Author Topic: I'm proud of the Shuttle  (Read 9687 times)

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #20 on: 05/04/2006 02:33 pm »
Well said Chris!

Personally, I'd have liked to see the HL20 produced.

As far as perfection, NO US Manned space vehicle (I won't talk Soviet... because according to them, every flight was perfect... ya' know how those darned Soviets used to be) has ever flown with 100% perfection in its system. People almost always overlook that. I've heard Mercury held up- because of its simple systems... yet EVERY mercury vehicle and mission had a flaw, some small (Shepard's auto retro jet indication) others major. In Gemini every single flight had a glitch- and before someone snaps up and argues that point, be prepared- because I am... I can take any of those flights and find a glitch or imperfection. Likewise, every Apollo mission had some sort of a glitch. There is no such thing as perfection. The simple fact is that people look at the STS and grumble because they do not see perfection in spaceflight when there can be no perfection in such operations- they are simply too complex, even when they are simple. Yet they use that to denigrate the entire STS. The fact is that perfection in flight itself is rare (I've piloted trans-con jets that had more glitches than some space flights) and perfection in a spaceflight not possible. So, when someone uses the "perfection" standard to try and prove that the shuttle is somehow flawed more than other spaceflight systems- they are themselves using a flawed standard.

I'm not arguing here- what I'm doing is trying to  show ways to best thwart common mistatements that we often hear and sometimes make ourselves.

Is the STS perfect- NO WAY. Can it be made so or if funding would have allowed, could it have been made so? NOPE, not a chance- because a system so complex as one that flies in space can NEVER be 100% flawless (any engineers wanna chime in and support me on that?). Had the shuttle been funded to be 100% redesigned after 51L, there would have been new flaws. Here's a good analogy that we pilots often use when passengers gripe about a mechanical: Have you ever had a toaster in your house? "Sure." Has one ever broken on you? "Of course." How many moving parts does a toaster have and what sort of temperatures and pressures does a toaster work at compared to the sorts of temp.s and pressures that this flying machine operates at... and you expect this thing to never glitch? Every time you use that one ya' see a disgusted passenger turn into a sly grin.

I know full well the flaws in the STS... I also know the flaws in my toaster. I'm happy with both systems- because they do the job.

Offline spacefire

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #21 on: 05/04/2006 02:40 pm »
In an ideal world, history would have see the Dynasoar follow the X15, then the HL42 would ferry people to orbit in the 80s, a fully reusable TSTO like the some of ones outlined in the SLI/OSP would follow in the 90s and this decade a SSTO like Venture Star would be flying regularly, while a Scramjet SSTO would be in the works.
Unfortunately there were Moon races to win, wars to fight halfway around the world, and the promise of a huge spaceship that was ten times more advanced than Apollo capsules. Between lack of funds and chasing the perfect launcher, technological progress in space exploration has moved in leaps and standstills.
Today we have abandoned dreams of the perfect spaceship, we fight wars halfway around the globe that drain our treasury and we want to go back to the Moon just cause...and of course if we make it to the Moon we're sure we can make it to Mars too...sometime.

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #22 on: 05/04/2006 03:08 pm »
I just finished reading Jenkins work on the shuttle just after the Columbia accident. Then I read TA Heppenheimer's political history of the shuttle. Considering what shuttle was tasked to do and what resources were given to NASA to do the job, shuttle is an exceptional vehicle. There will be more winged reusable manned spacecraft. She was not a dead end.

Gene

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #23 on: 05/04/2006 06:46 pm »
Jenkins wrote a terrific book- I recall diving into it a few years ago and not coming up for air for a month or two. Being an author myself I can tell everyone that the Jenkins book is one amazing work. The level of focus and just plain work that has gone into it is really amazing. I think it is THE definitive book on the shuttle. Those shuttle haters out there would do well to read every word contained in the text. Of course there in resides the catch 22- anyone who hates the shuttle would not read the book, because they hate the shuttle. Thus they know little about the STS and are not willing to learn anything about it, they'd rather just loathe it. Of course for those who like the shuttle, I'd say go and get a copy of the Jenkins book. It's a tad expensive, but it is worth it. It is VERY well illustrated and highly detailed taking the reader from very early pre-STS to almost present day. Every component of the shuttle is detailed- it's amazing.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #24 on: 05/04/2006 07:55 pm »
The older edition had some things on BURAN IIRC, and the shuttle upgrade section had an option for converting STS into something similar. I've heard called Block II and what not.

