greaper007
Well-Known Member
It's funny that you had to come on JC to editorialize, to post something against Jtrain editorializing on JC.....isn't there a word for that?
Obama Proposing $50b Spending Bill - Runways, Roads
- Thread starter FullDeflection
- Start date
It's funny that you had to come on JC to editorialize, to post something against Jtrain editorializing on JC.....isn't there a word for that?
greaper007
Well-Known Member
Whoa now, Socialism? You don't mean that radical concept which espouses that workers should have a voice and a small share of the community and wealth that their work creates, do you? I mean come on, classic anti-American types like Jack London supported that concept.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
What? Mir was the same concept. Modular building in space, except they didn't need a fancy robotic arm to assemble the thing. In fact, ISS is Mir 2, as the Zvezda module was built as Mir 2. But hey, if you want to ignore the obvious, that's fine.
Alright, fine, lets say we today decide to keep the STS around. Would you rather ride on a vehicle which has a failure roughly every 50 flights, which is likely to be fatal, or would you ride on a vehicle which has a similar failure rate, but can survive total booster failure with a much higher chance of survival.
Why keep putting money into an unsafe, obsolete system, when we can easily come up with a cheaper, better and more effective system utilizing currently used space technology. The STS finally did what it was designed to do, build a station. We've done that, we don't need the capability anymore. We still have capability to get people to the station, just through a purchase agreement. I'd say that in no more than 3 years, we will have full cargo capability to the station again, and hopefully in 5 we've got passenger capability to the station. That's a much shorter break than was between ASTP and STS-1.
Turbine
Well-Known Member
I dont pay my friends to drive me places. In fact they can turn on me any second.
There have only been 2 major accidents, both of which were not because of a faulty shuttle. The SRB, and the tile incident were because of issues with the tank and the SRB's. The orbiter is safe.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
So you don't like paying the Russians, or you don't like paying anyone other than NASA? I'm all for private space flight, especially when you consider the launch costs on a Falcon 9 are significantly lower than any NASA/USAF vehicle of the same class.
Safe is a relative term. A ballistic re-entry with a capsule is a much, much safer and simpler return method that it really is the best way to go. Do tell me how the tile incident isn't an orbiter problem, but rather an ET & SRB problem? That's like saying USA1549 wasn't an airplane incident, but rather an engine incident. The tiles are a system of the orbiter. The tiles failed, leading to a structural failure of the vehicle. There isn't a single piece of the 4 part STS that hasn't had a failure at some point, and we are far from seeing many issues that would be seen if they flew weekly.
Turbine
Well-Known Member
No i don't like paying the Russians. I don't mind paying private American companies. We need are money here, we have our own problems.
The orbiter tiles didn't fail in that sense. They were never there to begin with because the tank ripped them from the orbiter. Since they were not there, how could they fail? That's like saying flight 1549 had an engine failure without having engines to begin with.
Now if a piece of equipment that was functioning suddenly fails, then that's a fault. Like your example of 1549.
The orbiter tiles didn't fail in that sense. They were never there to begin with because the tank ripped them from the orbiter. Since they were not there, how could they fail? That's like saying flight 1549 had an engine failure without having engines to begin with.
Now if a piece of equipment that was functioning suddenly fails, then that's a fault. Like your example of 1549.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
The tiles were there, they got hit by FOD, similar to the Canadian Geese in 1549. The whole system failed in the case of Columbia, primarily the ET & Orbiter. The other two main components have each failed too, sometimes resulting in a catastrophic loss (STS-51-L, SRB), sometimes not (STS-93, SSME).
It's time to move on from the shuttle. Perhaps using some parts isn't a bad idea, but it probably isn't the best idea either.
Turbine
Well-Known Member
They were knocked off, by the FOD. They didnt fail on their own.
IMO they do need a new space vehicle, agreed. It just should have been done prior to stopping the shuttle. And it shouldn't be a rocket.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Saying that the major accidents were not the shuttle's fault is a little silly, simply because the orbiter herself is useless without the ET and SRB. The STS's compromises drove the design, and resulted directly in the accidents.
