Griffin Calls STS, ISS "Mistakes"

Griffin says shuttle and station were mistakes in
USA Today story.

"http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-09-27-nasa-griffin-interview_x.htm"

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

Griffin says shuttle and station were mistakes in
USA Today story.

"http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-09-27-nasa-gri
ffin-interview_x.htm"

This comment is interesting:

Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin
said, "My opinion is that it was. ... It was a design which
was extremely aggressive and just barely possible."

An interesting counterpoint to claims that the shuttle would have
been more successful had it been built to the even more aggressive
fully reusable two stage design.

Jim Davis

Hi!

Jim Davis writes:
An interesting counterpoint to claims that the shuttle would have
been more successful had it been built to the even more aggressive
fully reusable two stage design.

Two fully reusable stages do not mean that the engineering margins for
thermal protection, engine performance, weight etc have to be more
aggressive.

Btw they had a very good idea back then. Design the first stage to
drop off at the speed that gives a reentry that needs no other thermal
protection system then slightly increasing the thickness of the metal
in some places to act as a heatsink.

Best regards,
--
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 34 00 676 or (0)705 16 00 46

Magnus Redin wrote:

An interesting counterpoint to claims that the shuttle would
have been more successful had it been built to the even more
aggressive fully reusable two stage design.

Two fully reusable stages do not mean that the engineering
margins for thermal protection, engine performance, weight etc
have to be more aggressive.

Arianespace was under the impression that designing the Ariane
launchers to be expendable would mean that the engineering margins
for thermal protection, engine performance, weight etc would be
less demanding.

Were they mistaken?

Jim Davis

Rand Simberg wrote:

An interesting counterpoint to claims that the shuttle would
have been more successful had it been built to the even more
aggressive fully reusable two stage design.

How do you know he wasn't referring to the budgetary
situation?

You think Griffin was referring to the budgetary situation?
Honestly?

Also, how do you know he's right?

He has the advantage of 35 years of hindsight. No subsequent events
contradict his assessment.

Jim Davis

On 28 Sep 2005 11:43:26 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Griffin says shuttle and station were mistakes in
USA Today story.

Well, DUHHHH.

What concerns me is that they'll draw the wrong lessons from both
programs (and in fact clearly have).

On 28 Sep 2005 19:03:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

This comment is interesting:

Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin
said, "My opinion is that it was. ... It was a design which
was extremely aggressive and just barely possible."

An interesting counterpoint to claims that the shuttle would have
been more successful had it been built to the even more aggressive
fully reusable two stage design.

How do you know he wasn't referring to the budgetary situation?

Also, how do you know he's right?

Hi!

Jim Davis writes:
Arianespace was under the impression that designing the Ariane
launchers to be expendable would mean that the engineering margins
for thermal protection, engine performance, weight etc would be
less demanding.

Were they mistaken?

You are mistaken. I was comparing the current shuttle with a two stage
fully reusable shuttle. Designing two reusable stages gives a larger
ammount of engineering work but you do not have to use lesser margins,
you can probably have better margins. But this do of course require
that you correctly size your launcher for the payload, something the
designers of the current shuttle failed to do.

Best regards,
--
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 34 00 676 or (0)705 16 00 46

On 28 Sep 2005 20:10:08 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:

An interesting counterpoint to claims that the shuttle would
have been more successful had it been built to the even more
aggressive fully reusable two stage design.

How do you know he wasn't referring to the budgetary
situation?

You think Griffin was referring to the budgetary situation?
Honestly?

No, I'm an agnostic on the issue. I only know what appears in the
article. Until he elaborates, I don't know how to interpret it.

Also, how do you know he's right?

He has the advantage of 35 years of hindsight. No subsequent events
contradict his assessment.

So do we all. Nonetheless, we have different opinions.

Jim Davis wrote:

Arianespace was under the impression that designing the Ariane
launchers to be expendable would mean that the engineering margins
for thermal protection, engine performance, weight etc would be
less demanding.

Were they mistaken?

No, but then they weren't comparing a two-stage shuttle to
a stage-and-a-half shuttle.

Why did you bring up this irrelevancy anyway?

Paul