NASA, the space shuttle, and foam thingys
Discussion
Please excuse the rant, but this is bugging me. I am a huge supporter of NASA, space exploration, sending humans to Mars, etc. I love science; I love our quest for knowledge. I'm proud of the Cassini-Huygens Titan probe success, the Mars rovers, and the Deep Impact comet mission. All the recent successes that NASA and the ESA have had lately are doing great things in space exploration, but the recent problems with the space shuttle are getting on my nerves!
How many years has the shuttle been flying? How many missions has it flown? What an awesome machine, until the last ship and crew were killed by a piece of foam. So they try to fix it, another shuttle goes up, and guess what, more f**ing foam falling off. WTF! Thankfully it doesn't appear to have damaged the shuttle, and they will make it back safely. Only now the rest of the fleet is grounded, and I just heard on the news that the Russians said they are standing by to rescue the crew if the shuttle is deemed unsafe! Thanks for the offer, but man that's embarrassing.
NASA, I love you guys, but maybe it's time to start designing a new space vehicle, preferably one that can stand up to foam thingys. I know that anything hitting the shuttle at that speed is dangerous, indeed, that all space flight is inherently dangerous, but jeez, replace the f**ing Model T and get on with it.
Little side question: Why does the shuttle have to fall through the atmosphere at a zillion miles/hour. Why can't they make something that can just glide in nicely?
How many years has the shuttle been flying? How many missions has it flown? What an awesome machine, until the last ship and crew were killed by a piece of foam. So they try to fix it, another shuttle goes up, and guess what, more f**ing foam falling off. WTF! Thankfully it doesn't appear to have damaged the shuttle, and they will make it back safely. Only now the rest of the fleet is grounded, and I just heard on the news that the Russians said they are standing by to rescue the crew if the shuttle is deemed unsafe! Thanks for the offer, but man that's embarrassing.
NASA, I love you guys, but maybe it's time to start designing a new space vehicle, preferably one that can stand up to foam thingys. I know that anything hitting the shuttle at that speed is dangerous, indeed, that all space flight is inherently dangerous, but jeez, replace the f**ing Model T and get on with it.
Little side question: Why does the shuttle have to fall through the atmosphere at a zillion miles/hour. Why can't they make something that can just glide in nicely?
It does seem odd to announce "we've grounded the fleet". Makes it sounds as if they have flights every day. And "fleet"? There are only three left, I thought.
It seems to me that NASA does everything more complicated and more expensively than the Russians. Like the famous space pen... NASA spent however many millions it was developing a pen - a biro, effectively - that works upside down, for astronauts to write down whatever they need to write down in space. I think it used a pressurised cartridge. Only then it leaked, so they had to regulate the pressure, etc.
The Russians used a pencil.
Still, NASA have done a lot of good things.
It seems to me that NASA does everything more complicated and more expensively than the Russians. Like the famous space pen... NASA spent however many millions it was developing a pen - a biro, effectively - that works upside down, for astronauts to write down whatever they need to write down in space. I think it used a pressurised cartridge. Only then it leaked, so they had to regulate the pressure, etc.
The Russians used a pencil.
Still, NASA have done a lot of good things.
munky said:
It does seem odd to announce "we've grounded the fleet". Makes it sounds as if they have flights every day. And "fleet"? There are only three left, I thought.
It seems to me that NASA does everything more complicated and more expensively than the Russians. Like the famous space pen... NASA spent however many millions it was developing a pen - a biro, effectively - that works upside down, for astronauts to write down whatever they need to write down in space. I think it used a pressurised cartridge. Only then it leaked, so they had to regulate the pressure, etc.
The Russians used a pencil.
Still, NASA have done a lot of good things.
www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
Davros81 said:
I wondered where all the people who were laid of by TVR went!
"Bits of foam falling off? Who cares? Its got a 3,000,000 Bhp and will do 4000 mph!!"
Nono, see according to the government, it wasn't foam that killed the NASA astronauts, it was the fact that they were speeding... thus, the foam this time is so big deal as long as they slow down enough...
*grabs coat*
goo-goo-gjoob said:
Why does the shuttle have to fall through the atmosphere at a zillion miles/hour. Why can't they make something that can just glide in nicely?
In order to orbit it has to be doing in the order of 17000mph, all that speed has to go somewhere, they effectively use the ship as a brake shoe and the atmosphere as a brake disc to do this, this creates a lot of heat. The only other way to slow the thing down would be a retro burn, and that would take as much fuel/energy as it took to get the thing into orbit in the first place - not very practical really.
edited for spalling mistales
>> Edited by Einion Yrth on Friday 29th July 07:20
Einion Yrth said:
Why does the shuttle have to fall through the atmosphere at a zillion miles/hour. Why can't they make something that can just glide in nicely?
In order to orbit it has to be doing in the order of 17000mph, all that speed has to go somewhere, they effectively use the ship as a brake shoe and the atmosphere as a brake disc to do this, this creates a lot of heat. The only other way to slow the thing down would be a retro burn, and that would take as much fuel/energy as it took to get the thing into orbit in the first place - not very practical really.
edited for spalling mistales
>> Edited by Einion Yrth on Friday 29th July 07:20
It's a really good example of energy transfer, like water the planet has a finite amount of it, you can't make more of it and you can't get rid of it so you have to convert it. I wish the greens would get this basic premise into their heads when they tell us electric cars are great for the atmosphere
I was thinking that, with the relatively minor changes that have happened to the shuttle, the major one being loads more cameras on it and trained on it, they just spotted the debris that fell off this time whereas before they wouldn't have spotted it. Now they've spotted it I guess they have to do something about it.
A spacecraft that intends to orbit the earth at at a height of around 200 miles MUST achieve a speed of 17,500 to do so. If it doesn't reach this speed, it will fall back to earth. The Shuttle Orbiter Vehicle weighs 100 tons. To accelerate 100 tons to 17,500 mph from a standing start requires 6 million pounds of thrust and loads of fuel - hence the massively powerful Solid Rocket Boosters and that huge fuel tank.
Once in orbit, the Shuttle will, at some point, want to come back down again. To do so, it must kill the 17,500 mph it picked up getting into space. Obviously, if it wanted to fly back gently, it could use another set of Solid Rocket Boosters and a fully loaded fuel tank to slow the spacecraft down. Unfortunately, that would mean having to carry extra SRBs and tanks and fuel etc into space which would mean much more powerful rockets would be needed at the initial launch - rockets much more powerful than any that have ever been built, in fact.
Using the atmosphere as a free braking tool is much more effective. Unfortunately, using the atmosphere generates massive amounts of heat requiring thermal protection etc etc etc.
The Shuttle is a flawed design. It is fragile and unreliable (as rockets tend to be). It is a vehicle built on the back of a political and economic compromise and has never fulfilled the outlandish promises made for it back in the 70s.
A replacement should have been in the planning stage the day the first Shuttle was launched in 1981. In fact, since the mid 1980s, there have been at least three projects set up to look into posssible replacement vehicles - the National Air and Space Plane (NASP), the X-33 and the X-34. All these vehicles were envisaged as Single Stage to Orbit spacecraft, i.e. requiring no drop off components like boosters or fuel tanks and all their attendant problems. After well over $1 BILLION was spent, all three projects were cancelled by 2001.
At this moment in time, NO Shuttle replacemnt design has been given the go-ahead. However, NASA ARE conducting a study into what type of vehicle will replace the Shuttle. The current favourite is a seven man space capsule similar in shape to the Apollo Command Module, only bigger. It would be launched by a non-reuseable rocket, which also doesn't exist yet. NASA have said they would like the replacement in service by 2008, which is frankly ridiculous.
Given the fact that projects such as this, once they have been given the go-ahead and contractors appointed, usually take at least a decade from commencement to first flight, NASA will be lucky to be flying this thing by 2015. That doesn't take into account budgetary issues, new Presidents, future wars, the state of the US economy etc etc etc. Even if the Shuttle does return to space without too much delay, it is scheduled to be withdrawn in 2010. I fully expect that there will be a long gap (5 to 10 years) where NASA will not have a manned spaceflight capability. We have been here before. The last Apollo flight was in July 1975. The first Shuttle flight was in April 1981. In the intervening 6 year gap, no Americans flew to space.
They will need to rely on the Russian and possibly the Chinese for "lifts" into space.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 29th July 08:55
Once in orbit, the Shuttle will, at some point, want to come back down again. To do so, it must kill the 17,500 mph it picked up getting into space. Obviously, if it wanted to fly back gently, it could use another set of Solid Rocket Boosters and a fully loaded fuel tank to slow the spacecraft down. Unfortunately, that would mean having to carry extra SRBs and tanks and fuel etc into space which would mean much more powerful rockets would be needed at the initial launch - rockets much more powerful than any that have ever been built, in fact.
Using the atmosphere as a free braking tool is much more effective. Unfortunately, using the atmosphere generates massive amounts of heat requiring thermal protection etc etc etc.
The Shuttle is a flawed design. It is fragile and unreliable (as rockets tend to be). It is a vehicle built on the back of a political and economic compromise and has never fulfilled the outlandish promises made for it back in the 70s.
A replacement should have been in the planning stage the day the first Shuttle was launched in 1981. In fact, since the mid 1980s, there have been at least three projects set up to look into posssible replacement vehicles - the National Air and Space Plane (NASP), the X-33 and the X-34. All these vehicles were envisaged as Single Stage to Orbit spacecraft, i.e. requiring no drop off components like boosters or fuel tanks and all their attendant problems. After well over $1 BILLION was spent, all three projects were cancelled by 2001.
At this moment in time, NO Shuttle replacemnt design has been given the go-ahead. However, NASA ARE conducting a study into what type of vehicle will replace the Shuttle. The current favourite is a seven man space capsule similar in shape to the Apollo Command Module, only bigger. It would be launched by a non-reuseable rocket, which also doesn't exist yet. NASA have said they would like the replacement in service by 2008, which is frankly ridiculous.
Given the fact that projects such as this, once they have been given the go-ahead and contractors appointed, usually take at least a decade from commencement to first flight, NASA will be lucky to be flying this thing by 2015. That doesn't take into account budgetary issues, new Presidents, future wars, the state of the US economy etc etc etc. Even if the Shuttle does return to space without too much delay, it is scheduled to be withdrawn in 2010. I fully expect that there will be a long gap (5 to 10 years) where NASA will not have a manned spaceflight capability. We have been here before. The last Apollo flight was in July 1975. The first Shuttle flight was in April 1981. In the intervening 6 year gap, no Americans flew to space.
They will need to rely on the Russian and possibly the Chinese for "lifts" into space.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 29th July 08:55
Eric Mc said:
{Americans} will need to rely on the Russian and possibly the Chinese for "lifts" into space.
Perhaps the embarrassment factor will pursuade them to get their arses in gear, after all Mercury to Apollo was only about a decade, and I thought most of NASA's heavy lift ideas at the moment were shuttle derivatives, so that things like the SSMEs could be redeployed, avoiding some R&D.
Gives some more detail about the planned replacement for the Shuttle. Although its very much at the tender stage atm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle
I agree though, I wish NASA would pull their finger out and spunk some serious money on some major league exploration, rather than fannying around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle
I agree though, I wish NASA would pull their finger out and spunk some serious money on some major league exploration, rather than fannying around.
hugoagogo said:
sod all this shuttle lark, we need a space elevator
article said:
In a 1998 report, NASA applications of molecular nanotechnology, researchers noted that "maximum stress [on a space elevator cable] is at geosynchronous altitude so the cable must be thickest there and taper exponentially as it approaches Earth. Any potential material may be characterized by the taper factor -- the ratio between the cable's radius at geosynchronous altitude and at the Earth's surface. For steel the taper factor is tens of thousands -- clearly impossible. For diamond, the taper factor is 21.9 including a safety factor. Diamond is, however, brittle. Carbon nanotubes have a strength in tension similar to diamond, but bundles of these nanometer-scale radius tubes shouldn't propagate cracks nearly as well as the diamond tetrahedral lattice."
I think I'd avoid this, either by doing it in stages, so the cables are shorter, or using a mechanical method a la funicular railway.
Where's Brunel when you need him?!
We are probably decades away from the practical application of such technology.
NASA need something that works in 5 years time.
Looking at more recent websites, it seemed that the new style capsule (Crew Excursion Vehicle or CEV) was finally set at a first flight of 2014, 4 years after the last Shuttle. NASA chief, Gerry Griffin has said this is unacceptable. But whether NASA has any political power to speed things up is doubtful.
NASA need something that works in 5 years time.
Looking at more recent websites, it seemed that the new style capsule (Crew Excursion Vehicle or CEV) was finally set at a first flight of 2014, 4 years after the last Shuttle. NASA chief, Gerry Griffin has said this is unacceptable. But whether NASA has any political power to speed things up is doubtful.
I must say, I think Burt Rutan has got the right idea. Nasa could take a leaf out of his book. Although they couldnt simply build a scaled up version of space ship one (for patent reasons as well as practical ones I would think) Some of the concepts are revolutionary.
A reconfigurable wing configuration that means the craft can switch to a high drag configuration, reduceing or even removing the need for heat sheilding to protect against burnup like columbia.
Secondly, the elimination of liquid hydrogen/oxygen motors and replacement with a much more stable solid rocket fuel based one. As challenger showed, its a very unstable mix and while if all goes well its ok, even a small incident can cause catastrophy. This is all before you look at the problems of containment (ie insulation and resultant detachment problems)
In any case, it may be that NASA wont go with the reuseable vehicle concept and will return to the single use ones ala apollo and the russian stuff still in use
A reconfigurable wing configuration that means the craft can switch to a high drag configuration, reduceing or even removing the need for heat sheilding to protect against burnup like columbia.
Secondly, the elimination of liquid hydrogen/oxygen motors and replacement with a much more stable solid rocket fuel based one. As challenger showed, its a very unstable mix and while if all goes well its ok, even a small incident can cause catastrophy. This is all before you look at the problems of containment (ie insulation and resultant detachment problems)
In any case, it may be that NASA wont go with the reuseable vehicle concept and will return to the single use ones ala apollo and the russian stuff still in use
Eric Mc said:
Unfortunately, that would mean having to carry extra SRBs and tanks and fuel etc into space which would mean much more powerful rockets would be needed at the initial launch - rockets much more powerful than any that have ever been built, in fact. >> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 29th July 08:55
Surely the most powerful rockets ever built were more powerful than any that had ever been built before?
In which case why not just build some yet more powerful ones...
[/pedant]
It's high aerodynamic drag that causes heat. If the Rutan spaceplane was capable of achieving orbital speed (which it is not by a factor of 5) it would need a thermal protection system as well. Simply popping up your wings to create an air brake would not assist your descent from orbit or aerodynamic braking at all. It would just generate excessive heat which would probably result in the destruction of the vehicle.
Spaceship 1 is much closer in concept to the North American X-15 which was flown as a joint NASA and US Air Force project between 1958 and 1968. The speeds are similar and the altitude achieveable is also similar. However,even with the X-15, aerodynamic heating was a problem and in fact, in 1967, one X-15 was so badly damaged by heating that it never flew again. A second X-15 was destroyed during re-entry - at it was flying at under Mach 4 (about 3,500 mph).The pilot, Michael Adams, was killed.
Using solid fuelled rockets in manned vehicles is something that most engineers don't like doing. Solid rockets can't be shut down once lit and they can't be throttled up or down. If NASA had been given decent budget for the Shuttle, they would not have used Solid Rocket Boosters. I don't foresee a Solid Fuelled Manned spaceship again - Spaceship 1 notwithstanding.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 29th July 10:11
Spaceship 1 is much closer in concept to the North American X-15 which was flown as a joint NASA and US Air Force project between 1958 and 1968. The speeds are similar and the altitude achieveable is also similar. However,even with the X-15, aerodynamic heating was a problem and in fact, in 1967, one X-15 was so badly damaged by heating that it never flew again. A second X-15 was destroyed during re-entry - at it was flying at under Mach 4 (about 3,500 mph).The pilot, Michael Adams, was killed.
Using solid fuelled rockets in manned vehicles is something that most engineers don't like doing. Solid rockets can't be shut down once lit and they can't be throttled up or down. If NASA had been given decent budget for the Shuttle, they would not have used Solid Rocket Boosters. I don't foresee a Solid Fuelled Manned spaceship again - Spaceship 1 notwithstanding.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 29th July 10:11
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff