The Space Shuttle - Quite complicated!
Discussion
And a style unlikely to be repeated.
You have put what I meant in a nutshell.
The Saturn V had its problems during development - just like the Shuttle. But after about three Saturn V flights they had those problems pretty much sorted. I don't think anyone EVER felt that the Shuttle had all its issues sorted even after flight 135.
You have put what I meant in a nutshell.
The Saturn V had its problems during development - just like the Shuttle. But after about three Saturn V flights they had those problems pretty much sorted. I don't think anyone EVER felt that the Shuttle had all its issues sorted even after flight 135.
J98 said:
At the end of the day the Saturn V is just a conventional rocket booster, just a lot larger.
The Space Shuttle was nothing like anything that had came before it, in many ways.
There is nothing conventional about the Saturn V for example the F1 Engines were quite special, as were the avionics. It isn't / wasn't simple as per the first postThe Space Shuttle was nothing like anything that had came before it, in many ways.
Chris Type R said:
Eric Mc said:
I think there is little to celebrate about the Space Shuttle.
I would have devoured that as a 12 year old.
The schematics on their own will keep a space mad 12 year old transfixed for hours.
Toaster said:
J98 said:
At the end of the day the Saturn V is just a conventional rocket booster, just a lot larger.
The Space Shuttle was nothing like anything that had came before it, in many ways.
There is nothing conventional about the Saturn V for example the F1 Engines were quite special, as were the avionics. It isn't / wasn't simple as per the first postThe Space Shuttle was nothing like anything that had came before it, in many ways.
That cannot be said for the Shuttle.
Toaster said:
There is nothing conventional about the Saturn V for example the F1 Engines were quite special, as were the avionics. It isn't / wasn't simple as per the first post
What, apart from their size is quite special about the F-1?For their time they were very special in performance, but not necessarily in tech, it's just an up scaled gas generator engine (I'll happily be proved wrong, especially if it gives me more to read on them).
As far as I know, the main problems they had with it were combustion instability due to the scale (something the Soviets couldn't solve, hence moving to multi chambered designs ie RD-170 family).
What I mainly meant by conventional was that the Saturn V used Kerosene lower and LH2 upper gas generator engines, that were all single use, the payload was directly inline.
Basically it is what most people would describe as a conventional rocket, no?
The Space Shuttle on the other hand used SRBs, with 3 offset staged combustion LH2 motors (staged combustion being something the US didn't have a lot of experience with. As well as no one really using LH2 staged combustion at all?), that were fueled from an external tank, as well as the engines having to be reusable.
The orbiter being mounted externally to the side, resulting in an offset center of mass, the engines being mounted off center, as well as it being a winged orbiter also having to be reusable.
Toaster said:
Eric Mc said:
It was simpler than the Shuttle - .
That still doesn't make the Saturn V simple and does a great disservice to the Scientists and engineers who created it.If anybody would ever think that I would ever try to dismiss what the designers of the Saturn V achieved then they obviously don't know me - and haven't read my many previous posts in praise of Apollo.
I think the engineering solutions arrived at by those in Apollo were elegant and damn near perfect for what they were being asked to do.
The Shuttle on the other hand, was a mish mash and an over-complicated compromise that tried to please too many masters.
I watched the first of the MIT lectures yesterday and it was very interesting to hear what Dale Myers had to say about what he would do if designing a manned spacecraft system today.
If you don't know who Dale Myers is, he was a very famous and renowned engineer who worked for North American (later North American Rockwell/Rockwell International). In fact he was their Vice President at one time and was extremely close to the whole process - political as well as engineering, that led to the Shuttle configuration as we know it.
He also headed up NASA's manned spaceflight division and was Deputy Administrator of NASA for a while. At one point he was Acting Administrator of NASA - so if there is anyone who is in a position to appraise the Shuttle programme, it is Myers.
