anything, but Steve Robinson does not own a TV. Also, on during STS 77 (Andy Thomas' first flight) he got a letter from his homeowners association telling him that his lawn needed cutting and if not taken care of immediately, he would be fined, etc (he was not married at the time so NASA picked up his mail). It pissed me off so bad that I loaded up the mower and went and cut his grass. Something is wrong when you can't leave Earth without getting shit from a homeowners association.

Posted: 8/4/2005 10:20:41 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
50% of shuttles have wrecked...not great numbers.

2 out of 6 = 50%

Is that new math ?

I thought there was four...?

~~Challenger, Columbia~~, Discovery, Endevor (sp?)

Uh, Atlantis?

I guess I am 37 hours late.

Posted: 8/4/2005 10:20:50 AM EDT

[#13]

From what I have gathered it's been sheer luck.

Sounds like a good time to give it a rest. How many people would be unemployed if NASA went on hiatus for a few years. I'm sure rocket scientists could find work elsewhere.

Posted: 8/4/2005 10:27:59 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
If you had a car that every 9th or 10th time you drove it, it would
have some catastrophic failure you'd be unimpressed I think.

Especially if you spent Billions on it.

Not if I drove that car into orbit, put about 3 million miles on it, had no traction for 99.9% of the time, and only had to do it once or twice.

A major catastrophe in 1 out of 55 flights may be pretty realistic, and would certainly be acceptable to me if I had the chance to do it.

You get an "F" in Analogies.

Posted: 8/4/2005 10:28:53 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
We lost, what, 3 people... and that wasn't even a launch, it was a pad accident.

Yes they lost the entire crew of the spacecraft. A much smaller and simpler vehicle.

They would have lost 7 if it had a crew of 7 like the shuttle does...

I'm all for replacing the shuttle. But all of those guys out there calling it POS - how many manned space vehicles have you built (when you're not playing with dolls or drinking beer that is)? Know any cars that go Mach 20? I also doubt any of you have cars with the milage that the shuttle has (it travels roughly 413,585 Miles PER DAY).

Posted: 8/4/2005 10:48:24 AM EDT

[#16]

I have a different take.

The shuttle, while perfect in its time and design parameters, is too old to continue.

It's the "B-52" of the space program.

We need an "aurora" of the space program.

NASA should be shaken up, and infused with more money to develop the shuttle's replacement.

Screw EPA regs and the like, and the technology should be thrust forward, with innovation at the forefront.

Posted: 8/4/2005 10:59:22 AM EDT

[#17]

I am all for space flight but to build a new space shuttle or ship would be nuts.
We are paying for a war right now and the cost of a new shuttle on top of that would be nuts at this point.

Posted: 8/4/2005 11:10:17 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
The shuttle, while perfect in its time and design parameters, is too old to continue.

It's the "B-52" of the space program.

That's the best take on the situation I've heard.

Posted: 8/4/2005 11:14:34 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
The shuttle, while perfect in its time and design parameters

No it wasn't.

And as for a aircraft analogy, instead of the b-52, try the f-111

Posted: 8/4/2005 11:14:55 AM EDT

[#20]

Manned space flight is important, but simply not cost effective if you compare it to unmanned missions. We have learned an enormous amount from the Mars rover missions, the Hubble, the Solar observing systems, and all the interplanetary missions we have sent up over the years.

Stepping on the moon was a milestone for our species. The next step "out" for us will be a lot more expensive and will probably require more sophisticated technologies than we currently have. Unmanned space missions is the way to get that information.

If it was my money (wait a moment...it is!!!) I would put it on unmanned missions instead of a "new" shuttle fleet.

Posted: 8/4/2005 11:20:00 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
(it travels roughly 413,585 Miles PER DAY).

That means nothing in space.

Posted: 8/4/2005 11:29:57 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
(it travels roughly 413,585 Miles PER DAY).

That means nothing in space.

If you're going to make a comparison to a everyday use automobile that after 9 trips it's broken - it's a very valid comparison. How many of your cars do 9 trips of several million miles each? Under extream condiions?

Especially during that 413,000 mile trip it has 16 sunrises and sunsets with the temperture swinging something like 300 degrees in earth orbit, collisions with micro meteorites, and the radiation in space.

Posted: 8/4/2005 12:11:49 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Manned space flight is important, but simply not cost effective if you compare it to unmanned missions. We have learned an enormous amount from the Mars rover missions, the Hubble, the Solar observing systems, and all the interplanetary missions we have sent up over the years.

Stepping on the moon was a milestone for our species. The next step "out" for us will be a lot more expensive and will probably require more sophisticated technologies than we currently have. Unmanned space missions is the way to get that information.

If it was my money (wait a moment...it is!!!) I would put it on unmanned missions instead of a "new" shuttle fleet.

Funny, alot of that stuff went up in... THE SHUTTLE!

Posted: 8/4/2005 12:14:07 PM EDT

[#24]

Yes, it did. Like using your Ferrari to pick up groceries. It can be done, but should it?

Posted: 8/4/2005 12:17:25 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
The Air Force was.. manadated by Congress to soley use the shuttle for satelite delivery. that was one fo the concession in the 970 during the design, etc. After it was realized the shuttle sucked, th AF was allowed to (and did) return to the delta thingy rockets to put their spy shit in orbit.

IIRC, the AF also didnt like CNN reporting a few times that the (unclassified) load in the shuttle bay was being replaced with a classified AF payload at the last second.

Kharn

Posted: 8/4/2005 12:18:51 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Manned space flight is important, but simply not cost effective if you compare it to unmanned missions. We have learned an enormous amount from the Mars rover missions, the Hubble, the Solar observing systems, and all the interplanetary missions we have sent up over the years.

Stepping on the moon was a milestone for our species. The next step "out" for us will be a lot more expensive and will probably require more sophisticated technologies than we currently have. Unmanned space missions is the way to get that information.

If it was my money (wait a moment...it is!!!) I would put it on unmanned missions instead of a "new" shuttle fleet.

Funny, alot of that stuff went up in... THE SHUTTLE!

+1

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - If the space shuttle is so fragile, how did it survive all these other trips? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us