A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

STS51L Accident Questions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #591  
Old March 26th 05, 01:15 AM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:07:35 -0600, Reunite Gondwanaland wrote
(in article ):

That's iron.rhino.F4, your friendly F-4 Phantom II Phanatic, who sent
you the invitation because Reunite Gondwanaland doesn't have any
invites yet.


I've got 50 if anybody still wants one. Just un-munge my addy to email
me and it's yours.

--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.angryherb.net

  #592  
Old March 26th 05, 10:32 AM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:07:35 -0800, Reunite Gondwanaland
wrote:

That's iron.rhino.F4, your friendly F-4 Phantom II Phanatic, who sent
you the invitation because Reunite Gondwanaland doesn't have any
invites yet.


....I do have one major beef with one of gmail's requirements. Where in
the hell do they get off telling people they can't have an account
name that's less than 6 characters? One of *my* requirements is that
the account name has to either be "om" or at least aliasable to that.

Google? I say g00bers...

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr
  #593  
Old March 29th 05, 04:38 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
If you weren't expecting it, the physiological effect of suddenly seeing
the sea ahead of you go up in flames would have been severe.


"Run away!"
"We're in a boat, dumbass!"
"Oh...swim away! Swim away!"


  #594  
Old March 31st 05, 07:30 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek Lyons wrote:
wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
A Shuttle can launch a wide variety of missions without requiring
that there be something for it to meet in orbit. It carries it's

purpose
with itself.

A CSM is quite limited in what it can do usefully on orbit without
requiring a second launch.


First, I don't see exactly what advantages this has (other
than bundling launch failures together so that they affect
multiple aspects of the mission rather than being more or
less isolated).


Lets see.. It utterly eliminates the need for rendezvous procedures,
docking hardware, and independent flight capability for the payload.


Except when it doesn't. Such as when rendezvous with the
payload is unnecessary and the sole goal of the launch is
to place the payload in orbit (e.g. when independent
flight capability for the payload is already a requirement,
which is quite a lot more often than never, e.g. HST,
many ISS components, etc.).


It eliminates the parasitic weight of a shroud for the payload.


No, it just moves the weight of the shroud onto a different
balance sheet. You may recognize it as the weight of the
"cargo bay".


It
ensures that the payload and it's operators arrive on orbit,

together,
always.


Except when it doesn't. And when it doesn't, it ensures that
rather than just missing putting one payload in the proper
orbit (or in orbit at all) you miss two or more. This could
be an advantage, or at least a minimal disadvantage, if done
right. The Shuttle is not an example of doing it right,
however.


And those are just the ones that occur off the top of my head.

That's *not* to say the Shuttle is the is the best way to do things,
or that it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages. But to pretend
the Shuttle has no advantages is nothing but handwaving FUD.


Certainly. As you say, the Shuttle as it exists currently
has many fewer advantages than a hypothetical shuttle
system of somewhat similar design. And that sort of
practical concern is precisely what we need to keep in
mind when devising practical, real world systems.


And contrary to vigorous handwaving of the Capsule Cabal, the cargo
will not tend to itself. Provisions must be made for it.


Provisions must be made in either case. The question is
whether the cost and capabilities of one method are
clearly superior than the other, to date we do not have
enough data in the form of actual, working systems to
make that determination outside of theory. What data we
do have is not supportive of the Shuttle's method.


Second, this is a non-issue with regards to the subject of the
sub-thread. If there is a payload that can be launched into
LEO that can serve as a "target" for the Shuttle, in that it
serves as a mission that is sufficiently useful to warrant
launching the Shuttle with said payload in the cargo bay,
then that same payload would obviously warrant a cargo-only
launch for rendezvous (if necessary) in a cargo-bay-less
manned spaceflight scenario.


No, it's not obvious. You fail to account for all the things a
'target' payload needs that a 'piggyback' payload doesn't. It also
ignore the problem that in few instances is a 'target' payload
recoverable, whereas a 'piggyback' payload always is.


This, at least, is a real advantage of a cargo vehicle
system such as the Shuttle. However, you can get the
same or similar advantages with systems that are
significantly different from the Shuttle. I'll grant
that this could be an issue with a hypothetical, low
cost access to space system such as a high flight rate
RLV or such like. In such cases it may be significantly,
or even just incrementally, more expensive to launch
separate payloads, and that might make just enough
difference to not justify such a launch even though it
might be justified with the other system. However,
that sort of hypothetical scenario lives in a realm
that is completely off the radar of the present
discussion. Moreover, it is in a realm where the
concerns brought up here are almost entirely moot.

Here we are talking about big ticket items which
justify the existence of the whole manned spaceflight
program. And there it is beyond ridiculous to assume
that there are such which are just small enough to
justify Shuttle operations but not, say, a capsule
based vehicle aimed at LEO operations. The history
of the Shuttle is not one of cutting edge cost
effectiveness. I think the existing examples
throughout spaceflight history back up my
interpretation fairly soundly on this point.


So, it's a distinction without a difference.


Hardly.


You have accreted onto your original statement a series of
statements regarding the advantages of the Shuttle, not all
of which are related. With regard to your original statement
that there is some sort of difference in the validity of the
*justification* for a mission between a shuttle vehicle
bringing its "target" with it and a vehicle rendezvousing
with its target. I continue to maintain that there is none,
regardless of the other advantages and disadvantages of
either method.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Jim Oberg Space Shuttle 0 December 13th 04 05:58 PM
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Jim Oberg History 0 December 13th 04 05:58 PM
"Hindsight bias" could hide real lessons of Columbia accident report,expert says (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Space Shuttle 0 September 3rd 03 01:54 AM
NASA Administrator Accepts Columbia Accident Report Ron Baalke Space Shuttle 3 August 27th 03 04:48 PM
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Releases Final Report Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 August 26th 03 03:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.