OT Shuttle launch moved to January again

Anyone seeing a pattern here?

Challenger launch in 1986 in January Pushed back time and again. Kaboom.

Columbia launch in 2003 in January. OUCH.

Atlantis launch pushed back to Jan 2008. Lloyd's in London taking any bets yet?

Something I've always wondered. If our military planes can launch anywhere in the world from Nome Alaska to the Saudi desert safely, and we can launch

747's all over the world, too, then why can't the Shuttle handle cold weather? It's supposed to be the 'workhorse' of NASA.

Charles the Curmudgeon.

Reply to
n5hsr
Loading thread data ...

Because, in terms of technology, it's an antique. It's a flying coffin with NASA admitting that the odds of another catastrophe are 1 in 25 flights. Would any sane person board an airliner with those odds?

The sooner the thing is mothballed, the better. Either build the replacement, or go back to disposables. The bastard, with its seventies technology, is an albatross.

Reply to
witfal

The launch was fine.

Actually, in terms of technology, it is old. Most of the electronics were upgraded in the 90's.

It was not designed to be launched in all types of weather.

Really? The shuttle has a fatal failure rate of about 1.75% (two fatal flights in 116 flights0, not 4%.

At any rate, I would go up in January. So the answer is yes, a sane person would go up.

The problem with the shuttle is not that the technology is old, but, rather, that the shuttles are old. And the shuttles were designed to do a lot of things, but nothing well. They are very expensive to maintain.

Old technology often works very well.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Careful with those attributes. The above words were not mine.

Modern electronics wrapped in an antique don't change the nature. You can put a DVD player inside of a sideboard built in 1890, and it's still a sideboard built in 1890. The design, O-rings and all, were a kludge from the get-go.

NASA came out with those numbers, not me.

Your choice.

Tell that to the family survivors of both disintegrations.

Reply to
witfal

United Space Co. took over shuttle maintenance about ten years ago. At first it thought it could handle the job with ease because its partner companies, Lockheed and Boeing, had so much experience with high performance jets and unmanned rockets. Then it learned that the shuttle was far, far more complex than anything it had worked with before. Another reason not to compare the shuttle with the 747 or military planes: it works at far, far higher power levels.

Here's an article from the April, 1980 Washington Monthly that predicted, a year before the shuttle first flew, that the shuttle would be a boondoggle:

formatting link

NASA bit off much more than it could chew when it proposed the shuttle in the 1970s because it put so much new, untested technology into one spacecraft and made too many compromises to keep costs down. Until there are big advancements in materials or propulsion systems, it won't make sense to build anything like the shuttle again.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

What safety problems have been caused by the shuttles being old? After a mission in 1999, when a main engine was shut down when a screw hit a hydrogen line in the nozzle, all the shuttles were overhauled and lots of wiring damage was found, but what other age-related risks have there been? I believe that all the other risks have been due to the design and complexity of the shuttle and NASA's highly autocratic leadership.

People in the field seem to think that the shuttles are unbeatable for space construction, and they won't be anywhere matched by any near- term successor craft, American or Russian.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

A new shuttle is already planned. It will have the vehicle above the fuel tank.

Larry moe, I think you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Reply to
dbu.

I am talking about the cost of maintaining the system.

Reply to
Jeff

Actually the best technology is "Old Number Seven". The Russians have been using the base R-7 (aka SS-6 Sapwood) since 1957 and it's fast, it's cheap, and it runs on kerosene. I've lost count of how many successful launches. Aren't they still using the same 20-motor base on the rockets that push up Soyuz? Basically 20 V-2 rocket motors tied together.

Charles the Curmudgeon

Reply to
n5hsr

I don't think the costs are high because the system is old but because it's flown so little. The shuttle was originally expected to fly 50 times a year but has never gone up more than ten. I've heard that the total cost is about $1 billion per flight, but that may be half as expensive as a Saturn V launch.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

No one flies commercially in Ford Tri-Motors anymore. Why? Because, despite electronics that could be used to "upgrade" the plane, there are better, more modern airliners far safer and reliable.

The shuttle, while still "flyable", is just not a safe vehicle. It's recent track record is beyond dispute. How many launches take place on time? None. I simply don't remember one that didn't have some sort of delay due to mechanical reasons. A simple redesign and upgrade of older launch vehicles could be used, and far more cheaply, than this continued use of a NASA version of a Lamborghini. Way too much maintenance to run right.

Don't get me wrong. I'm still all for manned orbital flights. The research and technology we develop as a result is beyond denial. I just shudder when one flies.

It isn't IF but WHEN it's going to kill again.

Reply to
witfal

It won't really be a shuttle but a rehash of Apollo, right down to the sea landing requirement (they've recently given up on touching down on land).

Point out the mistakes I've made here.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

That's because the turnaround time is so long. It takes a lot more maintaince than expected. IIRC, the original cost of a flight was estimated at about $50M ($100 or 150M in 2007 dollars), but was several times higher. It takes longer to refurbish the shuttle between flights, more times than anticipated, the shuttle needs a ride on a 747 to get home to the cape, and everything is more complicated than anticipated.>

According to NASA, it is about $450 billion.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

How? They don't have the original blueprints anymore. It won't be simple or cheap.

What came from the International Space Station?

Gee, everything we do has risk. Even driving a car.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

It all boils down to:

Which far fewer would do if the odds were 1 in 25 for catastrophe.

Reply to
witfal

The odds are less than 1 in 50. However, no one who knew what he was talking about ever said space shuttle flights were low-risk.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

I'll repeat: The 1 in 25 figure comes from NASA.

But let's say it IS 1 in 50. That's hardly comforting.

Reply to
witfal

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.