Ready to launch
- Thread starter RICHARD5
- Start date
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
I was there to watch every of the test flights. I was VIP with Rockwell. Kinda weird since I was 18 and hanging out with engineers and dignitaries.
I thought the shuttle pretty cool but never thought it was a good project. I'd rather have seen the money spent on systems currently being developed. Oh yes, they did have this stuff back then but the shuttle expenditures pretty much mothballed it all. In that light, I thought the shuttle was a step backwards. But with the ISS on everyone's minds, they needed a heavy truck to get the stuff up there and we couldn't count on any partner nation.
I'm surprised the shuttle lasted this long. It wasn't intended to go this long. That it has is because of the politics at NASA.
I thought the shuttle pretty cool but never thought it was a good project. I'd rather have seen the money spent on systems currently being developed. Oh yes, they did have this stuff back then but the shuttle expenditures pretty much mothballed it all. In that light, I thought the shuttle was a step backwards. But with the ISS on everyone's minds, they needed a heavy truck to get the stuff up there and we couldn't count on any partner nation.
I'm surprised the shuttle lasted this long. It wasn't intended to go this long. That it has is because of the politics at NASA.
F9DXER
Well-Known Member
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
Good one. I wonder just how much of the original BUFF is still flying. With the shuttle it's darned near 100%.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Not really. The whole avionics package is new. The original engines were replaced with up-rated engines. New power systems were added for long duration missions. Parts of the TPS were changed from the original design to the later orbiters (some tiles were converted to blanket protection).
Sure, the STS is a cool system, but it needs to go. It never really had a purpose, and there is nothing we've done that couldn't have been done by capsule based spacecraft. Did we learn quite a bit, sure. But financially, the system is probably not the best. Considering the state of the country financially, I think cutting the STS and moving to private LEO flight is a great move.
MFT1Air
Mfalme Soleimani
My last training mission with the shuttle program. STS-133 is my last training flight with the space shuttle program. Been doing it for almost 13 years. Layoffs effective 1 October affect me, so it's on to new endeavors for me.
Full time aviation career is definitely my desire. Is the shortage in commercial pilots over the next fews years perhaps an opportunity for me to transition over? Hmmm. . .
Yes, I'll be at the Cape for the launch.
Full time aviation career is definitely my desire. Is the shortage in commercial pilots over the next fews years perhaps an opportunity for me to transition over? Hmmm. . .
Yes, I'll be at the Cape for the launch.
Pilotforhire587
Lycra Man
I wonder what we will have next, Maybe back to the SaturnV? The shuttle is all I have ever known. I have studied past projects but never seen a launch. Can't wait
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
It did have a purpose and it could not be done by "capsule based spacecraft. The shuttle fulfilled the need of heavy lifter. It was the only of it's kind. But it did knock out of contention other launch systems.
I am sick and tired of hearing the argument of how "the state of the country financially" blah blah is used to criticize any* space program. It's simply false to allude that the program is a drain on the economy.
* "Rockets for Ricketts" was the slogan during the Apollo heyday. The argument then was the monies used for the space program would be better spent on medical research. It was false then and it is false now. The investment in space technology is well worth it. My opinion yes but I'd be hard pressed to negatively perceive many of the spin-off benefits coming out of the space program.
Huh? Cops in space?
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
No surprise to me...alright, somewhat a surprise they are rethinking the Sat V for launch platform. Watching the Sat V launch makes the Shuttle launch look like child's play. The Saturn V was manly.
I think it very interesting that NASA seems to ignore what Rutan, et al is doing. And that is the track NASA was on when the shuttle began to make steam. I believe it is the way to go.
MFT1Air
Mfalme Soleimani
:yeahthat:
I continue to have that same "discussion" with the uninformed. A simple pie chart of monies spent by the government quiets those who continue to perpetuate that argument.
:soapbox:
Now, if we look at the Defense budget. . .
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Yes it could. We built stations before the space shuttle, and the Russians (the experts of station operations) have built many of them without a shuttle. They even built modular stations without a shuttle. Its very simple, save money on building the whole shuttle concept. Launch the people on a small, Low Earth Orbit (LEO) vehicle, and launch the components on something like a Delta IV or Atlas V.
