Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shuttle launch delayed - again...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shuttle launch delayed - again...

    The long awaited launch of the renewed Space Shuttle has be delayed till July:
    BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service


    One can't help but wonder if all this time and money couldn't have been invested in a new Shuttle-like vehicle (i.e. larger version of the Rutan SpaceShip one).
    (I know, I know, developping something new would cost much more and require more time)

    Still, kudos to the Russian space agency for managing all transports of both people and supplies to/from the space station for the last 2 years.
    (quite a difference to the images portrayed in various sci-fi movies as Armageddon, where Nasa is the last resort )



    Jörg
    pixar
    Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

  • #2
    Apparently the recent tank test turned up some larger ice deposits than they had expected. Better to have 'em save than sorry.

    It would also be better to have a smaller shuttle that's capable of being launched with hybrid or or some other non-cryogenic tech. No cryo = no need for either insulation or de-icing. Leave the heavy lifting to unmanned spacecraft.

    Dr. Mordrid
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, of course, they need to put safety first...

      Nice thinking on getting heavy stuff up there unmanned, and smaller craft for people...


      Jörg
      pixar
      Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Heavy Lift

        It's hardly a new idea: as a matter of fact, nearly all of the Russian Parts of the ISS were sent up unmanned.

        The problem was NASA's myopic view of how missions should be all centered around the delivery platform instead of by the requirements of the overall mission. The NASA brass said it was all about cost: Bullshit. They spent more money justifying the use of the orbiter for everything just to keep the orbiter funded. That thinking got them into this current mess.

        In fairness, there should have been oversight way back (right after Challenger) about replacing the shuttle fleet with either a newer version of the Shuttle or an entirely different platform. The Shuttle was already a 10+ year old design back in '85.

        NASA should have been and should be even now working on reducing the cost of cargo to orbit. That is the key to real commercial involvement in space exploration. The Shuttle is about as efficient and logical as using an 18 Wheeler for runs to the corner donut shop from a cost and complexity standpoint.
        Hey, Donny! We got us a German who wants to die for his country... Oblige him. - Lt. Aldo Raine

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
          Apparently the recent tank test turned up some larger ice deposits than they had expected. Better to have 'em save than sorry.

          It would also be better to have a smaller shuttle that's capable of being launched with hybrid or or some other non-cryogenic tech. No cryo = no need for either insulation or de-icing. Leave the heavy lifting to unmanned spacecraft.

          Dr. Mordrid
          From what I've heard, this has been their biggest problem in the past.
          Titanium is the new bling!
          (you heard from me first!)

          Comment


          • #6
            The problem with Challenger was bad design and the stupidity of NASA in launching in sub-zero weather. The rubber seals in the SRB's hardened and cracked, allowing engine exhaust to penetrate them and burn open a hole in the cryo fuel tank.

            Oops.

            One of the more stupid things NASA did involves the X-38 CRV (Crew Return Vehicle). This 7 place lifting body spaceplane was originally intended to act as an emergency return vehicle for the Space Station, built largely in cooperation with Burt Rutans team at Scaled Composites.

            Yup...the guys who did SpaceShipOne.

            The tests went very well; so well that former astronauts like Buzz Aldrin suggested that it be converted to not only act as a return vehicle but as a two way shuttle replacement.

            What did NASA do? They cancelled the X-38 program of course

            This along with the cancellation of programs like the X-33 and others leaves NASA without a modern design to replace the shuttle with, even though one is drastically needed.

            Dr. Mordrid
            Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 30 April 2005, 13:59.
            Dr. Mordrid
            ----------------------------
            An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

            I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

            Comment


            • #7
              Yep. With the X-38 they said there were "too many technical hurdles to overcome"

              That excuse is so lame, even "my dog ate the homework" seems positively Shakespearean in comparision to the former excuse in light of the "technical difficulties" we overcame when we went to the moon.
              Hey, Donny! We got us a German who wants to die for his country... Oblige him. - Lt. Aldo Raine

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, there is at least some hope in Dream Chaser.

                Dream Chaser, AKA as NASA's former X-34 (another cancelled project), is now being worked on by SpaceDev in conjunction with NASA's Ames Research. It's to be a manned spaceplane powered by SpaceDevs hybrid rockets.

                This website is for sale! spacedev.com is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, spacedev.com has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!


                SpaceDev is the company that provided Scaled Composites with the engines for SS1.

                You know what the real problems are at NASA?

                1. NASA management wouldn't know a good idea if it ran them over.

                2. even if NASA approves a project for development their huge beauracracy ups costs so much they can't actually finish anything.

                3. they have a real bad case of NIH....Not Invented Here.

                Dr. Mordrid
                Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 30 April 2005, 14:21.
                Dr. Mordrid
                ----------------------------
                An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                Comment


                • #9
                  ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhHH IVE BEEN waiting a year TO TAKE PICTURES OF THIS LAUNCH.

                  GAWD.
                  www.lizziemorrison.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well NASA really has become the North American Shuttle Association. They've been so one-platform oriented most of the engineers can't even spell Capsule, Apollo, Gemini or Mercury: Reason? It has been removed from all texts on all of NASA's installations. I am only half-kidding. The box they work in is smaller than a phonebooth.

                    The good ideas are coming from outside NASA, and the engineers at NASA HATE that, so they do what any good bureaucrat does: kill the "outside" influence (and indirectly, 14 good people).

                    Companies who do not change, die. NASA needs a complete rethink of the missions and objectives; NASA has had a nasty habit of redefining their manned exploratory missions over the past 25 years, rather than fulfilling milestones asked for decades before. And consistently they have aimed lower and lower.

                    It's going to take a very thorough cleansing of the ranks to overcome this mentality: for 28 years NASA has focussed on ONE platform for Manned Missions. That is a huge amount of inertia to overcome.
                    Hey, Donny! We got us a German who wants to die for his country... Oblige him. - Lt. Aldo Raine

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      When you look at the shuttle plans you quickly realize that its crew compartment really is just a capsule. NASA just decided to surround it with 100 tons of extraneous crap;



                      All this extra crap actually does is make it look cool (at least to them), turn it into a manned heavy lift vehicle (bad idea) and drastically reduce its safety margin.

                      Dumb....

                      They'd be far better off with 2 manned vehicles; one something akin to the X-34 or X-38 for low Earth orbit (using the much safer hybrid engines) and the other a capsule than could reach high Earth orbit or the moon.

                      Mars would require something entirely different, most likely with nuclear powered VASIMR or ION drive and some kind of centrifugal gravity.

                      Leave the heavy lifting, lunar and interplanetary propulsion to thigns intended for the purpose.

                      Dr. Mordrid
                      Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 30 April 2005, 15:20.
                      Dr. Mordrid
                      ----------------------------
                      An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                      I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I wonder with what the Russians will come up with their next manned system...it appers to be what modified X-38 was supposed to be...

                        and btw, please resurect Energia, I want to go to Mars in few years :


                        edit: by searching this picture on Google with "energia mars" I've found some interesting pages about Mars projects from Energia design bureau and Russian overall. Look it up, pretty neat stuff.

                        edit2: I almost forgot:
                        NASA, please, let the program die...
                        Last edited by Nowhere; 5 May 2005, 07:30.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          [rant on]

                          Fact is, we all got sold a bill of goods with the space shuttle. Nixon ended the Apollo moon landing program to give priority to the space shuttle because he was sold on the re-usable concept- a concept that was seriously oversold. The original design specs for the orbiter were a two-week turnaround and <$100 US per pound to orbit cost. Even after Columbia (finally!) launched with Young and Crippen aboard They were still touting a turnaround time of two months and a cost to orbit of < $1000 per pound.

                          Now the turnaround time is closer to two YEARS per orbiter and the cost per pound never dropped below $ 10,000. Arthur C. Clarke in a 1981 0r '82 interview ridiculed NASAs description of the shuttle as "the DC-3 of the space age." He called it more of a "DC-1 1/2." He decried the fact that it had to "strain its guts to fly." NASA officials protested, of course, calling the shuttle a "technological marvel" and promising that it would soon "prove its mettle."

                          (The quotes are statements I remember more or less verbatum because I was very sensitive to criticism of the shuttle at the time. Back then I was a "true believer.")

                          Now of course all of Clarke's criticisms have been borne out by the shuttle itself. It's a pile of junk. It always was a pile of junk. Damn Nixon for buying the thing. Damn all of us true believers who bought the hype. Damn the a**holes who purveyed this piece of crap. The space shuttle and NASA which placed all of its eggs in one basket with the thing have done more to bring the US space program to a slow crawl if not a grinding halt than any other factor. Much more than the lion's share of NASAs funding has gone to nursing the shuttle along "until a replacement can be found." But I have yet to see NASA come up with even a pencil-sketch for a replacement. And when they finally do they'll have most of a billion dollars invested in that pencil-sketch.

                          To Hell with NASA. To Hell with the space shuttle. I no longer give a rats ass if the thing ever flies again. The sooner the POS is sent to the scrap yard, the better.

                          [/rant off]

                          Kevin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Uhmm...and yet you still wanna go in it to retrieve the Hubble? And moreover, put this POS with the telescope inside it in the museum?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              A friend of mine who was in the military at the time put it this way: "It has to be able to bring back at least as much as it put up there or its worthless." He was thinking weapons and I was thinking exotic medicines and materials from exotic space labs, but he was right. By all rights, in order for it to prove itself a true "space truck" as it was envisioned and promoted, then just once it should be able to bring back as large a payload as it was capable of orbiting and except for the spacelabs, which could not really be considered cargo as such, The shuttle has never achieved this, at least not at full capacity. Just once I'd like to see it actually go out and retrieve something that has really been "out there" for a long time. A true relic of the space age. But I guess the space age is over. I guess it was over when Steve Jobs sold his first Apple.

                              See, I remember when going into space was considered dangerously romantic. Now its just considered dangerous and the romance has faded away like most of the original astronaut corps has faded away.

                              You don't think a Hubble retrieval mission would be worth the danger and expense of a shuttle launch? I have news. NOT ONE launch of the space shuttle has been worth the danger and expense, in tangible terms, and only marginally in intangible terms.

                              Kevin

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X