35 Years ago today - Columbia STS1
Discussion
Explosive bolts and other pyrotechnics are used in the vacuum of space all the time. Indeed, it is how stages are separated, shrouds are jettisoned etc.
As for the Shuttle's ejector seats, they would have been "safed" once they got into orbit and then made live again as part of the pre de-orbit burn preparations prior to re-entry.
As has been mentioned, the ejection seats fitted on the Shuttle's first four flights could only be used in a very narrow range of circumstances. It was assumed that any use during launch would be fatal. The only "window" where they could be used safely was if the Orbiter had some control problems in the last five or so minutes of glide flight prior to landing.
The suits worn by the crews in early Shuttle missions were aircraft pressure suits (not space suits) and were actually very similar to the suits worn by SR-71 and U-2 pilots. They would protect the crew if the cabin depressurised for any reason, but they could not be worn in the vacuum of space. They didn't have an independent air supply for start, not having any sort of backpack life support system.
For later Shuttle flights, the crews wore only lightweight flight suits and motor cycle style crash helmets. After the Challenger accident, they reverted to proper pressure suits for launch and re-entry.
As for the Shuttle's ejector seats, they would have been "safed" once they got into orbit and then made live again as part of the pre de-orbit burn preparations prior to re-entry.
As has been mentioned, the ejection seats fitted on the Shuttle's first four flights could only be used in a very narrow range of circumstances. It was assumed that any use during launch would be fatal. The only "window" where they could be used safely was if the Orbiter had some control problems in the last five or so minutes of glide flight prior to landing.
The suits worn by the crews in early Shuttle missions were aircraft pressure suits (not space suits) and were actually very similar to the suits worn by SR-71 and U-2 pilots. They would protect the crew if the cabin depressurised for any reason, but they could not be worn in the vacuum of space. They didn't have an independent air supply for start, not having any sort of backpack life support system.
For later Shuttle flights, the crews wore only lightweight flight suits and motor cycle style crash helmets. After the Challenger accident, they reverted to proper pressure suits for launch and re-entry.
Simpo Two said:
Flooble said:
To be fair to the vehicle though, it was 2 vehicle failures out of 135 missions. The fact it carried seven crew (rather than 2 or 3 on the other launch vehicles) makes it look somewhat worse than it was.
That's true. Did it really need seven I wonder?The new Orion craft will seat up to six, so seven probably was a bit excessive.
Einion Yrth said:
Couldn't bring stuff back, though.
A limited capability, to be honest. It was only used on a handful of missions and was completely non-cost effective.NASA was extremely nervy about bringing back duff satellites in the cargo bay. It caused weight and balance issues during re-entry and landing and there were also major safety concern due to the unburned propellants remaining in the satellites' fuel tanks.
The only significant payload that was worth bringing back was the Eldef (Extreme Long Duration Exposure Facility) which was as large as the bay and designed to be retrieved and brought back to earth in the Shuttle.
Most payloads you take into space, you don't really want to bring back.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 14th April 11:48
NASA was limited to a development cost of $10 billion at 1971 levels. I'm sure the actual costs were more like $100 billion.
It was assumed that the Shuttle fleet would carry out around 2,000 missions between 1977 and 1990. In reality, it carried out 135 missions (133 that actually worked) between 1981 and 2011.
It was assumed that the Shuttle fleet would carry out around 2,000 missions between 1977 and 1990. In reality, it carried out 135 missions (133 that actually worked) between 1981 and 2011.
It's a little spurious to compare the two launch systems.
Soyuz (the manned version) is only one of many, many payloads that can be lofted into orbit by the R7 family of boosters. If you take these into account, you are looking at many hundreds of launches.
At the time the Shuttle was being pitched at Congress, it was proposed that 100% of ALL US launches would be carried on it and that ALL expendable boosters would be retired. On that score, the Shuttle also failed. Indeed, the US military were never comfortable with having to be solely reliant on the Shuttle and were actually quite relieved when, post Challenger, the notion that the Shuttle would be the US's only booster was quietly shelved.
Soyuz (the manned version) is only one of many, many payloads that can be lofted into orbit by the R7 family of boosters. If you take these into account, you are looking at many hundreds of launches.
At the time the Shuttle was being pitched at Congress, it was proposed that 100% of ALL US launches would be carried on it and that ALL expendable boosters would be retired. On that score, the Shuttle also failed. Indeed, the US military were never comfortable with having to be solely reliant on the Shuttle and were actually quite relieved when, post Challenger, the notion that the Shuttle would be the US's only booster was quietly shelved.
I have quite a few Shuttle related books in my library - some of which go back to the era before the Shuttle even flew. It's quite educational to read the claims that were being made for the system in 1977 compared to the reality as told in the retrospectives that are now coming out.
I have the following -
- 1979
- 1979
Both of these books were published years before Columbia's first flight and are wildly optimistic about what the programme was going to do.
The next book I bought came out in 1983, just as the programme was moving up a gear and although more realistic is still infused with over optimism
The next batch of books have all come out in recent years and are obviously far more realistic in their assessment of the programme -
This book is by Dr David Baker, who also wrote the first book I show in this list - and he does refer back from time to time to the rather silly claims being made in his original book.