This is what he said -
i) keep the requirements within NASA. In other words, don't let others (such as the USAF) try to hijack the project and start changing the specs to suit their needs - especially when you have already been allocated a fixed development budget by Congress.
ii) Keep it simple. Don't stretch the margins of safety. Build in plenty of redundancy and ensure that the crew have some means of escape during launch.
iii) Keep it small. Design a spacecraft for carrying humans specifically for that. Do not try to combine a heavy lifter cargo spacecraft with a human carrying spacecraft.
iv) Use as many components in the system as possible that have been proven to be reliable. In other words, do not use marginal technology, especially when carrying people
v) Design for access. Have as many components replaceable as possible without having to dismantle too much of the vehicle each time.
If you listen to what he is saying, he is actually telling us all the things the Shuttle wasn't.
If you don't know who Dale Myers is, he was a very famous and renowned engineer who worked for North American (later North American Rockwell/Rockwell International). In fact he was their Vice President at one time and was extremely close to the whole process - political as well as engineering, that led to the Shuttle configuration as we know it.
He also headed up NASA's manned spaceflight division and was Deputy Administrator of NASA for a while. At one point he was Acting Administrator of NASA - so if there is anyone who is in a position to appraise the Shuttle programme, it is Myers.
This is what he said -
i) keep the requirements within NASA. In other words, don't let others (such as the USAF) try to hijack the project and start changing the specs to suit their needs - especially when you have already been allocated a fixed development budget by Congress.
ii) Keep it simple. Don't stretch the margins of safety. Build in plenty of redundancy and ensure that the crew have some means of escape during launch.
iii) Keep it small. Design a spacecraft for carrying humans specifically for that. Do not try to combine a heavy lifter cargo spacecraft with a human carrying spacecraft.
iv) Use as many components in the system as possible that have been proven to be reliable. In other words, do not use marginal technology, especially when carrying people
v) Design for access. Have as many components replaceable as possible without having to dismantle too much of the vehicle each time.
If you listen to what he is saying, he is actually telling us all the things the Shuttle wasn't.
Dr Jekyll said:
Toaster said:
Eric Mc said:
It was simpler than the Shuttle - .
That still doesn't make the Saturn V simple and does a great disservice to the Scientists and engineers who created it.Saturn V - a simple rocket to do a complicated job.
The first statement is incorrect as the Saturn V was never simple
It is a great injustice to say one was simple the other complex, both had complexity and I agree Dr Jekyll in that both Scientists and Engineers who worked on both projects should be appluaded
Edited by Toaster on Thursday 25th December 12:42
I was quoting a NASA person - so don't blame me.
The statement is - of course - a simplification of the true situation,. But it was to make a point that the Shuttle was OVER complicated and that, in comparison, the Saturn V was a simpler system.
Why don't you all do what I did i.e listen to the 30 hours of MIT lectures and hear what those who worked at an intimate level on the Space Shuttle - and Apollo as well in many cases - have to say. I was basing what I said on what they say.
I followed the Shuttle programme from its inception in 1969/70 right up to its end in 2011 and read many, many articles, books etc on the programme over that period. I have massive respect for everybody involved in the project - especially the bravery of those who flew in it. They were putting there lives on the line every time they climbed aboard the Shuttle to a far greater extent than most of us outside the programme truly realised.
And I've already stated my opinion about Apollo so won't repeat myself.
The statement is - of course - a simplification of the true situation,. But it was to make a point that the Shuttle was OVER complicated and that, in comparison, the Saturn V was a simpler system.
Why don't you all do what I did i.e listen to the 30 hours of MIT lectures and hear what those who worked at an intimate level on the Space Shuttle - and Apollo as well in many cases - have to say. I was basing what I said on what they say.
I followed the Shuttle programme from its inception in 1969/70 right up to its end in 2011 and read many, many articles, books etc on the programme over that period. I have massive respect for everybody involved in the project - especially the bravery of those who flew in it. They were putting there lives on the line every time they climbed aboard the Shuttle to a far greater extent than most of us outside the programme truly realised.
And I've already stated my opinion about Apollo so won't repeat myself.
And just to add - now listening to Lecture 2 which is hosted by Professor Aaron Cohen - Shuttle Orbiter Manager - 1972 to 1982 and Director of the Johnson Space Centre (1986 to 1993). He was also an important figure in Apollo.
And I quote -
"There is no question that the Shuttle is the most complicated (spacecraft) - much more than Apollo. Even though Apollo's MISSION was much more complicated".
Sadly, Professor Cohen passed away in 2010.
And I quote -
"There is no question that the Shuttle is the most complicated (spacecraft) - much more than Apollo. Even though Apollo's MISSION was much more complicated".
Sadly, Professor Cohen passed away in 2010.
Eric Mc said:
And just to add - now listening to Lecture 2 which is hosted by Professor Aaron Cohen - Shuttle Orbiter Manager - 1972 to 1982 and Director of the Johnson Space Centre (1986 to 1993). He was also an important figure in Apollo.
And I quote -
"There is no question that the Shuttle is the most complicated (spacecraft) - much more than Apollo. Even though Apollo's MISSION was much more complicated".
Sadly, Professor Cohen passed away in 2010.
The quote you have used says the shuttle is the most complicated (spacecraft) Clearly Prof Aaron was not saying the Saturn V was a simple rocket (your interpretation). And I quote -
"There is no question that the Shuttle is the most complicated (spacecraft) - much more than Apollo. Even though Apollo's MISSION was much more complicated".
Sadly, Professor Cohen passed away in 2010.
Eric Mc said:
I was quoting a NASA person - so don't blame me.
The statement is - of course - a simplification of the true situation,. But it was to make a point that the Shuttle was OVER complicated and that, in comparison, the Saturn V was a simpler system.
Why don't you all do what I did i.e listen to the 30 hours of MIT lectures and hear what those who worked at an intimate level on the Space Shuttle - and Apollo as well in many cases - have to say. I was basing what I said on what they say.
I followed the Shuttle programme from its inception in 1969/70 right up to its end in 2011 and read many, many articles, books etc on the programme over that period. I have massive respect for everybody involved in the project - especially the bravery of those who flew in it. They were putting there lives on the line every time they climbed aboard the Shuttle to a far greater extent than most of us outside the programme truly realised.
And I've already stated my opinion about Apollo so won't repeat myself.
was quoting a NASA person - so don't blame me,.....................its your misquote but thats ok we all do itThe statement is - of course - a simplification of the true situation,. But it was to make a point that the Shuttle was OVER complicated and that, in comparison, the Saturn V was a simpler system.
Why don't you all do what I did i.e listen to the 30 hours of MIT lectures and hear what those who worked at an intimate level on the Space Shuttle - and Apollo as well in many cases - have to say. I was basing what I said on what they say.
I followed the Shuttle programme from its inception in 1969/70 right up to its end in 2011 and read many, many articles, books etc on the programme over that period. I have massive respect for everybody involved in the project - especially the bravery of those who flew in it. They were putting there lives on the line every time they climbed aboard the Shuttle to a far greater extent than most of us outside the programme truly realised.
And I've already stated my opinion about Apollo so won't repeat myself.
The statement is - of course - a simplification of the true situation,. But it was to make a point that the Shuttle was OVER complicated and that, in comparison, the Saturn V was a simpler system................... But not simple!!!
They were putting there lives on the line every time they climbed aboard the Shuttle to a far greater extent than most of us outside the programme truly realised.................Space flight is dangerous including the old (new chestnut of Virgin Galactic) its Niave to think anything else.
I think the tread was about the Shuttle. I appreciate the politics and different technologies etc. but it was a thread divert.
If anyone still has the link, I had forgotten to copy it. I had started to read it. Recently the comparison in hold down stared to pique my interest. A comment on another part of the internet on the description for the shuttle, something along the lines of a standard NASA charge, or words to that effect with reference to severing the rods etc etc.
If anyone still has the link, I had forgotten to copy it. I had started to read it. Recently the comparison in hold down stared to pique my interest. A comment on another part of the internet on the description for the shuttle, something along the lines of a standard NASA charge, or words to that effect with reference to severing the rods etc etc.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff