Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:53:30 +0000 (UTC), Matt Ion
<soundy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Thunder, Agent '005 wrote:
>> John Jr wrote:
>>
>>> I watched the press conference where they first mentioned
>>> that piece of debris falling off and the reports were obviously ACHING
>>> to report a catastrophe.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've noticed that too. Every single report I've seen on it keeps
>> bringing up whether or not this the end of manned space exploration,
>> etc. There's not even an attempt to try and be positive...
>> If the shuttle really is a death trap (which I doubt), fine. Let them
>> design and build something newer and better then put it out there to
>> replace them.
>
>As has been often pointed out, the Shuttle has always been, and still
>is, literally an *experimental* vehicle. It's not intended as a
>day-to-day space workhorse, although that secondary function has
>probably helped pay some of the bills and provided a more "functional"
>purpose.
>
>To quote to movies, "you know we're sitting on four million pounds of
>fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has two hundred thousand
>moving parts built by the lowest bidder."

I think part of the problem is that they tried to make the shuttle
into something it wasn't.

According to what I've been reading, it was originally planned as a
crew vehicle to service the international space station -- supplies
were to have been lifted to the space station with Saturn V's produced
in a new run of eight vehicles, which would have meant that the
station could have been assembled in just a few launches. But the
Saturn V run was cancelled when NASA's budget was cut, and the shuttle
was pressed into service as a cargo hauler.

Also, NASA made unrealistic claims about the shuttle, about how it was
going to make spaceflight cheap and routine and so safe that anyone
could go. But, as you say, it was really an experimental vehicle
rather than a workhorse; ad hoc fixes can't overcome basic design
flaws, such as having the fuel tank next to the vehicle, and we aren't
yet experienced enough with the design of spacecraft to avoid all
those mistakes.

--
Josh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BTW Stevie were watch the news lately about NASA
    ... if you go back to the original design of next generation of space ... Time moved on, technology advanced, and I have no doubt that that ... >>>Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space ... I can envision a heavy lift vehicle that is just that- a minimalist ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.policy)
  • Re: should space shuttle be cancelled?
    ... So the environment causing stress on the shuttle caused the break-up. ... No space launch system has ever come close ... NASA has not yet owned a manned space vehicle that could be considered ... > All this proves is that the *shuttle* is a fragile design. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: DART nearly a bullseye
    ... the Space Station, as long as whatever it is, is still in close proximity. ... Stations) meet the Shuttle deorbit targets. ... Just be careful not to aim the Hook at the arriving vehicle during the ... It moves Proximity Ops and docking out of the realm of the ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: shuttle & ISS mistake news article
    ... > always run the risk of things falling off and damaging the vehicle. ... I think the big advantage of the "stick" design is that the orbital ... As long as NASA is told it can't fly until it fixes the foam, ... People complain about the shuttle being a 1970s vehicle. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
    ... Every single report I've seen on it keeps bringing up whether or not this the end of manned space exploration, etc. There's not even an attempt to try and be positive... ... If the shuttle really is a death trap, ... is, literally an *experimental* vehicle. ... were to have been lifted to the space station with Saturn V's produced ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
Loading