19072 Members
14 Forums
40341 Topics
614093 Posts
Max Online: 788 @ 09/28/24 10:05 AM
|
|
|
#143942 - 01/31/06 12:40 PM
Re: Challenger 20 Years On
|
Registered Sex Offender
Registered: 03/12/03
Posts: 2458
Loc: I'm the fucker behind the curt...
|
I believe I was in 3rd grade when the fucker exploded, growing up in Florida. I had no idea who the hell the Christa McCauliff (sic) was or what the big deal was, but yeah people were freaked by the whole thing. I am very anti space shuttle, it is a piece of outdated junk and is way too expensive to operate. I am all for space projects, but the shuttle is shit. Malice
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#143944 - 01/31/06 02:50 PM
Re: Challenger 20 Years On
|
AC Cream Wannabe
Registered: 06/03/05
Posts: 429
|
I was in 4th grade, in the lunch line, when Mrs.Kaiser came and told everyone...I remember the joke that followed...NASA (Need Another Seven Astronauts)
_________________________
I'll cut off your ears, nose, lips, and I'll stab your fucking face, so for the rest of your life, you'll remember your mistakes
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#143946 - 01/31/06 09:35 PM
Re: Challenger 20 Years On
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 08/03/03
Posts: 5849
Loc: TX, USA
|
I was in the computer games business at that time and was in the publisher's office that day when the production manager ran in and said “The Shuttle landed in the Atlantic!†He'd heard a report on the radio and I thought at first that they had done an RTLS abort and were flying back to Florida. Then we turned on a TV and saw the spilled fuel fireballs and the SRBs (solid rockets) still firing and knew it was a lot worse than that...
The Shuttle really isn't outdated per se, but rather too “advanced†in some important respects, and Max Faget did make (or was forced into) some bad guesses. Trying for horizontal landings (wings, etc) was a bad idea, using hydrogen fuel was a bad idea, solid fuel boosters was a bad idea... But the basic problems were senior management's fault – grossly raising the payload spec with funding to redo the design elements already completed for a much lighter lander, and going ahead at all without the money to even do the most basic flight test. Trying to do everything with one vehicle was not a good idea either.
As for cost, yes the shuttle is too expensive. But that's not the problem: it's the stuff you *don't* launch that is what soaks up the money. The incremental cost of launching a shuttle is maybe 10% of the operations cost *without* any launches: the way things are structured it doesn't cost much to launch an extra flight, and it doesn't save much to ground the fleet.
On the plus side there aren't any other systems with nearly this much flexibility, or any heavy lifters that don't exceed 3g's at any point for any payload mass or target orbit, or that can return anywhere near as much payload (not that the Shuttle's nose gear is likely to survive a heavy landing). It really can do a lot, but with hindsight what is really needed is cost reduction, not a heavy lifter with extreme mission flexibility and heavy landing capability.
None of the Russian systems can even come close to what the Shuttle can do ... but they can do what they do cheaply and reliably, and that's what matters. Moreover, they Russians have engineers with experience designing large rockets, whereas NASA has none (all of the Apollo/Shuttle engineers are long gone).
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#143947 - 01/31/06 10:39 PM
Re: Challenger 20 Years On
|
Porn Icon
Registered: 02/04/05
Posts: 3499
Loc: The Dirty: 480
|
5th grade. The class down the hall watched on TV, but we were still in lesson, maybe taking a break. It was a quiet affair after that, midwestern folks are calm like that, I guess. I also happened to have been home sick on the day of the first launch of them all, the Columbia in '81 I think. I watched it on the portable black and white from my bed, and considered myself pretty lucky in retrospect that I got to see it first. That it was the first launch of a doomed craft has soured that memory, we know what became of the Columbia as well. I've begun to have serious doubts about the orbiter program as it's 1970's technology still has about a 1% failure rate. I know we have some wacky flying shit out in the Area 51's of this country, but what's the point sending up astronauts right now anyway? Space is just the big Nothing at this point, we've got too many problems on Earth.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#143948 - 02/01/06 01:24 AM
Re: Challenger 20 Years On
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 08/03/03
Posts: 5849
Loc: TX, USA
|
Quote:
I've begun to have serious doubts about the orbiter program as it's 1970's technology still has about a 1% failure rate.
70s tech isn't bad, as long as it works. I don't think the age of the technology had anything to do with either failure.
As for 1%: a 1% failure is not considered that bad in the launcher business. At the time of the first Shuttle launch the Air Force failure rate was 1% on the solid rockets alone (and there are two on a Shuttle). At this point it makes more sense to design with that 1% as a reality rather than ignore it or believe you'll reduced it to epsilon with heroic engineering somehow. In other words there comes a time when it's more realistic and cost-effective to design escape systems than try for unrealistic reliability in the main system.
Quote:
but what's the point sending up astronauts right now anyway?
I've wondered for a while why it is that a typical flight might have 1-2 "mission specialists" yet a total of 7 crewmembers - what are are the others doing? Joyriding like Senator Glenn?
There is value in having technicians in orbit for repair missions. I'm told that on every repair mission thus far plan A has not worked in some way and that the job was eventually accomplished by methods devised on the spot, often improvised with tools or equipment that happened to be in the cabin. There is the one famous incident where the satellite to be repaired was tumbling slowly and wouldn't stop, and an astronaut simply got on the end of the Shuttle's arm and grabbed the satellite to stop it (this was NOT in the pre-flight plan!). Most of the time it goes as planned but there has always been something unexpected, however minor, that would have caused a robotic repair to fail.
The Shuttle already launches itself and can do the entire landing sequence except lowering the wheels (this exception is a political decision, not technical). Right now it would seem future launchers should need no more than 3 passengers spaces for a day or two, certainly not the 10+ days with 7 crew the Shuttle can do. On a new system on the rare occasions that you need a big party or a long dwell time you can do multiple launches, but I bet they miraculously find 3 days with 3 crew just fine if getting more took extra effort.
Quote:
Space is just the big Nothing at this point, we've got too many problems on Earth.
Most people find long-range weather forecasts handy, as well as other things impractical without orbital technology.
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#143949 - 02/01/06 12:42 PM
Re: Challenger 20 Years On
|
Porn Icon
Registered: 02/04/05
Posts: 3499
Loc: The Dirty: 480
|
Thanks for the rebuttal JRV, good stuff. Quote:
Quote:
Space is just the big Nothing at this point, we've got too many problems on Earth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most people find long-range weather forecasts handy, as well as other things impractical without orbital technology.
On this last point, I meant that outer is really just a big hole that we could pour money into for years with no return on the investement. The argument that money could be better spent on the shit conditions of so many humans on earth seems to resonate more within me as NASA's percieved performance continues to sag. Until we make some possible quantum leap in interstellar transport methods, the orbitals are of course the only things really relevant to our high budget space programs, IMO. That said, I am a huge armchair fan of all things "space program", and it pains me to have come to this realization. Sorry for running on and basically rehashing the common arguments out there these days, I suppose I should just say that my opionions have undergone a sea change and its kinda sad.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
524
Guests and
4
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|