|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
I really don't understand the prevalant attitude that because the Shuttle was a failure, then all systems which combine crew and cargo will be, too. *That's a bunch of hooey, and another item for the "wrong lessons learned from the Shuttle" file (which already has the old standby "reusable spacecraft aren't feasible" and "wings on spacecraft are bad" entries.) Brian Well the compromises made for the shuttle to haul people plus substantial cargo made the vehicle LESS SAFE FOR HUMANS compromises like dropping launch boost escape to save weight for more cargo..... decisions like this caused long term troubles and likely the death of 2 crews. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:31:33 -0700 (PDT), bob haller safety advocate
wrote: compromises like dropping launch boost escape to save weight for more cargo..... decisions like this caused long term troubles and likely the death of 2 crews. There is very little reason to believe a Launch Escape System would have saved either crew. Challenger happened too quickly with almost no real time warning and Columbia's damage was ignored by NASA managers who told worried engineers to basically 'shut up and color'. Brian |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Oct 11, 9:00*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 068117cd-76f3-4aa8-82d5- Crew and cargo on separate launch vehicles is not a (correct) lesson that shuttle has taught us. *You can't take a single data point and draw this sort of sweeping conclusion. * Wrong, it is a correct lesson. Aside from station logistics (Tang, toilet paper and t-shirts), payload design and construction is compromised by the presence of a crew on the vehicle. The addition of needless factors of safety and safety inhibits detract from the payload's prime mission. Additionally, going back to station logistics, why put a crew at risk for Tang, toilet paper and t-shirts when it can be done cheaper on an unmanned vehicle. Lose a payload of Tang, toilet paper and t-shirts, no big deal. Also, the risk is NOT worth it for spacecraft delivery and it is applicable in all cases not "only in the case where the cargo and crew aren't going to the same destination." TDRS, UARS, GRO, it makes no difference where the final destination (which only makes a difference in the amount of propellant on the payload) those spacecraft would have been better served by an ELV. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:36:42 -0700 (PDT), Me
wrote: Crew and cargo on separate launch vehicles is not a (correct) lesson that shuttle has taught us. *You can't take a single data point and draw this sort of sweeping conclusion. * Wrong, it is a correct lesson. Aside from station logistics (Tang, toilet paper and t-shirts), payload design and construction is compromised by the presence of a crew on the vehicle. The addition of needless factors of safety and safety inhibits detract from the payload's prime mission. Additionally, going back to station logistics, why put a crew at risk for Tang, toilet paper and t-shirts when it can be done cheaper on an unmanned vehicle. To increase reliability and to return the cargo vehicle for re-use. Why put crews at risk delivering Tang from General Foods, Toilet Paper from Charmin, and t-shirts from Hanes to your local grocery store? We do, and sometimes tractor-trailers crash killing the sleep-deprived or distracted driver. Sometimes they crash into other vehicles and kill their occupants as well. Should we demand freight delivery on Earth be turned over to unmanned trucks? Again, you're learning the wrong lesson from Shuttle. Shuttle was a failure as a reusable space transport, as the first generation of such that is hardly surprising. So let's build a better reusable space transport, not give up on the whole notion. Start with a much simpler cargo bay, then get rid of hypergolics and solid propellant boosters. Brian |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
In article 96522f1c-9808-4385-a2dd-
, says... On Oct 11, 9:00*am, Jeff Findley wrote: In article 068117cd-76f3-4aa8-82d5- Crew and cargo on separate launch vehicles is not a (correct) lesson that shuttle has taught us. *You can't take a single data point and draw this sort of sweeping conclusion. * Wrong, it is a correct lesson. Aside from station logistics (Tang, toilet paper and t-shirts), payload design and construction is compromised by the presence of a crew on the vehicle. The addition of needless factors of safety and safety inhibits detract from the payload's prime mission. Additionally, going back to station logistics, why put a crew at risk for Tang, toilet paper and t-shirts when it can be done cheaper on an unmanned vehicle. Lose a payload of Tang, toilet paper and t-shirts, no big deal. On station assembly flights. All of that hardware going up has already been "compromised", as you put it, by the presence of a crew on the vehicle. Furthermore, many of those flights required EVA's (i.e. extra crew) in order to properly attach and configure the delivered hardware. Whether that extra crew arrives on the same vehicle or another doesn't seem to matter much. Again, the shuttle design is a single data point. In the future it looks like cargo would be underneath a payload shroud underneath the Orion capsule. Absence or presence of cargo under the Orion compromises safety of the crew how? Also, the risk is NOT worth it for spacecraft delivery and it is applicable in all cases not "only in the case where the cargo and crew aren't going to the same destination." TDRS, UARS, GRO, it makes no difference where the final destination (which only makes a difference in the amount of propellant on the payload) those spacecraft would have been better served by an ELV. The final destination of those flights was not LEO, so sticking them on a crewed launch vehicle never made sense compared to launching them on another vehicle. Commercial payloads were banned from NASA launch vehicles, so we won't be in that situation again. What I'm interested in talking about is future flights of SDLV with Orion on top. Jeff -- 42 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:12:40 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote: TDRS, UARS, GRO, it makes no difference where the final destination (which only makes a difference in the amount of propellant on the payload) those spacecraft would have been better served by an ELV. The final destination of those flights was not LEO, so sticking them on a crewed launch vehicle never made sense compared to launching them on another vehicle. UARS and GRO were. Although GRO would have been lost without a crew on board (the main antenna failed to deploy until an EVA freed it.) Brian |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says... On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:12:40 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote: TDRS, UARS, GRO, it makes no difference where the final destination (which only makes a difference in the amount of propellant on the payload) those spacecraft would have been better served by an ELV. The final destination of those flights was not LEO, so sticking them on a crewed launch vehicle never made sense compared to launching them on another vehicle. UARS and GRO were. Although GRO would have been lost without a crew on board (the main antenna failed to deploy until an EVA freed it.) True enough. Jeff -- 42 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
So if a crew capsule had been in the columbia payload bay would the
crew survived? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), bob haller safety advocate
wrote: So if a crew capsule had been in the columbia payload bay would the crew survived? No, they wouldn't have been in it, because management didn't believe there was a problem. Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a (future)NEW (smaller) Shuttle | gaetanomarano | Space Shuttle | 17 | April 3rd 08 06:32 PM |
NASA and robotic research | [email protected] | Policy | 28 | June 18th 06 07:03 PM |
M27 with the Bradford Robotic Telescope | Robin Leadbeater | UK Astronomy | 4 | June 16th 05 12:49 PM |
If we lost ISS would the shuttles be retired too? What of the future? | Hallerb | Space Shuttle | 17 | November 7th 03 01:42 PM |