Shuttle Repair Kit

[Methanolandbrats]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/02/10/space.shuttle.ap/

Rappelling from a troubled shuttle :rofl: They'll need a long, stout rope to bail out at 10,000 mph and 10 miles up. Any racefan knows all they need for a repair kit is a couple rolls of duct tape and some zip ties.

[dando]

I'll pass on laughing about this, as continuing shuttle flights is critical to supporting the ISS. NASA's struggles to solve the shuttle's problems makes ya think about how miraculous the engineers' solutions were to save Apollo 13 and her crew. :thumbup:

-Kevin

[Methanolandbrats]

I love the space program, what I'm trying to say is they gotta replace that junk.

[Ankf00]

the shuttle is one ****ty design

the tile repair systems we've developed in the past year or two are equally ****ty...

good thing the external tank is revamped

[dando]

I love the space program, what I'm trying to say is they gotta replace that junk.
I here ya, but it's what we've got for the near term, eh? Frankly, I'd rather they mothball them, but would ya rather rely on the Russkies to support the ISS solo? Cripes, their damn O2 generators don't do the job. :(

-Kevin

[dando]

the shuttle is one ****ty design

Holmes, for a late '60s/early-70s design, it ain't so bad, eh? Fact is we shouldn't be relying on these as our primary manned launch vehicles ~3 years later. Aye?

-Kevin

[Ankf00]

Holmes, for a late '60s/early-70s design, it ain't so bad, eh? Fact is we shouldn't be relying on these as our primary manned launch vehicles ~3 years later. Aye?

-Kevin

actually, it was/is/will be bad...

there's alot of inherent design "issues" you don't hear about that people are still discovering. :rolleyes:

[Ankf00]

I here ya, but it's what we've got for the near term, eh? Frankly, I'd rather they mothball them, but would ya rather rely on the Russkies to support the ISS solo? Cripes, their damn O2 generators don't do the job. :(

-Kevin

due to federal legislation, we're not allowed to pay the russians for any more soyuz missions (edit: beyond the 10 or so soyuz flights authorized in some 90's treaty for "emergency rescue" or something) because they conduct business with Iran or something like that...

if there's no shuttle flights, then the station would need to be eventually abandoned.

the o2 generators have been failing mostly they think because of some bacteria that's been growing in the system, which they discovered in one of their recent spacewalks.

anywho, NASA awards the 2 Crew Exploration Vehicle contracts in a couple of months, work should begin in August, it'll prolly be Northrop+Boeing and Lockheed as the two teams, low-altitude flight tests in '08 at which point they'll downselect and pick the winner for further development $ and tests, orbital, lunar lander, etc etc

[Methanolandbrats]

The way I see it, the risk of catastrophic failure is increasing exponentially and I don't think it's a good idea to put people in those things.

[Ankf00]

manned space flight's not safe in the first place, but this shuttle will be much safer than those previous, orbiters have always come back with tile damage, you'd be surprised at the magnitude of it, they've just never had a massive hole punched in the leading edge panels, the new external tank isn't supposed to shed the foam chunks that it did previously, plus there's new non-destructive testing methods they're putting the tank through prior to shuttle assembly to ensure a safe launch

[dando]

actually, it was/is/will be bad...

there's alot of inherent design "issues" you don't hear about that people are still discovering. :rolleyes:
Not to make excuses, but keep in mind the state of affairs when the shuttle was designed. We were in the midst of the cold war, and NASA was racing against the Soviets, who were working on the Buran. The fact is that we should have been working on the replacement design back in the 80s, or @ the very latest early 90s...especially after Challenger. So by 2010 we might have the next gen shuttle...~40 years after the shuttle was being designed. :shakehead

-Kevin

[Methanolandbrats]

manned space flight's not safe in the first place, but this shuttle will be much safer than those previous, orbiters have always come back with tile damage, you'd be surprised at the magnitude of it, they've just never had a massive hole punched in the leading edge panels, the new external tank isn't supposed to shed the foam chunks that it did previously, plus there's new non-destructive testing methods they're putting the tank through prior to shuttle assembly to ensure a safe launch What about general fatigue of everything from all the launch cycles?

[Ankf00]

the orbiter fleet has gone through a massive and thorough inspection post-columbia, catastrophic fatigue failure's not a concern that I've seen or heard anywhere or from anyone. The tile repair kits they've been working on are next to impossible b/c NASA wants some one size fits all system (the main problem is flat is easy to fix, curved sections are a bitch) instead of different systems for different portions or for specified fuselage/wing geometries. The tile's are refurbished between missions, and they do need it too. The risk is almost exclusively in ascent and descent, and with the new external tank and the non-destructive testing prior to assembly, they're supposed to be safer... that's assuming lockheed new orleans isn't full of **** and you want to believe them...

[pchall]

I still wish that they had built the original design with a manned/reusable launch vehicle and the orbiter. That exposed fuel/air bomb of a main tank with a couple of solid boosters strapped on to it has always been a stupid idea.

As for the number of launch/return cycles, if that would really be a problem with four or five launches a year per vehicle assembly with a fleet of the the original design I'd be suprised. Either that, or 747Cs would be falling out of the sky every day by now...

[JoeBob]

I've posted this before, in more detail, but I'll post it again.

The shuttle program is a failure because of a lack of vision (and the associated lack of budget) and the end of the cold war. The space program was pretty much always a way to showcase our missile technology. The implicit message of sending a man to the moon was, "If we can put a man on the moon - we sure as heck can put an enormous amount of nuclear warheads in the middle of red square."

But, once we'd shown the Russians we could do that - and they started falling apart/disarming, we really didn't have to send that message again. They knew what we could do. That left the space program without a real "mission." So, the shuttle was designed in the 1970s just so we could say we had a space program - but with budget restrictions that meant that it had to be build with entirely "off the shelf" parts.

The shuttle mission was put together by committee. They wanted something that would allow them to say, "We're still going into space, doing something somewhat useful while there, and most importantly, it isn't costing much money." Thus, you get a jack of all trades, master of none space vehicle.

For hauling cargo into space, unmanned boosters are a better solution - they're cheaper, can lift a heavier payload, and are safer. For getting stuff out of space, a fireball and spashdown in the ocean makes a lot more sense than sending the shuttle to bring it down. (Almost nothing is worth "bringing home" for repair and later relaunch - which is why the shuttle has only brought something home once.) For in-orbit research, a space station is a better long term platform than a vehicle that has to come home after 2 weeks.

Sure you could use the shuttle for all of those things, but why would you? The shuttle was the solution to a problem that didn't exist in the first place.

The real value of the space program comes from the new technologies required to make things happen. The shuttle has resulted in precious few "new inventions." We had to invent countless new things to get to the moon. We had to invent almost nothing to build the shuttle.

And to fans of the space program, that is heartbreaking.

[oddlycalm]

The shuttle mission was put together by committee. Exactly, and the worst of it was that it was a committee of bureaucrats. I also agree with your take on the lack of innovation required. Innovation is what drives our economy, and it seems like we are going out of our way to stifle it. I wouldn't characterize myself as so much a fan of the space program, but a fan of innovation and good new ideas. To the extent the space program embodied that, I have been a fan. The recent unmanned mission successes have been outstanding.

oc

[RichK]

I'm just old enough to remember Shuttle "propaganda" in my elementary school paper, back then it was called the "Space Taxi" or something like that. The picture showed smiling people looking out of their windows on a space cruise.

As a kid, I was influenced to become an engineer by the space program, and I eventually studied "rocket science" in undergrad and grad school (at Texas A&M, ank! :p ). Although the Shuttle is far from perfect and was sold as something else, it did influence a generation.

[Brickman]

I've posted this before, in more detail, but I'll post it again.

The shuttle program is a failure because of a lack of vision (and the associated lack of budget) and the end of the cold war. The space program was pretty much always a way to showcase our missile technology. The implicit message of sending a man to the moon was, "If we can put a man on the moon - we sure as heck can put an enormous amount of nuclear warheads in the middle of red square."

But, once we'd shown the Russians we could do that - and they started falling apart/disarming, we really didn't have to send that message again. They knew what we could do. That left the space program without a real "mission." So, the shuttle was designed in the 1970s just so we could say we had a space program - but with budget restrictions that meant that it had to be build with entirely "off the shelf" parts.

The shuttle mission was put together by committee. They wanted something that would allow them to say, "We're still going into space, doing something somewhat useful while there, and most importantly, it isn't costing much money." Thus, you get a jack of all trades, master of none space vehicle.

For hauling cargo into space, unmanned boosters are a better solution - they're cheaper, can lift a heavier payload, and are safer. For getting stuff out of space, a fireball and spashdown in the ocean makes a lot more sense than sending the shuttle to bring it down. (Almost nothing is worth "bringing home" for repair and later relaunch - which is why the shuttle has only brought something home once.) For in-orbit research, a space station is a better long term platform than a vehicle that has to come home after 2 weeks.

Sure you could use the shuttle for all of those things, but why would you? The shuttle was the solution to a problem that didn't exist in the first place.

The real value of the space program comes from the new technologies required to make things happen. The shuttle has resulted in precious few "new inventions." We had to invent countless new things to get to the moon. We had to invent almost nothing to build the shuttle.

And to fans of the space program, that is heartbreaking.

I always thought it was the military that mucked it up because of payload needs. I think it's time for a farewell tour and close out the shuttles. Time for something designed and built in this century.

[Ankf00]

the shuttle program needed more clout in congress to get authorization so they ballooned the orbiter and cargo bay so as to accommodate USAF payloads, thereby gaining USAF support and lobbying for congressional approval, USAF launchs all their payloads on Atlas V's and Delta IV's now

[The Doctor]

USAF launchs all their payloads on Atlas V's and Delta IV's now

Can't go wrong with this bad boy:

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/space/delta_iv/images/d4h_demo_05.jpg

Ventured over to the coast to watch the first launch in December. Mighty impressive power it puts out, and that's an understatement. :eek:

[Ankf00]

that's the Delta IV Heavy Lift right?

[The Doctor]

that's the Delta IV Heavy Lift right?

It is. First real flight scheduled for later this year if they fix the problem that caused bubbles in the three boosters. The flight in December went well except for the engines cutting off too soon b/c of the bubbles and thus left the sensors and dummy cargo about 10k miles short of intended altitude.

[Ankf00]

ya, that flight was carrying 2 CU Boulder sattys which are now in highly elitpical orbit and out of contact, the Lockheed ppl in Denver seemed to get a kick out of that *shrug*

[chop456]

Not to make excuses, but keep in mind the state of affairs when the shuttle was designed. We were in the midst of the cold war, and NASA was racing against the Soviets, who were working on the Buran. The fact is that we should have been working on the replacement design back in the 80s, or @ the very latest early 90s...especially after Challenger. So by 2010 we might have the next gen shuttle...~40 years after the shuttle was being designed. :shakehead

-Kevin

http://www.russiatoday.com/Art_and_Fun/2008-11-15/Soviet_space_shuttle_could_bail_out_NASA.html?gcli d=CJiVodmD1ZwCFQMNDQodXid0Kw

:tony:

[Gnam]

What a rocket scientist came up with that plan? :laugh: