Shuttle lift-off footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSb3...ature=youtu.be

From an old friend who used to post here...

On Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:22:14 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
From an old friend who used to post here...

Great video. Tell 'em thanks. Too bad they are no longer here. USENET news falls victim to yet another web forum?

Dave

JF Mezei wrote
in m:
# On 14-07-10 15:22, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
#
# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSb3...ature=youtu.be
#
# From an old friend who used to post here...
#
# Initials K K ?
#
# Amazing video.

Then you might also like a similar one,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFwqZ4qAUkE

"This video from the Glenn Research Center highlights in stunning,
behind-the-scenes imagery the launches of three space shuttle
missions: STS-114, STS-117, and STS-124. NASA engineers provide
commentary as footage from the ground and from the orbiters
themselves document in detail the first phase of a mission. "

Watch the engine bells vibrate like rubber at 4:27...

Regards,

Jens
--
Jens Schweikhardt http://www.schweikhardt.net/
SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped)

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
web.com...


Also, when you compare against the small rockets use for Orbital/Cygnus
and SpaceX/Dragon, you realise how much simpler those are compared to
the Shuttle. But Shuttle carried 15,000 pounds of payload instead of
about 3500.

Ummm, try closer to 50,000 lbs to LEO of payload.
(and honestly, I think you really want to compare total mass to orbit, so
compare not the payload, but the mass of the craft+payload, say
Dragon+payload to Shuttle+payload. Then the difference is even more
incredible.)

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...


"JF Mezei" wrote in message
web.com...


Also, when you compare against the small rockets use for Orbital/Cygnus
and SpaceX/Dragon, you realise how much simpler those are compared to
the Shuttle. But Shuttle carried 15,000 pounds of payload instead of
about 3500.

Ummm, try closer to 50,000 lbs to LEO of payload.
(and honestly, I think you really want to compare total mass to orbit, so
compare not the payload, but the mass of the craft+payload, say
Dragon+payload to Shuttle+payload. Then the difference is even more
incredible.)

The comparison of craft + payload is interesting, but I'd argue that the
ratio of dry mass of craft to payload mass is telling as well. For the
shuttle orbiter, this doesn't even take into account the mass (and cost)
of the ETs which were thrown away on every flight even though they were
just a hair's width away (delta-V wise) from actually being in orbit.

In other words, the space shuttle was a very inefficient (mass wise),
and costly, way to deliver payloads to orbit.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article om,
says...

On 14-07-16 08:21, Jeff Findley wrote:

In other words, the space shuttle was a very inefficient (mass wise),
and costly, way to deliver payloads to orbit.


A dump truck is also very inefficient. But it is required for certain
tasks that smaller more efficient trucks can't do.

The Shuttle was a versatile vehicle that acted both as a lada and as a
dump truck. But it was not "best in breed" for any of the missions since
specialized vehicles for specific tasks are more efficient.

But if you're going to have a single vehicle, having a versatile one is
your only way to go. The inefficiencies of the vehicule are somewhat
balanced against the efficiency of designing only 1 vehicle type.

While true, the shuttle flew many missions where the main mission was
deploying a satellite and very little else was done. These missions did
not make use of the shuttle's unique capabilities and could have been
flown on cheaper launch vehicles. The Challenger disaster put an end to
most of these flights (the "commercial" ones at least).

A bit like the Southwest Air argument of using only 1 aircraft type to
simplify costs for pilot skills, parts and maintenance and being able to
substitute one 737 for another when there is a breakdown. But the 737
is not the most efficient to transport large nunmber of people, nor
small number of people. But overall, for the Southwest, the
inefficiencies of the 737 on different missions is balanced/cancelled by
the efficiencies of having a single vehicle.

OK, so the shuttle's payload to ISS would have been 15 metric tonnes
or
roughly 33,000 pounds ? Thart is like 10 times what Cygnus can do.

10x is not at all true for a typical ISS resupply mission. You're off
by about a factor of 5 because you're comparing apples and oranges.

For example, you can't just load up the shuttle payload bay with food,
clothing, and the like. It needs to be in some sort of container. That
container, for items which were delivered into the station, was the
MPLM. So you can't reasonably consider the MPLM itself to be "payload".

The maximum payload flown to ISS inside an MPLM was 12,748 lbs (STS-126,
ISS ULF 2, shuttle Endeavour, MPLM Leonardo). An MPLM itself massed
about 9,000 lbs, but that's not payload to ISS since it was not left at
ISS at the end of the mission. The exception being the last flight
where an MPLM was left at ISS to be used as a PLM or permanent logistics
module.

The "standard" Cygnus has a payload capacity of 4,400 lbs. The next
Cygnus to fly will be the "enhanced" version (larger pressurized volume)
with a payload capacity of 6,000 lbs. So, the enhanced Cygnus has
almost exactly 1/2 the payload capacity of an MPLM. Also, note that
Dragon payload is on par with Cygnus. Dragon's payload is 7,300 lbs,
which is a bit better than Cygnus.



To be fair, STS-126 took up some additional payload not contained in the
MPLM, but the Wikipedia entry on it isn't being fair (in much the same
way you are) by including the mass of the MPLM itself, so I can't make
out what parts of the additional "payload" were truly delivered to ISS
and which parts were counted as "payload" even though they were brought
back to earth at the end of the mission.

Unfortunately, this sort of "accounting" was pervasive during the
shuttle program since it made the vehicle look far more capable than it
truly was. There was a lot of extra mass needed for shuttle payloads
simply because they had to have structures which integrated them into
the payload bay and could withstand the loads and vibrations (i.e. SRBs)
of a shuttle launch. To me, that extra mass isn't "payload", it's
"overhead".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article m,
says...

On 14-07-17 09:26, Jeff Findley wrote:

For example, you can't just load up the shuttle payload bay with food,
clothing, and the like. It needs to be in some sort of container.

Mea cupla. Had forgotten the weight of the "container".


The maximum payload flown to ISS inside an MPLM was 12,748 lbs (STS-126,

If one were to fly 3 cygnus vs 1 shuttle, would the total launch costs
become more balanced or would 3 cygnus flights still come in orders of
magnitudes cheaper ?

Orbital has a $1.9 billion contract for eight Cygnus flights to ISS, so
approximately $250 million per flight. Space shuttle per flight was
about $1.5 billion if you take the total program cost and divide by the
total number of flights. So yes, Cygnus is still significantly cheaper
even though it takes two or more Cygnus flights (depending if you're
talking "standard" or "enhanced") to send up about the same amount of
cargo as a single shuttle flight.

The next
Cygnus to fly will be the "enhanced" version (larger pressurized volume)
with a payload capacity of 6,000 lbs.

With that increased capacity, I take it that Shuttle can't come close to
being in same ballpark in terms of costs ?

Correct. Orbital's contract is for 8 Cygnus flights for $1.9 billion,
or a bit more than the shuttle's $1.5 billion cost per flight.

SpaceX is contracted to fly 12 Dragon cargo flights to ISS for $1.6
billion, which is about the cost of a single shuttle flight.

So yes, it takes more flights for "commercial" cargo than it did for the
shuttle, but the costs are significantly lower.

the payload bay and could withstand the loads and vibrations (i.e. SRBs)
of a shuttle launch. To me, that extra mass isn't "payload", it's
"overhead".


Considering that second stage for Cygnus is an SRB, doesn't that
generate the same level fo vibrartion problems as the Shuttle's SRBs ?
Or are SRBs that push Cygnus such that they are smaller and generate
much less vibration ?

The combustion instability of a solid increases with the size of the
solid. Since the second stage of Orbital's launcher is significantly
smaller than a shuttle SRB, I'd expect the vibrations to be
significantly lower as well.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article om,
says...

On 14-07-18 08:07, Jeff Findley wrote:

Orbital has a $1.9 billion contract for eight Cygnus flights to ISS, so
approximately $250 million per flight.

Just to be fair, didn't NASA give Space-X and Orbital a big wad of seed
money to get going, and the 1.9 billion is to run the program once the
rockets have been tested ?

Or does the 1.9 billion include all seed money and on-going payments and
represent the true total cost ?

You're right, that's only the "CRS" contract money. I should have dug
deeper...

Here's a reference which includes the "seed money", which was the
original "COTS" awards (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services):

JUNE 13, 2013 AUDIT REPORT
REPORT NO. IG-13-016 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-12-024-00)
OFFICE OF AUDITS COMMERCIAL CARGO: NASA?S MANAGEMENT OF
COMMERCIAL ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND ISS
COMMERCIAL RESUPPLY CONTRACTS
http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY13/IG-13-016.pdf

From page 10, it looks like SpaceX got about $400 million before the
"CRS" contract (Commercial Resupply Services) for a total of about $2
billion. Similarly, Orbital got about a $300 million award before the
CRS contract for a total of about $2.2 billion. So the numbers do
change, but not a lot, when you include the "seed money".

It would be neat if one were to be able to find out how much the Shuttle
would have costed had it been designed/built/operated by Space-X or
Orbital compared to the Nasa/Rockwell-Boeing philosophy. Aka: how much
of the Shuttle's costs were bloat from NASA/Boeing and how much was
truly due to its extra weight/maintenance.

True, but to be fair, the shuttle was designed in the 1970's, so SpaceX
and Orbital have had decades more experience to draw upon. For the most
part, I think the shuttle was just too big a step to take all at once.
It was innovative in far too many areas at the same time (lots of
research and development money spent). Sometimes there is just too much
"bleeding" in bleeding-edge technologies.

By comparison, SpaceX and Orbital have done commercial cargo with proven
technologies. Because of this, they needed far less research.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
l-september.org...

Orbital has a $1.9 billion contract for eight Cygnus flights to ISS, so
approximately $250 million per flight. Space shuttle per flight was
about $1.5 billion if you take the total program cost and divide by the
total number of flights. So yes, Cygnus is still significantly cheaper
even though it takes two or more Cygnus flights (depending if you're
talking "standard" or "enhanced") to send up about the same amount of
cargo as a single shuttle flight.

On the other hand, I think there's a fair argument for considering the
incremental cost of a shuttle flight
(in part because the development costs were sunk and the government doesn't
need to pay them back, and in part because in theory, with no NEW
development, the R&D costs tend to be spread out across more flights.)

In that case the incremental cost varied, but generally would could argue
about $100-$250M/flight (we'll go with $250M).

In that case, the shuttle was a clear win.

That said, I think there's a couple of points to add:
1) writing off R&D costs is a bit unfair. Cygnus can't.
2) On the other hand, as you point out in another post, Cygnus also had a
lot less R&D, mostly because they were making a smaller leap. In addition,
I'd argue there's a benefit of a more proven infrastructure and any
knowledge (even heck, just trained personal) from the shuttle program.
3) As you point out, the shuttle was a HUGE leap in R&D, arguably way to
much in the 70s.
4) I think despite all its failures, it does show that reusability IS a win.

BTW, your argument above does ignore the shuttle provided 7 additional pairs
of hands for unloading equipment, doing assembly work (granted, not an issue
now) and other potential uses. Cygnus doesn't provide that at all.

Overall, I'll fully agree, the shuttle program was a white elephant and
costly, but I fear some (and I don't include you since I know from other
posts your views) will completely write it off and not learn any lessons
from it.

Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

On the other hand, I think there's a fair argument for considering the
incremental cost of a shuttle flight
(in part because the development costs were sunk and the government doesn't
need to pay them back, and in part because in theory, with no NEW
development, the R&D costs tend to be spread out across more flights.)

In that case the incremental cost varied, but generally would could argue
about $100-$250M/flight (we'll go with $250M).

In that case, the shuttle was a clear win.

Sorry, but the "incremental cost" argument is just the sort of
accounting I take offense to. It's my understanding that the
"incremental cost" is the cost to add one additional flight to the
manifest. In other words, completely ignore all of the fixed costs
which you pay even if there are zero shuttle flights (e.g. post
Challenger or post Columbia before flights resumed).

There were very few instances where a mission was added to the manifest
like this. The best example would be the re-flight of the aborted
Microgravity Science Laboratory mission. The first flight, STS-83, was
cut short after a few days in orbit due to fuel cell issues in orbit
with Columbia. So the fuel cell issues were fixed and the same payload
was re-flown as STS-94.

For me STS-94 is the one true case where pretty much everything was the
same (even the payload and experiments) and NASA simply added one more
flight to the manifest.

That said, I think there's a couple of points to add:
1) writing off R&D costs is a bit unfair. Cygnus can't.
2) On the other hand, as you point out in another post, Cygnus also had a
lot less R&D, mostly because they were making a smaller leap. In addition,
I'd argue there's a benefit of a more proven infrastructure and any
knowledge (even heck, just trained personal) from the shuttle program.
3) As you point out, the shuttle was a HUGE leap in R&D, arguably way to
much in the 70s.
4) I think despite all its failures, it does show that reusability IS a win.

BTW, your argument above does ignore the shuttle provided 7 additional pairs
of hands for unloading equipment, doing assembly work (granted, not an issue
now) and other potential uses. Cygnus doesn't provide that at all.

My underlying assumption was that an MPLM mission was all about cargo
delivery, but your point about the visiting crew providing useful labor
is a good one, but I'm unsure how you'd account for the difference in US
dollars.

In addition to providing a visiting crew, the shuttle could also do a
crew rotation on the same mission. But without a vehicle which could be
used to return US astronauts in an emergency, the shuttle still didn't
save us from paying the Russians for Soyuz flights.

We're still waiting on Commercial Crew, so we'll have to wait a few more
years to do a more fair comparison between commercial delivery of cargo
and crew to ISS.

Overall, I'll fully agree, the shuttle program was a white elephant and
costly, but I fear some (and I don't include you since I know from other
posts your views) will completely write it off and not learn any lessons
from it.

The full history of the shuttle program (development to last flight) is
very long and very detailed. It's often too easy to make sweeping
generalizations.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer