NASA 2011 budget and Ares-1

On Jan 26, 7:10*am, " wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:02 am, Pat Flannery wrote:



Derek Lyons wrote:
Difference being that in 1968 we were in a race to the Moon with the Soviets

So?

So we could take a little more time to design things so they would be safer.

When the Shuttle rolled around we weren't in a race, and NASA managed to
design the thing in such a way that all you could do is a all-up manned
test.

Well, duh. How else would you test a design meant to flown with a
human at the controls?

I wouldn't have designed it that way in the first place, and would have
designed in the ability to fly it, at least on the first couple of
flights, without crew.Why someone didn't point out during the design
process that they were painting themselves into a corner in this regard
is beyond me.
Equipment to do that might have been bulky, but they had the whole cargo
bay to store it in, the way the Soviets used a modified Kvant module to
store theirs in on the first Buran flight:http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bdp.jpg
If they ever do build something like the Shuttle again, the way to do it
is have the spacecraft operate unmanned on simple cargo or satellite
delivery flights to orbit, and have any crew fly as passengers in a pod
in the cargo bay that can also be used as a escape pod in a emergency.
After Challenger they did design work on incorporating escape pods into
the existing orbiter design:http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=780
But something along those lines should have been designed in from day
one, particularly if the first orbital flight was to be manned.

Pat

Way back when the original shuttle design had the entire crew
compartment as detchable in a emergency. Then they looked at the
weight and cut that saftey need.

a leftover of this is why the challenger compartment held together
after break up. they didnt bother lightening the crew structure to
save time and money.



Incorrect. It was not designed as detachable. It never got pass the
concept stage. The crew
compartment stayed together because it was a pressure vessel.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
telephone...
Derek Lyons wrote:
No, that's because it makes no sense to design a craft meant to flown
with a person at the controls to be tested without a person at the
controls.

Like say a Mercury, Gemini, or the Apollo CSM or LM for instance.
Okay, Ill meet you halfway; STS-1 should have had monkeys at the wheel.
Bold space monkeys whose names would echo through history as NASA entered
a new age...Fubar and Glitch.

The shuttle is likely to be the *only* manned spacecraft which was flown
manned during the entire test program.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Difference being that in 1968 we were in a race to the Moon with the Soviets

So?

So we could take a little more time to design things so they would be safer.

If we want to be safe, we can just stay home.

When the Shuttle rolled around we weren't in a race, and NASA managed to
design the thing in such a way that all you could do is a all-up manned
test.

Well, duh. How else would you test a design meant to flown with a
human at the controls?

I wouldn't have designed it that way in the first place, and would have
designed in the ability to fly it, at least on the first couple of
flights, without crew.Why someone didn't point out during the design
process that they were painting themselves into a corner in this regard
is beyond me.

Because it makes no sense to design expensive one-off pieces of
equipment to support two flights.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Pat Flannery wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:49:17 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

The Soviets, who have never been known as safety maniacs, did their
first Buran flight that way, and it certainly would have been possible
to do the first Shuttle flight that way also by extrapolating on the
remote piloting technology used on fighter planes converted into target
drones for decades before the Shuttle first flew.

However, as things turned out, Columbia would probably have been lost
on STS-1 due to the sideslip error.


Which should tell you right there that they really didn't fully
understand the vehicle's behavior before they launched it.

Which puts the Shuttle in good company with around 99.999999999999999%
of every vehicle ever flown.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
telephone...
Derek Lyons wrote:
No, that's because it makes no sense to design a craft meant to flown
with a person at the controls to be tested without a person at the
controls.

Like say a Mercury, Gemini, or the Apollo CSM or LM for instance.
Okay, Ill meet you halfway; STS-1 should have had monkeys at the wheel.
Bold space monkeys whose names would echo through history as NASA entered
a new age...Fubar and Glitch.

The shuttle is likely to be the *only* manned spacecraft which was flown
manned during the entire test program.

Which is sad, because it's yet another of 'wrong lessons' learned from
the Shuttle.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
telephone...
Derek Lyons wrote:
No, that's because it makes no sense to design a craft meant to flown
with a person at the controls to be tested without a person at the
controls.

Like say a Mercury, Gemini, or the Apollo CSM or LM for instance.
Okay, Ill meet you halfway; STS-1 should have had monkeys at the wheel.
Bold space monkeys whose names would echo through history as NASA entered
a new age...Fubar and Glitch.

The shuttle is likely to be the *only* manned spacecraft which was flown
manned during the entire test program.


Was Spaceship One ever flown unmanned?

And quite honestly, I disagree. I think going that route is a mistake. At
this point we really need to start thinking about approaching spaceflight
like airplane flight. The 787's first flight was manned as was its
predecessors.

Design for success, not against possible failure.



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:39:08 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

I think going that route is a mistake. At
this point we really need to start thinking about approaching spaceflight
like airplane flight.

...Greg, here's something to consider: What's the *major* difference
between a booster & capsule design, and an airplane? What can an
airplane do flight-wise that the conical capsule can't?

OM


You tell me. Or back up and ask questions like, "does that difference have
to exist?" Or "Why does it exist?"

And ask yourself what an capsule can do that an airplane can't do
flight-wise.

"OM" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:39:08 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

Was Spaceship One ever flown unmanned?

...No, and from what I recall it has no remote piloting capabilities.

Come to think of it, neither did the X-15 as far as I know.

Now, if he wants to modify his original comment to ORBITAL manned vehicle
then it would be accurate. But doesn't necessarily need to be in the
future.



OM

Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

:
:Way back when the original shuttle design had the entire crew
:compartment as detchable in a emergency. Then they looked at the
:weight and cut that saftey need.
:

This sort of system also doesn't work very well, which is why they
took it off the B-1 and went to regular ejection seats.

AFAIK, the Shuttle never had a escape capsule escape system; it did at
one point during the design process have solid fuel rockets mounted atop
the inner wing that would have allowed it to peel off the ET with the
SRB's firing during ascent. If not used during ascent, these would be
fired to give it the final impetus to orbital speed and then jettisoned.
A set of wires going down the exterior of each of the SRB's would have
detected any burn-throughs in them like occurred on Challenger, and
activated the abort rockets.
The concept of the abort rockets was dropped to save money, and since
there was then no way to separate from the ET while the SRB's were
firing, the burn-through sensors were dropped as well.


:
:I often woulder if the shuttle had been built with liquid flyback
:boosters wether crew escape could of been acomplished? perhaps the
:liquids would of had more thrust?
:

Since Challenger wouldn't have happened with liquids, crew escape in
that situation would have been moot. But, yes, liquids make that
easier, since they tend to have 'slower' and less spectacular failure
modes and you can simply turn them off if you need to.

The advantage the liquids would have had is that they could have been
shut down if something started to malfunction, allowing the orbiter to
detach from the ET without sliding back into the rocket exhaust.
They looked into a system to vent the SRB's via twin nose blow-off ports
located 180 degrees apart (this system was originally developed for the
Titan III's SRB's when it was carrying the MOL or Dyna-Soar and the
sudden loss of internal pressure in the motor bore caused combustion to
stop when it was activated during tests) but the light structure of the
ET couldn't withstand the blast caused by the activation of the venting
system in such close proximity to it.

Pat

Jeff Findley wrote:

The shuttle is likely to be the *only* manned spacecraft which was flown
manned during the entire test program.


Two others...the X-15 and SpaceshipOne.
Those both got past 100 km (each on two flights) so they were legally
into space.

Pat