NASA Grounds Space Shuttles

[RichieB16]

[quote]

As insulation, to keep the liquid hydrogen (or is it nitrogen?...

[Issflareman]

I enhanced the images the shuttle took of the Tank and thought I would post it here



Those pieces may look tiny, but if they ever hit the shuttle, the results would be disasterous. All I can say is thank God they didn't!

[alrot]

This is very serious,it could nearly stop the space career,haven't you any realize What are they going to use?are we going back to rockets like saturn 5,nobody has realize how bad this is it...We need the space carer there's a lot of things to develop,that's supposted to be the humand next step

[Sock]

[quote]
It's liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, the insulation helps keep the tank cold enough so they remain liquid like you said.

[alrot]

Glad to heard that Sock,

[Issflareman]

yep, socks right on the money there, the shuttles decomissioned by 2010, and the new fleet comes roughly by 2015.

[RichieB16]

I think the shuttle is getting a lot of undue critism.  Yes, it has problems-but so do every other aircraft or spacecraft ever built.  It is true that the shuttle needs to be replaced but they are far superior to the old Saturn rockets and have served us very well.  They are the most successiful space vehicle ever built-and believe it or not, they are the safest.  Had that large piece of foam hit the shuttle it could have caused seriour damage-probably not as bad as Columbia (that piece was still quite a bit larger) but they may have had to stay at ISS for a while.  They think the smaller piece hit the shuttle but it didn't cause any serious damage (as has been the case for many space shuttle missions).  

It seems to me that because of a couple problems, people want to throw out the whole program-they fail to see how good it really has been.  The same was true about Mir all those years ago.  The space shuttle is a great vehicle and although a replacement is needed-I don't think the shuttle deserves all the bad press it is getting.  1 accident every 57 flights is the best safety record in the history of manned space flight-by a long shot.

[Katahu314]

Shuttle

Advantages: Reduces waste by reusing tanks and booster rockets and the shuttle itself is reuseable. That's one less thing for those environmentalists to complain about.

Disadvantages: Increased cost in maintainance and complexity of shuttle. High risk design.

Saturn V design - aka rocket with payload on nose

Advantages: Low risk design due because parts are not reused, therefore reducing wear and tear. Easier to setup and less complex.

Disadvantages: Increased waste in both space and on the ground [not good] will result in environmentalists complaining and we will all want to know why we are seeing rocket parts littering the ocean or parts of land. Not quite sure about the cost.

[Hagar]

environmentalists

I imagine the environmentalists' biggest complaint would be the amount of energy taken to launch it & contamination of the atmosphere. I don't suppose it makes much difference what type of vehicle it is.

I don't think the shuttle deserves all the bad press it is getting.  1 accident every 57 flights is the best safety record in the history of manned space flight-by a long shot.

I agree about the undue criticism but this is to be expected after NASA's recent performance. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the casual observer. I realise that space flight is dangerous but think even one accident in 57 is too many. Manned space flight is in its infancy & there's nothing to judge these statistics by.

[Craig.]

I imagine the environmentalists' biggest complaint would be the amount of energy taken to launch it & contamination of the atmosphere. I don't suppose it makes much difference what type of vehicle it is.

The current shuttle launchings, leave behind water essentially. And in this case a bird who decided to take on the thing:)

Also from what i have seen, it seems they dismantle and rebuild the shuttles after flights anyway?

And finally is anyone surprised that there are problems, when the people bidding to build it were the lowest bidders. Think about it

[RichieB16]

Advantages: Low risk design due because parts are not reused, therefore reducing wear and tear. Easier to setup and less complex.

I really don't think there is that much wear on the shuttle.  There are few moving parts and they are constantly being checked and replaced.  Hardly anything on the shuttles is original.  

Plus, I really think a capsule and rocket system (simular to the old Saturn 1Bs and Vs) would be much more expensive.  Since nothing is reusable, you would have to build a whole new vehicle for every mission-and that doesn't seem practical.  Plus, you lose your payload and crewsize capibility.

I realise that space flight is dangerous but think even one accident in 57 is too many. Manned space flight is in its infancy & there's nothing to judge these statistics by.

Any accident is to many, but with exploration comes risk.  If you compare the shuttle program to other prgrams (for example the Russian Soyuz program) you'll find that the shuttle is much safer.  The Soyuz program (although it hasn't had a recent fatal accident) has had a fatal accident about once every 35 flights (this is a completely nonresuable system, so everything is new).  There isn't much else to compare to because the eariler programs had to few manned missions and as a result no fatal accidents happened (Vostok & Mercury each had 6 manned, Voskhod had 2, Gemini had 10, and the Apollo system was manned a total of 15 times).  But, it is true that space flight is in its infancy but the shuttle program has been far safer than anything else.

[Hagar]

The current shuttle launchings, leave behind water essentially. And in this case a bird who decided to take on the thing:)

Shows how much I know about it then.

Also from what i have seen, it seems they dismantle and rebuild the shuttles after flights anyway?

In that case the age of the airframes is irrelevant. If it's done properly you end up with a brand new one every few cycles. Like the antique broom that's only had 5 new handles & 4 new heads.

And finally is anyone surprised that there are problems, when the people bidding to build it were the lowest bidders. Think about it

I don't need to think about it. I've seen the effects of this policy first-hand, many times.

[H]

There are two solid fuel booster rockets that seperate some time after launch:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1088 ... oaagox.jpg

Thus, it's not only water that the shuttle leaves behind. Of course, it also leaves the earth behind (if all goes well, not forever).
I'm unsure about this total dismantling but, certainly, a thorough inspection is needed and replacements and repairs as necessary.
As per the lowest bidder routine: got a call from our community president just before I left for work, "we need to check everybody's water connections because it seems the construction crew..." (via  government loan/funding, thus low-bidder) "...may have bypassed our shut-offs and disconnected our heat tapes."
OK, they finished this two weeks ago -- about a week after I reported to said president that I'd stopped their work on my line so that I could heat tape my line and add a shut-off after they said, "It's not in the contract!"
"It's not in the contract:" the standard response for cutting corners and even ignoring local codes and regulations. :-/
P.S. Hagar -- you know much more than you'd often admit to...

[RichieB16]

There are two solid fuel booster rockets that seperate some time after launch:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1088 ... oaagox.jpg

Thus, it's not only water that the shuttle leaves behind. Of course, it also leaves the earth behind (if all goes well, not forever).
I'm unsure about this total dismantling but, certainly, a thorough inspection is needed and replacements and repairs as necessary.

The 2 SRBs are recovered from the ocean and used again, they are not simply waste.