-
#3640 by whitelancer64 on 04 May, 2020 16:44
-
There are indeed tons of threads on this. There were a whole bunch of inputs that pushed the Shuttle's design away from being something that might actually have been lower cost and more efficient in operations. There is not one single simple explanation.
One of the big problems is that the reusable shuttle was designed essentially by committee - the DOD had a lot of input on the design requirements for the payload bay that made the shuttle much larger and heavier than originally conceived.
But there were many others. I agree with the previous posts that reading up on the topic would help tremendously. -
#3641 by Coastal Ron on 04 May, 2020 17:05
-
Congratulations on your first post!
That said, welcome to reality, which in this case is someone disagreeing with you. I think you are starting out with a number of flawed assumptions, which will lead you to bad conclusions.
And yes, let's not debate the topic here, as there are TONS of threads that deal with this topic. But let me point out what I think your flawed assumptions are, since they might help you on future discussions.Though the space shuttle accomplished quite a bit, we all know that the Shuttle was a grand fiasco in design, safety, and especially cost.
The term "grand fiasco" has no way to be measured, it is an emotional description, so there is no way to come to an unbiased conclusion. If you wanted to ask if it met its goals on payload, or per flight cost, those are quantifiable.QuoteIt was responsible in the end for NASA decisively losing the rocket battle to the private sector.
Again, a conclusion that is based on emotion and not facts. And why is depending on the private sector "bad"?QuoteBut given that NASA consists of thousands of people with as much expertise in spaceflight as anyone (and more than anyone else in the 70s), I'm left wondering how it all stacked up like this.
Again, a flawed assumption - NASA contracts for the vast amount of their hardware, and the aerospace knowledge for designing things like the Shuttle is predominately held in the private sector, not NASA. The Shuttle vehicle was designed and built by Rockwell International based on a design competition that NASA held. NASA did not come up with the idea that Rockwell International ultimately built, though obviously NASA validated the design and provided assistance. But assuming that all spacecraft knowledge emanates from NASA is wrong.QuoteI heard that back in the 70s, they wanted a reusable spacecraft to cheapen the costs of spaceflight. Did not the NASA people realize that the Shuttle might cost more than a low cost expendable system, and/or that for a reusable design the shuttle was an odd and extremely inefficient way to go? Or was this nothing more than a cosmic miscalculation and failure by NASA?(I know it's because in those days there was no KSP)
If you are truly interested in the history of the Shuttle then I recommend you read books on the topic. There are lots of them out there, and you can find recommendations on NSF. Because the Shuttle was a product of many things, including politics, and not just engineering choices. So until you understand those factors, you won't understand the answers you get.
My $0.02 -
#3642 by Hog on 04 May, 2020 18:18
-
Thank you Ron.
-
#3643 by Tony Trout on 17 May, 2020 15:59
-
The question is probably self-explanatory but....I was looking at a picture of shuttle Atlantis, I believe, at KSC on display and noticed that not all of the wing is there with the display...in other words, it was removed, I guess you could say.
Why was this done to these legendary orbiter(s)?!?!?!? I would think that KSC, at least, would want a complete orbiter to display?
?
Any answers are welcome!!
(BTW, if I put this in the wrong place, my apologies. Someone can move it if they wish) -
#3644 by Hobbes-22 on 17 May, 2020 16:51
-
What are you referring to? In all of the images I've seen, the wings are complete.
The port wing is partially hidden by the walkway.
-
#3645 by Tony Trout on 17 May, 2020 18:34
-
That second image is the one I was referring to. I should have searched to find it to add it to my original message.
I guess, due to my bad eyesight, I didn't see the rest of the wing and thought that they had somehow removed it. -
#3646 by rlandmann on 19 May, 2020 21:46
-
Hi all — Obscure question about Enterprise from a scale modeller's perspective... were/are her elevon flapper doors made from Inconel? In photos during ALT, they seem much lighter in colour, even a light grey. But in subsequent photos (integration test at KSC, European tour ’83, World’s Fair ’84) they’re the expected black.
Were they originally a different material and then replaced? Or maybe just later painted black? Or are the ALT photos just a trick of the harsh Californian sunlight and they were Inconel all along? (Although I can’t remember photos of the X-15 looking light grey!)
-
#3647 by mkirk on 19 May, 2020 23:13
-
Hi all — Obscure question about Enterprise from a scale modeller's perspective... were/are her elevon flapper doors made from Inconel? In photos during ALT, they seem much lighter in colour, even a light grey. But in subsequent photos (integration test at KSC, European tour ’83, World’s Fair ’84) they’re the expected black.
Were they originally a different material and then replaced? Or maybe just later painted black? Or are the ALT photos just a trick of the harsh Californian sunlight and they were Inconel all along? (Although I can’t remember photos of the X-15 looking light grey!)
I’ve never given it any though until now, but it wouldn’t have made sense to do that. Enterprise was not exposed to any thermal environments that would have necessitated the additional expense and hassle of working with the Inconel material.
Mark Kirkman
“NASA Space Shuttle Hugger” -
#3648 by Fequalsma on 29 May, 2020 01:24
-
Was avionics bay 3B used in the final Shuttle flights? Is there a diagram that shows which black boxes are located in each bay?
F=ma -
#3649 by mkirk on 29 May, 2020 01:42
-
Was avionics bay 3B used in the final Shuttle flights? Is there a diagram that shows which black boxes are located in each bay?
F=ma
Here are diagrams of Bay 1, 2, 3A & 3B:
Mark Kirkman
“NASA Space Shuttle Hugger”
-
#3650 by Fequalsma on 29 May, 2020 02:19
-
Thanks mkirk. What's the source of these images?
F=ma -
#3651 by mkirk on 30 May, 2020 01:04
-
Thanks mkirk. What's the source of these images?
F=ma
The drawings showed up in a lot of the training documentation, but I grabbed these from the IFM (In-Flight Maintenance) Checklist. -
#3652 by Fequalsma on 31 May, 2020 16:13
-
Good info thanks mkirk. I saw in one of Wayne Hale's posts that the RSB is closed at 15 percent. Do you know why 15 and not 0?
F=ma
-
#3653 by penguin44 on 01 Jun, 2020 04:21
-
He said don't ask why!
-
#3654 by mkirk on 01 Jun, 2020 17:57
-
Good info thanks mkirk. I saw in one of Wayne Hale's posts that the RSB is closed at 15 percent. Do you know why 15 and not 0?
F=ma
Like penguin44 said, Wayne told you not to ask. What the heck? Lol
Keeping it simple - the lower limit of the speed brake was 15 degrees. So if either auto guidance or the crew manually commanded the speed brake to the close position during entry - it was actually at 15 degrees. This was to help prevent physical binding of the mechanical linkages when the rudder is deflected (remember both speed brake panels moved as a combine unit to perform the rudder function) and to improve rudder effectiveness.
This “software limit” became effective once the speed brake was commanded open - in other words, this didn’t apply during launch since the speed brake was not used then.
Mark Kirkman
“NASA Space Shuttle Hugger” -
#3655 by Fequalsma on 01 Jun, 2020 18:49
-
I know he said don't ask - but I couldn't help myself! And he answered on the other thread...
Thanks again for your insight mkirk.
F=ma -
#3656 by mkirk on 01 Jun, 2020 19:01
-
I know he said don't ask - but I couldn't help myself! And he answered on the other thread...
Thanks again for your insight mkirk.
F=ma
What other thread? -
#3657 by Fequalsma on 01 Jun, 2020 19:23
-
#3658 by AS_501 on 04 Jun, 2020 20:50
-
Been watching close-up/high speed imagery of SSME and SRB launch events on NASA TV. Always wondered why the SSME nozzles pulled toward each other (while at full thrust) just before SRB ignition. Final check of engine controller? Final check of gimbaling? Thanks!
-
#3659 by PahTo on 04 Jun, 2020 21:00
-
Been watching close-up/high speed imagery of SSME and SRB launch events on NASA TV. Always wondered why the SSME nozzles pulled toward each other (while at full thrust) just before SRB ignition. Final check of engine controller? Final check of gimbaling? Thanks!
That is the RS-25s moving to actual launch position--they are slightly splayed as they spin up to full thrust to avoid hitting each other during start-up transients. (that is, to keep the nozzles from hitting each other--that would make for a very bad day)
EDIT: not sure which imagery you've been watching, but I've seen super high res/super slo-mo imagery where one can see not just the large-scale transients (engines shaking visibly), but also the harmonics in the nozzles themselves--subtle oscillations much like a ringing bell. Amazing stuff!
? 