Look, I'm no fan of government handouts, but when the country is so far in debt, EVERYTHING needs cut. And if cutting the STS is what needs to be done, so be it. What do we actually get for that 1 billion per launch we spend?[/quote]
LEO=Low Earth Orbit
First, Rutan has no idea how to build orbital vehicles. What he is building has no chance of surviving any sort of total atmospheric reentry. Secondly, when you compare the Saturn V payload to LEO and Shuttle payload to LEO, they are about the same. Saturn V could take about 260,000 pounds, the Shuttle can take 53,000 pounds in the cargo bay, plus the weight of the vehicle, which is a payload too, at 175,000 pounds or so. So, do the math, and they aren't that far apart in LEO lifting ability. You'll never see the Saturn V come back though, because it would be just as expensive to set everything up to produce those as it would be to just design a new vehicle, which would probably be better.
MFT1Air
Mfalme Soleimani
Not true. We are the true "experts" of station operations. You can also argue monetary return on investment for any aspect of manned space flight, but better/cheaper are simply subjective, irrelevant arguments.
. . .and when haven't we been in debt? I just need to know. And exactly how deep is deep?
Again with the monetary impact argument. It's a point I can never argue, for when you begin applying a financial/business argument to space exploration, no one wins. It is what is is - space exploration.
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
I'm talking of a station like the ISS. Sky Lab was a proof of concept step in that direction. it could be said that Mir and Soyuz in all it's permutations, was only a deepening of that concept. They were repeating what had been done. Learned a lot about living in space and human factors but they were a limb on the tree.
Let's end the social programs. Are we talking complete cuts or scaling back?
How did any space program start? Did NASA have an out of the box ISS? Of course not. Redstone, Vanguard, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, etc built up to where we are today. Rutan is going his route and through tweaks and mods will be able to produce a true space-worthy craft. I would never dismiss Burt Rutan. And, he's doing it with private funds. So, let's cut the govt out of the picture...Rutan is still viable.
In fact, even though I wondered about the dearth of public comment on Rutan from NASA, I'm game to bet that NASA's future will rely on Rutan's inventions. Not "rely", but to adopt similar concepts as proven by Rutan.
But shuttle is being decom'd. Srsly, I've heard talk coming out of NASA that they are looking at a modern day Sat V. The technology is at hand and it's proven.
Never say never. And, as I said above, Sat V is a known. Time will tell. this aint about you or me being 'right'.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Fine, if that's your opinion, great. It doesn't take a genius to figure out they have years more experience operating and building stations than we do. That's going to be of critical importance as the early pieces of ISS approach 15 or more years of age, which is in 3 years.
Skylab was hardly a proof of concept for ISS. It was a single compartment, like the first six Salyut stations were. Perhaps we should have taken a page out of the Russians book. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why is it that we have had 4 operational man rated launch systems in the time the Soviets/Russians have had 1?
Rutan is hardly building a "space-worthy" craft. He's building an airliner version of the X-15, nothing more. At least with the initial Mercury sub-orbital flights, we didn't have to redesign the vehicle for orbital operations. There is no practical way to make the Space Ship 2 concept work for orbital operations.
Yeah, we have the technology to build the Saturn V. All we have is blueprints, for a vehicle which was essentially designed in the early 60's, with early 60's technology. The man and brain power that built the thing is not in a position to come back and build new ones. It would be more cost effective to design something that we could use modern technology on, rather than back engineer it. You don't see people running out saying "Hey, lets build BAC 1-11's, just because we have the knowledge how to." We can build something much more efficient than what they had then.
Ares was a disaster from the start. Anytime you handcuff the designers with all kinds of parts and pieces that have to be kept, in order to keep jobs all over the country, you automatically start with a crippled vehicle. Hopefully the next launch of the SpaceX Falcon 9 goes well, and we can get a nice pace going on cargo development to the station. If that works, we could have their man rated vehicle sooner.