Still my favourite book on the Shuttle
These two books are by Nebraska University Press and are based on an oral history project they are carrying out on the history of NASA.
And finally Rowland White's new book on STS1
I have the following -
- 1979 - 1979Both of these books were published years before Columbia's first flight and are wildly optimistic about what the programme was going to do.
The next book I bought came out in 1983, just as the programme was moving up a gear and although more realistic is still infused with over optimism
The next batch of books have all come out in recent years and are obviously far more realistic in their assessment of the programme -
This book is by Dr David Baker, who also wrote the first book I show in this list - and he does refer back from time to time to the rather silly claims being made in his original book.
Still my favourite book on the Shuttle
These two books are by Nebraska University Press and are based on an oral history project they are carrying out on the history of NASA.
And finally Rowland White's new book on STS1
You can never separate politics from manned spaceflight when the agency devising the programmes and performing the flights is 100% dependent on government funding.
NASA was created by politicians.
It's first goal of putting a man into space was given to them by a politician (Dwight Eisenhower).
The goal of landing a man on the moon was a political goal (John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson).
And the Space Shuttle was yet another politically dictated programme (Richard Nixon and the Office of Management and Budget)
NASA was created by politicians.
It's first goal of putting a man into space was given to them by a politician (Dwight Eisenhower).
The goal of landing a man on the moon was a political goal (John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson).
And the Space Shuttle was yet another politically dictated programme (Richard Nixon and the Office of Management and Budget)
I would argue that commercial imperative is a relatively minor player when it comes to real exploration and related technologies. POLITICAL power and influence is by far and away much more influential. And most of that political pressure comes from fear - fear of being wiped out or invaded by "the bad guy" (whoever that may be and however real the threat of "the bad guy" might really be).
Don't forget that the first customer for a Wright Brothers aeroplane was the US Army.
Commercial concerns are great at exploiting technologies invented and developed in response to political imperatives.
Don't forget that the first customer for a Wright Brothers aeroplane was the US Army.
Commercial concerns are great at exploiting technologies invented and developed in response to political imperatives.
They weren't just hunting for gold. They were hunting for dominance over the rival superpowers of the day - and they were also hunting for souls - something we may find difficult to comprehend in the modern secular age. But at that time, possession of a person's soul and/or winning it for God was a major driver.
Indeed, you could say that the Space Race of the 1960s was also a fight for the souls of men. Maybe not from a religious sense but certainly from a political sense.
Kennedy famously gave his reasons for going to the moon and science didn't figure as the main reason at all. His main reasons were stated as follows -
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too".
He wanted the world to see that the US, and all it stood for, was man enough to accept the challenge that had been set by the Soviets - and he was determined that America would win that challenge.
Indeed, you could say that the Space Race of the 1960s was also a fight for the souls of men. Maybe not from a religious sense but certainly from a political sense.
Kennedy famously gave his reasons for going to the moon and science didn't figure as the main reason at all. His main reasons were stated as follows -
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too".
He wanted the world to see that the US, and all it stood for, was man enough to accept the challenge that had been set by the Soviets - and he was determined that America would win that challenge.
Max_Torque said:
Mike Mullane's book comes the closest to being able to put into words the mental stress of knowing that something you are deeply involved with has a very very good chance of killing you, but being unable, and in fact, unwilling to stop ones self from wanting and doing it!
Agreed.It shows that the urge to push oneself and do extraordinary things can be a bit like being a drug addict.
But where would we be without people like that?
They did indeed - and very concerning it was too. There were also issues with shock damage caused by the ignition of the SRBs which damaged the rear body flap. The base of the External Tank was also much more severely scorched by the SRB exhaust than anybody had expected.
The launch of STS1 really was a leap into the unknown and I doubt that we will ever again see a manned maiden launch of a new spaceship.
The launch of STS1 really was a leap into the unknown and I doubt that we will ever again see a manned maiden launch of a new spaceship.
What nobody outside the higher echelons of the Soviet Administration and of course, the Soviet space programme knew at the time was that they were operating two separate space station programmes - a civilian one called Salyut and a military one called Almaz. Almaz was much more in line with the American Manned Orbiting Laboratory programme and the gun was for defending their station from attack.
The Soviets were convinced that the main purpose of the American Shuttle programme had to be connected with taking out or kidnapping Soviet satellites - or space stations.
They thought that all the NASA talk of "routine access to space" and bringing down launch costs was a cover for a more sinister programme. Part of the reason they thought this was because they could not see how a vehicle as complicated and as fragile as a Space Shuttle could actually achieve these "false" goals.
The Soviets were convinced that the main purpose of the American Shuttle programme had to be connected with taking out or kidnapping Soviet satellites - or space stations.
They thought that all the NASA talk of "routine access to space" and bringing down launch costs was a cover for a more sinister programme. Part of the reason they thought this was because they could not see how a vehicle as complicated and as fragile as a Space Shuttle could actually achieve these "false" goals.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff