Space Shuttle Anecdotes
Discussion
We have dedicated threads to various launch vehicles (SpaceX Falcon, Saturn V, SLS - Artemis etc). Although the Space Shuttle has been discussed on and off over the years on PH, it never had its own thread in the Science Forum. I expect that is because the Shuttle missions ended in July 2011 and the Science Forum wasn't opened until the following year. Doing a quick search shows that most Shuttle chat was in the "Planes, Trains etc" forum back then.
What prompted me to open a dedicated topic for the Shuttle was this You Tube video put up very recently by Adam Savage (of "Mythbusters" fame) where he is taken on a "walkaround" of the Orbiter "Discovery" at the Udvar-Hevy Centre near Washington DC. He is accompanied by former Shuttle astronaut Cady Coleman.
What prompted me to open a dedicated topic for the Shuttle was this You Tube video put up very recently by Adam Savage (of "Mythbusters" fame) where he is taken on a "walkaround" of the Orbiter "Discovery" at the Udvar-Hevy Centre near Washington DC. He is accompanied by former Shuttle astronaut Cady Coleman.
A friend of mine was visiting the US in October 1981 and was at Cape Canaveral for the second Shuttle launch. Unfortunately for him, on that launch attempt they had a hold and then a scrub at T-17 seconds. The launch eventually went ahead weeks later. By then my friend was back at home in Sligo.
TGCOTF-dewey said:
Especially there. I think most of the roaming staff are ex-nasa engineers.
I had a fascinating chat with this old chap in a wheel chair - was one of the apollo capsule designers.
I obviously had a puzzled look on my face when looking at one of the apollo exhibits and wheeled over and asked if he could help me.
Spent about 20 minutes chatting about RTG power cells (plutonium batteries basically) as I was curious whether they'd used them on the apollo mission. Couldn't believe they were able to power the mission on 50-60s battery tech.
I hope his answer was "Yes we did use RTGs in Apollo". They were used to power the experiments that were left on the lunar surface (apart from Apollo 11 where the surface experiments ran of batteries).I had a fascinating chat with this old chap in a wheel chair - was one of the apollo capsule designers.
I obviously had a puzzled look on my face when looking at one of the apollo exhibits and wheeled over and asked if he could help me.
Spent about 20 minutes chatting about RTG power cells (plutonium batteries basically) as I was curious whether they'd used them on the apollo mission. Couldn't believe they were able to power the mission on 50-60s battery tech.
The Command/Service Module was mainly powered by Oxygen/Hydrogen fuel cells with batteries to power the Command Module when it separated from the Service Module just prior to re-entry.
The Lunar Module worked off batteries only.
The Space Shuttle also made use of fuel cells with battery back-up and hydrazine powered APUs (Auxilliary Power Units) to work the flight controls when coming in to land.
Interesting that the Orion spacecraft uses solar panels for its main power requirements. It is the first NASA manned spacecraft NOT to rely on batteries or fuel cells.
That's because he wasn't a test pilot. In fact, he wasn't even a pilot. His career in the USAF was as a back seater, mainly in Phantoms. He was based at Lakenheath in the UK for a while.
There are a number of You Tube videos in which he features which are worth watching.
On the subject of Shuttle videos, I have one on VHS which I taped from BBC back in 1987 or so called "Riding the Stack" it was part of the Horizon series so would also have been shown in the US under the "Nova" banner. It was made in the aftermath of the Challenger accident and in that gap period when the Shuttle was grounded. It was the first documentary where people involved in the project, including Shuttle crew members, were honest about their reservations concerning the whole concept.
Another video I have is an episode of BBC's Panorama called "The Dream that Fell Out of the Sky" which was shown a few months after the Challenger accident. Interestingly, it was presented and voiced over by Robert Harris, who is now a best selling novelist.
Despite looking many times, neither of these programmes have made it onto You Tube or BBC iPlayer or any other streaming service - which is really unfortunate as they are both excellent.
There are a number of You Tube videos in which he features which are worth watching.
On the subject of Shuttle videos, I have one on VHS which I taped from BBC back in 1987 or so called "Riding the Stack" it was part of the Horizon series so would also have been shown in the US under the "Nova" banner. It was made in the aftermath of the Challenger accident and in that gap period when the Shuttle was grounded. It was the first documentary where people involved in the project, including Shuttle crew members, were honest about their reservations concerning the whole concept.
Another video I have is an episode of BBC's Panorama called "The Dream that Fell Out of the Sky" which was shown a few months after the Challenger accident. Interestingly, it was presented and voiced over by Robert Harris, who is now a best selling novelist.
Despite looking many times, neither of these programmes have made it onto You Tube or BBC iPlayer or any other streaming service - which is really unfortunate as they are both excellent.
Flooble said:
I'm not sure it's fair to say the Shuttle set back progress. When you read "Into the Black" or the thoughts of the astronauts at the time, they felt like it was opening up a whole new vista.
Even today, you look at a Dragon capsule and it's pretty cramped, disposable (*) and a relatively rough ride - fair amount of g-force. Compare that with the Shuttle which had a huge crew cabin by comparison and while pretty gentle on ascent the descent was literally like an aircraft to the point where Mike Mullane mentioned standing up in the cockpit during re-entry to look out the window. The re-use of the Shuttle may have been a bit more "rebuild" than desired but I really doubt we'll see any Dragon capsules doing 25 missions.
The thing that always makes me laugh is when they do infographics of spacecraft to scale and the Shuttle is always drawn across the back or to the side, because it was so huge by comparison with the throwaway capsules.
I can see that in the early 80s it must have felt like it was a gigantic step forward. 7 person crews instead of 3, with a huge cargo bay instead of, er, no cargo bay.
The issue was that there was nowhere for it to go - no space station to service and no Mars or even Moon missions for it to ship parts to.
It's worth remembering that the ISS couldn't have been built without the Shuttle. If there had been political will, the Shuttle could have equally been used to construct a Mars spacecraft in-orbit, perhaps even an Aldrin cycler. Something which would have been harder with Apollo-era capsules (lack of room for a large crew so harder to swap in and out crews; need to co-ordinate the launch of parts with crew to assemble them; no way to bring back parts or samples; no workshop space)
It's quite possible that disposable rockets could have been cheaper, but I'm not convinced that humans would have gone further than LEO even without Shuttle spending.
(*) I know they "refurbish" them, but that's a bit Trigger's Broom
I think it’s totally fair.Even today, you look at a Dragon capsule and it's pretty cramped, disposable (*) and a relatively rough ride - fair amount of g-force. Compare that with the Shuttle which had a huge crew cabin by comparison and while pretty gentle on ascent the descent was literally like an aircraft to the point where Mike Mullane mentioned standing up in the cockpit during re-entry to look out the window. The re-use of the Shuttle may have been a bit more "rebuild" than desired but I really doubt we'll see any Dragon capsules doing 25 missions.
The thing that always makes me laugh is when they do infographics of spacecraft to scale and the Shuttle is always drawn across the back or to the side, because it was so huge by comparison with the throwaway capsules.
I can see that in the early 80s it must have felt like it was a gigantic step forward. 7 person crews instead of 3, with a huge cargo bay instead of, er, no cargo bay.
The issue was that there was nowhere for it to go - no space station to service and no Mars or even Moon missions for it to ship parts to.
It's worth remembering that the ISS couldn't have been built without the Shuttle. If there had been political will, the Shuttle could have equally been used to construct a Mars spacecraft in-orbit, perhaps even an Aldrin cycler. Something which would have been harder with Apollo-era capsules (lack of room for a large crew so harder to swap in and out crews; need to co-ordinate the launch of parts with crew to assemble them; no way to bring back parts or samples; no workshop space)
It's quite possible that disposable rockets could have been cheaper, but I'm not convinced that humans would have gone further than LEO even without Shuttle spending.
(*) I know they "refurbish" them, but that's a bit Trigger's Broom
It’s true that the ISS we have today couldn’t have been built without the Shuttle (or the Proton and Soyuz rockets also used in its construction).
But imagine what could have been achieved if, say, instead of ploughing money into the Shuttle programme, similar funding had been allocated to upgrading and improving the Saturn V. It was able to launch a complete Skylab space station in one go. Ten Saturn V launched could have launched an ISS much, much bigger than what we have today.
nordboy said:
Like others, I've been lucky enough to see two launches. The first I saw from the hotel in Disney, very early hours in the dark, 50'ish miles away. But it literally lit the whole sky with the afterburners, pretty stunning.
Then, years later I took the family and saw STS120 launch from Kennedy Space center. IIRC the viewing area was around 3 miles from the launch pad?
I have to say, it is still to this day, probably the most impressive, technological/ human built thing, I've ever seen. It was impressive to see, but also the sound and sound waves made you feel it taking off and climbing towards space. It was pretty emotional tbh.
I still have the sts120 yellow car park ticket as one of my 'prize' possessions.
Lucky you - although the Shuttle didn't have "afterburners". Then, years later I took the family and saw STS120 launch from Kennedy Space center. IIRC the viewing area was around 3 miles from the launch pad?
I have to say, it is still to this day, probably the most impressive, technological/ human built thing, I've ever seen. It was impressive to see, but also the sound and sound waves made you feel it taking off and climbing towards space. It was pretty emotional tbh.
I still have the sts120 yellow car park ticket as one of my 'prize' possessions.
It had sod-off rocket engines which, in total, gave around 7.5 million pounds of thrust. As a comparison, Concorde, with full afterburners, produced about 150,000 lbs of thrust.
nordboy said:
Ok, big f
k off rockets that looked like afterburners 
Afterburners are a form of rocket I suppose in that they work by squirting neat fuel into the already very hot jet exhaust, giving you an additional rocket type boost.k off rockets that looked like afterburners But jet engines are very different to full on liquid fueled and/or solid fueled rockets.
C n C said:
Prompted by your post above I had a look and found this:
Riding the Stack along with over 500 other Horizon episodes.
Good find. Will have a look.Riding the Stack along with over 500 other Horizon episodes.
I found the Nova version a while ago.
Yes - it might not have always been possible to do that but that would have been the most likely rescue technique.
The MMU was used on a few missions between 1984 and the end of 1985 but the Challenger accident review effectively brought an end to its use.
The RMS is a much more practical, effective and safe method for astronauts when they need to work at a distance from the Shuttle or ISS.
The MMU was used on a few missions between 1984 and the end of 1985 but the Challenger accident review effectively brought an end to its use.
The RMS is a much more practical, effective and safe method for astronauts when they need to work at a distance from the Shuttle or ISS.
The Saturn V was majestic - if not a bit ponderous - off the pad.
The Shuttle took off like a scalded cat.
They both developed around 7.5 million pounds of thrust on lift off. However, the Shuttle stack was lighter tahn the Saturn V so had a better power to weight ratio which enabled a quick getaway off the pad.
The Shuttle took off like a scalded cat.
They both developed around 7.5 million pounds of thrust on lift off. However, the Shuttle stack was lighter tahn the Saturn V so had a better power to weight ratio which enabled a quick getaway off the pad.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff