|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
get real.
NASA NEVER WANTED to cut their workforce, most upgrades would of meant cost savings which equal fewer workers. Thats why a shuttle replacement never got built it really wasnt wanted because it would cost jobs.... Sadly the safety boards ordering the end of shuttle was the only way to get the agency movbing and even then pork ruled which got us constelation. while existing delta and atlas would of done the job just fine....... so nasa sees shuttle end with no clear replacement and mega jobs lost.... typical government program costly wasteful inefficent run by congress who is owned by contribuitors. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:33:32 -0700 (PDT), bob haller safety advocate
wrote: NASA NEVER WANTED to cut their workforce, most upgrades would of meant cost savings which equal fewer workers. Not particularly. Most would have meant faster turnaround (more flights) with the same workforce, which is what NASA wanted for the Space Station era. Look at non-toxic OMS/RCS, for example. You still need all the people working OMS/RCS but with non-toxic propellant, that work can be done without evacuating everyone else from the pad, etc. It was argued at the time that Liquid Flyback Booster would have required a larger workforce than SRB. Thats why a shuttle replacement never got built it really wasnt wanted because it would cost jobs.... Facts not in evidence. Sadly the safety boards ordering the end of shuttle was the only way to get the agency movbing and even then pork ruled which got us constelation. The "Safety Board" didn't order the end of Shuttle. They only said NASA should do a complete recertification, down to the subsystem level if NASA wanted to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010. And even that was only a recommendation, not an order. NASA says that the Return To Flight effort meets the criteria of the recertification recommendation. Brian |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Sep 14, 7:28*pm, JF Mezei wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote: The "Safety Board" didn't order the end of Shuttle. They only said NASA should do a complete recertification, down to the subsystem level if NASA wanted to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010. They gave all the ammunition needed for a politician to kill the shuttle. So at the end of the day, they effectively killed the shuttle even if the text of theirrecommendations doesn't explicitely kill it. as of today could the shuttle get a reprieve? keep the workforce together and restart production till a replacement system is up and running |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:07:17 -0700 (PDT), bob haller safety advocate
wrote: as of today could the shuttle get a reprieve? Yes. keep the workforce together and restart production till a replacement system is up and running It would be expensive (no kidding) and the flight rate would be low in the meantime because we didn't do this two years ago, when we should have (when the Constellation writing was on the wall.) Back then, we could have spread out the remaining 10-11 flights over four or five years instead of over two years. Now we only have two modern External Tanks, one Katrina-damaged Tank, and one elderly Lightweight Tank from the 1990s. Building more will take 2-3 years, so we only have four flights to cover perhaps 3 years. Each flight would therefore cost about $2 billion. Brian |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:28:56 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote: The "Safety Board" didn't order the end of Shuttle. They only said NASA should do a complete recertification, down to the subsystem level if NASA wanted to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010. They gave all the ammunition needed for a politician to kill the shuttle. Like Columbia's loss hadn't already done that? Brian |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:54:02 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote: as of today could the shuttle get a reprieve? Yes. What I find interesting is that it wasn't long ago that it was stated rather categorically that there were 2 tanks left with absolutely no change of additional flights until the tank manufactiring could be ramped up again (a couple of years). Not long ago? STS-134 has been on the books for well over a year, and that meant one of the "2 tanks left" was pressed into serivice for LON back then. ET-122 (the Katrina victim) and ET-94 (the elderly LWT) have been known to be sitting around for a long time now. But both had problems: ET-122 would need to be repaired, something that makes NASA nervous in the post-Columbia period, and ET-94 was a guinea pig for the CAIB and needs a lot of work to be put back into flightworthy shape, even then it comes with a 7,000 lbs. payload penalty (its a LWT not a SLWT.) The parts for other Tanks is a big unknown. How many parts and what are they? How long will it take to build the parts that don't exist? How long will it take to certify the new foam (the old foam is now defunct.) How long will it take to get back all the employees who know how to build Tanks? So it was true that there were only 2 tanks left. The parts for others are decidely a question mark (if you have to build whatever parts don't exist, then we're still two years minimum from being able to use them.) One of those Tanks (ET-122) was ordered to be put back into service over a year ago when Congress ordered STS-134 (with ET-122 becoming the STS-335 LON Tank, although NASA might swap the ETs for 134 and 135 to fly the newest tank last.) Brian |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Sep 12, 1:18*pm, "Eddie Lyons" wrote:
But the problem is that the American (government) way of doing manned spaceflight is not evolutionary -- the existing capability is thrown away to be replaced by something new. Look at the Shuttle -- the most capable spacecraft ever developed is being scrapped so it can be replaced by Apollo 2.0 (if Congress gets its way). Yes, the Shuttle should be replaced -- by the right vehicle, not a replay of 1967-75. It should be replaced by a worthy successor, which Orion clearly is not. And what would be a worthy successor? The jury is still out on that, as many of the features of the shuttle moldlines involve vulnerabilities or performance penalties. How much could the shuttle haul to orbit if it wasn't lugging around those damned wings? And if you move the shuttle from the ice-exposed side mount to a top mount, you have to deal with the aero surfaces having greater torque. What is the next generation heat shield going to be? Not insurmountable problems, but either difficult or expensive to solve. Meanwhile, capsules, like an old Datsun 510 station wagon, provide your basic transportation with a much smaller standing army. They may not be great for cargo downhaul, but it's not like we have large industries producing huge volumes of products for the earth- bound consumer. The most important loss of downhaul for quite a while will be the after-use inspection of failed station components, and perhaps something like MOOSE could be used for some of that. Hey, it would be nice to eat at Morton's Steak House more often, but my wallet is more Sizzler sized. That's happened to the space program, too. But the good news is that Elon or Robert or someone is going to open a Red Robin pretty soon, and we'll see some new ideas on the menu. /dps |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Sep 18, 1:36*am, JF Mezei wrote:
snidely wrote: And what would be a worthy successor? Exactly, there are no worthy successors. NASA tried and tried to get a totally enw successor and for whatever reasons, those projects did not get funding to completion. Even the return to 1960s Apollo got canned. Which is why incremental improvements to a existing product have greater odds of getting results. The jury is still out on that, as many of the features of the shuttle moldlines involve vulnerabilities or performance penalties. Despite the wings, tail, toilet and kitchen sink, isn't the shuttle one of the most capable cargo carriers in existance ? And if they built a Shuttle V2.0 with modern materials, shouldn't they be able to shave a tonne or two off the weight of the orbiter, increasing its cargo capacity ? the russians already have a commecial taxi operation, and there is still a chance that some of the private companies might one day get something too. But nothing on the horizon approaches the flexibility and capabilities of the shuttle. And if you move the shuttle from the ice-exposed side mount to a top mount, you have to deal with the aero surfaces having greater torque. looks to me like NASA is able to build tanks with good foam when it is tasked to do so. Yes, this design adds the issue of chunks falling against belly and wings of orbiter, but isn't NASA able to mitigate this when it puts its energy into fixing things ? A nitrogen filled shroud between shuttle and tank would prevent formation of ice in that area and greatly reduce this. Remove the shroud seconds before lifoff, or at liftoff itself. I am sure NASa would have tons of ideas on how to deal with the problem, especially if it had an open mind about MODIFICATIONS to the shuttle. Remember that there were naysayers after Columbia that spoke with authority and stated caterocixally that it woudl be absolutelyt impossible to extend the arm to allow astronauts to inspect/fix wing leading edges or belly of orbiter. It didn't take long for MDA to suppl;y NASA with the boom extension, complete with sensors, and EVA foot holds. Instead of having a "can't be done" attitude for every new idea, those NASA employees should instead have a "lets look into it, this might have potential". What is the next generation heat shield going to be? Nobody knows. We're not yet at the point where the shuttle has a deflector dish that can not only project a heat shield, but also shield against micro meteorids, and space alien phasers and exploding flashlights (photon torpedoes). But should the lack of totally new heat shielding technology prevent other improvements on the shuttle ? Perhaps NASA might be able to develop a cost effective way to manufacture large carbon-carbon parts and make a shuttle belly out of a dozen carbon-carbon panels instead of thousands of tiles. Not insurmountable problems, but either difficult or expensive to solve. *Meanwhile, capsules, like an old Datsun 510 station wagon, provide your basic transportation with a much smaller standing army. Works for the Russians. And you'll note that every couple of years, they do come up with improvements to their Soyuz. Just s NASA was told not to do commercial launches, it shouldn't get into "old" tech. Let private enterprise develop capsules using NASA's 1960s experience, while NASA focuses on trying to evolve the state of the art of space flight. well the shuttle is ending for primarily 2 very solid reasons. It has killed 2 crews and lacks launch boost escape It is horendously expensive to operate. while a safer shuttle could be built given its job, a do everything truck too expensive probably cant be solved......... so nasa decided a capsule system for humans and a heavy lifter for cargo. I support these ideas, why risk lives to send cargo to orbit? it makes lifting cargo too costly.. NASA in attempting to pay off existing shuttle contractors instead managed to pick a bad idea that was unworkable and still way too costly. thus nasa put itself out of the business of taking people to space. thats sad but might be best. nasa appears incapable of bringing anything new thats manned on time on budget with a soild design cause too much playing politics on design. |
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 |