The accidents that have happened were a result of the engineering compromises of the overall system and some dreadfully lousy engineering management practices.
Feynman had some smart things to say -read me. It could be argued that the STS project is a failure: it never attained the (admittedly highly unrealistic) flight rate goals even in the good ol' days, and until relatively recently was an airliner in search of a destination.
Standing up STS again is just about impossible - there are no spares, the part/supply chain contracts have been terminated and no good way to get the program running again without spending an ungodly amount of money owing to the shutdown of the supply chain.
None of this should be construed as an argument against manned spaceflight, just a sad statement of the mess that is NASA Manned Spaceflight.
Turbine
Well-Known Member
Yes, true.
I agree, im just saying that the orbiter itself hasn't had any major problems. The tile did not fail on its own, FOD hit it and that introduced another variable. Just like in 1549 the engines did not fail on their own, so it was not an aicraft fault. We've seen aircraft engines fail on their own because of mechanical issues, fire, etc.. But we havent seen the tiles fail on their own.
If you cut the fuel to the engine of course it stops. The engine failed but not in a structural sense. If you add fuel again the engine still works..just like the tiles they do their job of repelling heat. If you take them off the orbiter, there is no heat shield, but its not because they failed.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
A friend of mine's dad was an engineer at Rockwell. His argument was "We didn't know you'd be shooting Styrofoam at the wing!" (Said somewhat wryly of course...you get the point.)
The TFOA* problem is simply embarrassing. The fact that they KEPT FLYING with the TFOA problem, on the other hand, is reprehensible. Ditto for the SRM O-ring blow-by. Management had far too much faith in the vehicle and unrealistically overestimated how safe it was both times.
* Things Falling Off Aircraft
Turbine
Well-Known Member
pullup
Homewrecker
The fact that 1% controlled 15% of the wealth and has increased throughout the years pretty much is to be expected. It's only going to get worse unless their money/wealth is forecibly taken from them. What's your solution?
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
So you want to spend more money, when we have no money to spend, other than that which is printed by China. Look I'd love to have a new system in place, but at some point we as a country have got to realize things have to be cut in order to save the country, even if what is being cut is something we like/benefit from.
How exactly do you propose getting to space without using a rocket of some sort? Perhaps you mean you want something that is re-usuable, which is the entire reason the STS doesn't work well. The additional structure required to make the vehicle re-usable is what makes the cost go up astronomically. It becomes cheaper to just build a new rocket each time, that is significantly lighter, in order to maximize payload, which is what the most important part of going to space actually is.
poser765
Well-Known Member
Yep...with a thousand dollar emergency fund to boot!
Turbine
Well-Known Member
STS has worked very well.
It was only the tank that needed rebuilding. And those engines were clean burning.
Your right we need to cut back to get back up. But there's other means, if you absolutely need to though you could always roller blade to work and save your gas money?
poser765
Well-Known Member
i think the point that someone tried to make was that it was not the shuttle itself that malfunctioned but a INTEGRAL component of the shuttle. Sure you can say that without the big fuel tank thingy the shuttle would not have crashed, but at the same time you can say that without the big fuel tank thingy the shuttle would have never gone to space anyway.
Turbine
Well-Known Member
That was my point. People were saying the orbiter itself was old and unreliable. My point is the the orbiter has been the safest thing yet.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Who cares if the orbiter is the safest thing yet, without the 4 components of the STS, its worthless. It is old, the thing was designed in the early 1970's. A vast majority of the computers on the thing are so old, the only stock of them left is at NASA. I'd argue that the safest programs in NASA history are Mercury/Gemini, with Apollo being second and the STS program as the least safe.
We don't need the capability of a 60 x 15 foot payload bay attached to a 7 seat capsule. We need the ability to put 5-7 people in LEO, or 3-5 into LEO for a rendezvous with a TLI/TMI stage, in order to get to the moon/mars. Part of the problem with NASA is they have had no real vision/mission for the longest time. President Bush set out to change that, with the Moon/Mars mission planning. There is no physical way we can get anything the size of the STS to the moon, so we needed a new system that works for that, not just LEO.