Criticism of Shuttle has started!

http://www.space-
travel.com/reports/High_costs_mixed_record_for_US_space_shuttle_999.h tml

I predicted previously that after the Shuttle program had ended
engineers and scientists would start criticizing it for being a
dangerous POS. Lo and behold, the criticizing has now started even
before the Shuttle program ends!

First of all, the system didn't live up to its dream of making space
flight cheap and routine. In fact, we can now say with certainty that
the Shuttle is widely more expensive than an expandable manned rocket
with similar payload. Secondly, the Shuttle has a poor track record in
terms of safety. So poor in fact that NASA opted to go back to capsules
for its next-generation manned space vehicles.

Dream Chaser is a smaller shuttle variant which rides on top of a
carrier rocket, making it safer than Shuttle. However, I'm pretty sure
that if the carrier rocket were to explode during launch its vertical
stabilizers would be ripped off, making the craft unsteerable and most
likely killing the crew. In short: winged vehicles and powerful carrier
rockets are not a safe combination, as Shuttle has demonstrated.

Surely there are tradeoffs? And hopefully the carrier rocket won't
be a Morton Thiokol solid rocket. The Dream Chaser seems
to be something like the Buran vehicle of the past that didn't
get to space.

It will sort out in time....................Trig

wrote in message news:7491ae65-3698-43f2-
...

Surely there are tradeoffs? And hopefully the carrier rocket won't
be a Morton Thiokol solid rocket. The Dream Chaser seems
to be something like the Buran vehicle of the past that didn't
get to space.

It wouldn't matter if the carrier rocket was either solid or liquid
fueled. Solids are worse than liquids because they can't be turned off,
but OTOH they also rarely fail and almost never explosively. The
Shuttle SRB failure was both a design-flaw (multiple segments instead
of one, to save costs) and a management goof-up (using the solids when
they were exposed to freezing temperatures the night before flight). In
either case an explosion would probably rip the wings and tail surfaces
of a shuttle-like design (including Dream Chaser from Sierra Nevada
Corporation) resulting in total loss of control and breakup of the
craft in mid-flight.

Buran did get into space. And BOR-4, on which the HL-20 / Dream Chaser
was based, also made it into space. The U.S. developed lifting bodies
which the Soviets used to design BOR-4 which the U.S. copied to make HL-
20. Funny how these things can develop.

wrote in message news:7491ae65-3698-43f2-
...

Surely there are tradeoffs? And hopefully the carrier rocket won't
be a Morton Thiokol solid rocket. The Dream Chaser seems
to be something like the Buran vehicle of the past that didn't
get to space.

It wouldn't matter if the carrier rocket was either solid or liquid
fueled. Solids are worse than liquids because they can't be turned off,
but OTOH they also rarely fail and almost never explosively. The
Shuttle SRB failure was both a design-flaw (multiple segments instead
of one, to save costs) and a management goof-up (using the solids when
they were exposed to freezing temperatures the night before flight). In
either case an explosion would probably rip the wings and tail surfaces
of a shuttle-like design (including Dream Chaser from Sierra Nevada
Corporation) resulting in total loss of control and breakup of the
craft in mid-flight.

Buran did get into space. And BOR-4, on which the HL-20 / Dream Chaser
was based, also made it into space. The U.S. developed lifting bodies
which the Soviets used to design BOR-4 which the U.S. copied to make HL-
20. Funny how these things can develop.

On Jul 6, 2:16*pm, Fritz Wuehler
wrote:
wrote in message news:7491ae65-3698-43f2-

...



Surely there are tradeoffs? And hopefully the carrier rocket won't
be a Morton Thiokol solid rocket. The Dream Chaser seems
to be something like the Buran vehicle of the past that didn't
get to space.

It wouldn't matter if the carrier rocket was either solid or liquid
fueled. Solids are worse than liquids because they can't be turned off,
but OTOH they also rarely fail and almost never explosively. The
Shuttle SRB failure was both a design-flaw (multiple segments instead
of one, to save costs) and a management goof-up (using the solids when
they were exposed to freezing temperatures the night before flight). In
either case an explosion would probably rip the wings and tail surfaces
of a shuttle-like design (including Dream Chaser from Sierra Nevada
Corporation) resulting in total loss of control and breakup of the
craft in mid-flight.

Buran did get into space. And BOR-4, on which the HL-20 / Dream Chaser
was based, also made it into space. The U.S. developed lifting bodies
which the Soviets used to design BOR-4 which the U.S. copied to make HL-
20. Funny how these things can develop.

I realized that I had ignored the Buran too much to comment so I
withdrew the posting
to the extent possible. Indeed, I was shocked to see a configuration
with
the Buran on Wikipedia that looked too much like the United States
Shuttle.
I remember a different configuration for the Buran on top of a truly
mammoth
rocket not on the side of large rocket as depicted in Wikipedia.

Indeed, I mainly lurk on this group as I am simply a man on the street
with
this topic and nothing more.

hopefully not sleeping in the street on
cardboard.........................Trig

On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 20:49:01 +0200 (CEST), "Anonymous Remailer
(austria)" wrote:

It wouldn't matter if the carrier rocket was either solid or liquid
fueled. Solids are worse than liquids because they can't be turned off,
but OTOH they also rarely fail and almost never explosively.

Huh?

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/pdgls/4927/

http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j1...on%20pictures/

When was the last time a U.S. liquid engine failed catastrophically?

The
Shuttle SRB failure was both a design-flaw (multiple segments instead
of one, to save costs)

Titan III had been using multiple large segments since 1966. It was
known technology, while a single segment SRB of the required size was
far outside the experience base and would introduce massive
transportation and handling problems.

and a management goof-up

Well, that's the understatement of the day.

Brian

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" wrote:


wrote in message news:7491ae65-3698-43f2-
...

Surely there are tradeoffs? And hopefully the carrier rocket won't
be a Morton Thiokol solid rocket. The Dream Chaser seems
to be something like the Buran vehicle of the past that didn't
get to space.

It wouldn't matter if the carrier rocket was either solid or liquid
fueled. Solids are worse than liquids because they can't be turned off,
but OTOH they also rarely fail and almost never explosively.


Solids have about the same failure rate as liquids and the failure
modes of solids are much more likely to be violent and sudden.

Solids are also more prone to setup problems -- sagging, grain cracks,
etc. that can produce catastrophic failure. I worked for 20+ years on
large solid rockets. Some simple operations like pouring techniques can
induce failure.