My fav
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Buran

Nice drawing of a similar concept
http://www.lunadude.com/pfolio-illus.htm


http://www.lunadude.com


Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #25 on: 05/04/2006 08:58 pm »
Quote
zerm - 4/5/2006  7:33 AM
(I won't talk Soviet... because according to them, every flight was perfect... ya' know how those darned Soviets used to be)
Even they didn't claim Soyuz 1 or Soyuz 11 was a stunning success...
Quote
I know full well the flaws in the STS... I also know the flaws in my toaster. I'm happy with both systems- because they do the job.
There's a difference. The shuttle didn't come remotely close to doing the things it was sold as being able to do. Don't get me wrong, it is still an incredible achievement, and clearly the people who designed, built and operate it deserve our respect. However, having respect for them shouldn't prevent us from recognizing it's flaws, or trying to find ways in which it could have been done better.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #26 on: 05/05/2006 12:09 am »
Quote
As groundbreaking as it was, being the first meant that it had to do more that it's fair share of hard-way lesson-learning.  Boeing, on the other hand, was able to apply their knowledge from building the B-47 and B-52, as well as from observing the Caravelle and the Comet, when they were designing the 707.

Shuttle was the first reusable launch vehicle ever, so it's not surprising that it ended up being slightly imperfect.   It's too bad that there was no opportunity to either build another vehicle with the lessons learned from the first 33 shuttle flights, or perhaps to build a much smaller vehicle to learn with and then go for something Shuttle-like.

Exactly my view on the subject!  I think what we're doing by regressing to Apollo derived capsules would be akin to abandoning jet airliner development after the Comet's problems, and going back to props instead of ever building the 707.

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #27 on: 05/05/2006 01:48 am »
I really don't see it as regressive to build an Apollo style capsule once again. Simply put, it's the right design for the job.  

Understand that while Comet was in service, many aircraft manufacturers continued to build prop driven airliners. Martin, Convair and Douglas built highly successful recip powered birds. Again, the right design for the job. Not leading edge like Comet, Shuttle, or Concorde, but pedestrian every serviceable ships that did the job.  

When the demand was there for a jet airliner, the manufacturers responded. When a REAL demand (not politically driven like the Shuttle) exists for a manned reusable spacecraft, the engineers will look at the shuttle design and go further.

I'm not one of those who feel the public was hoodwinked with the promise of routinely operating the shuttle like an airliner. I think the intention was always there, but as the program matured, there came a realization that  shuttle operations will never be "routine". I think that realization occurred long before Challenger's demise. The payload specialist astronauts and Christa McCauliffe were not ignorant people by any stretch of the imagination. I think they all knew the risks involved.  That said,  Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia were accidents that shouldn't have happened.  

Eventually we will lose a crew on CEV or on the Moon or Mars. Early aircraft had a high accident rate too.  Look the accident rate for the Century series fighters. Ghoulish by today's standards.


Gene

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #28 on: 05/05/2006 02:05 am »
Quote
vt_hokie - 4/5/2006  8:09 PM
Quote
As groundbreaking as it was, being the first meant that it had to do more that it's fair share of hard-way lesson-learning.  Boeing, on the other hand, was able to apply their knowledge from building the B-47 and B-52, as well as from observing the Caravelle and the Comet, when they were designing the 707.Shuttle was the first reusable launch vehicle ever, so it's not surprising that it ended up being slightly imperfect.   It's too bad that there was no opportunity to either build another vehicle with the lessons learned from the first 33 shuttle flights, or perhaps to build a much smaller vehicle to learn with and then go for something Shuttle-like.
Exactly my view on the subject!  I think what we're doing by regressing to Apollo derived capsules would be akin to abandoning jet airliner development after the Comet's problems, and going back to props instead of ever building the 707.

You have a skewed view.  The Russians have maintained a capsule system for 40 years.   Don't use Kliper as an example because it isn't a sure thing.  It is in the same position as the X-38 and could and probably will go away.

At this time, there isn't the justification or business case for a winged crew capsule or a RLV.  It is like the Concorde and the US SST, where the Concorde is the space shuttle and the US SST is the Buran (except the Buran got further along).    We don't have any SST flying at this time but new passenger planes are being developed.  The all mighty dollar rules.  It doesn't make cents to put the money into a system that would cost more than the current methods

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #29 on: 05/05/2006 02:21 am »
That's where capitalism falls short.  If profitability is an immediate requirement, we will never advance.  Almost no new technology starts out being cost effective.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #30 on: 05/05/2006 02:46 am »
Quote
vt_hokie - 4/5/2006  10:21 PMThat's where capitalism falls short.  If profitability is an immediate requirement, we will never advance.  Almost no new technology starts out being cost effective.

You must be blind.  Cell phones, PDA's, Video games, PC's

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #31 on: 05/05/2006 05:52 am »
A lot of technogies are spinoffs of taxpayer funded defense research.  There are a lot of hidden subsidies behind such innovations, and I think that organizations like NASA exist to pursue the cutting edge research with potential long term benefits that private enterprise can't do due to its short term outlook.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #32 on: 05/05/2006 05:03 pm »
I agree. PDAs and Cell phones themselves come from a long line of research. Rutan's "private" SS1 had GPS--and I'd hardly call that a private advance.

I am rather sadded at how Libertarians here in my state talk their Ayn Rand nonsense on computers whose electricity is provided by TVA, and how Libertarian minded folks travel to DC atop the Eisenhower Interstate system to tell us how 'we don't need gov't."
Let them pave their own roads to and from work--and privatize that before they can talk about privatizing space.

A lot of the Alt.Space crowd like to talk about how the X-Prize was like the early days of flight, and compare themselves with and their craft with the Spirit Of St. Louis.

I'm of the position that Lindy did NOTHING to advance Trans-Atlantic flight. People have flown across the Atlantic before and after his stunt.  Trans-Atlantic flight was revolutionized by the DASH-80, a long distance jet that set the standard for jet airliners. Not as pretty as the Comet, but easier to work on due to podded engines. Dash-80 was a result of big govt. and big companies--and that is why the A-340, the 747, A-380, etc. look a lot more like the DASH-80 (707) than Lindy's Spirit. He might have popularized flight--but it took big infrastructure to flesh out the reality of the Jet Age.

An interesting column here on this site:
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4656

Offline spacefire

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #33 on: 05/05/2006 05:51 pm »
(edit: I won't allow the sort of "Shuttle sucks, CEV sucks" rubbish on here, post deleted - Chris.)

Offline Paul Howard

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 25
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #34 on: 05/07/2006 02:04 am »
The Shuttle is an amazing machine. In fact, it's so advanced they are ahead of their time in reality. That's why it appears we are going  backwards with the CEV.

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 22
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #35 on: 05/07/2006 02:53 am »
Quote
Paul Howard - 6/5/2006  10:04 PM

The Shuttle is an amazing machine. In fact, it's so advanced they are ahead of their time in reality. That's why it appears we are going  backwards with the CEV.

Exaclty.  That's also why it's so expensive and complicated.  It really is ahead of its time.

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: I'm proud of the Shuttle
« Reply #36 on: 05/07/2006 03:36 am »
I read today on aero-news.net that Rutan is busting on NASA again because of the CEV. The CEV is a totally different machine to do a different job.

Bottom line is- NO spaceflight is easy or simple or perfect.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0