What does it take to make the Space Shuttle Fly? 131
chrisd writes: "There is a fascinating web presentation called "Terminal Count" on CNN about what it takes to prep a shuttle for flight. Very interesting stuff. Includes lots of video and more. Fun quote: 'A running joke is that a shuttle is considered ready for launch once the stack of paperwork stands as high as the rocket.'"
Re:Homework? (Score:1)
See that space between "sh" & "tml". That was yer problem.
Isn't it? (Score:1)
Re:The shuttle paperwork (Score:1)
The main goal of the space shuttle isn't to go "up", but to reach orbital velocity. Using a high-altitude jet aircraft wouldn't help much.
Re:Working for the government (Score:2)
How much paperwork for a Soyuz (Score:2)
I wonder how much paperwork they do when they launch a soyuz rocket. Much less, thats for sure.
Russian Space Shuttle compared to USA Shuttle (Score:2)
Some information found:
Taken from http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm [buran.ru] has the main differences of Buran and Shuttle as follows:
The main differences between the space airplane the automatic landing of Buran from orbit onto airdrome;
The absence of the main rocket engine on the orbital airplane. The main engine was placed onto a central block of a carrier-rocket ENERGIA which is able to launch into an orbit 120 tons of payload against 30 tons for Space Shuttle;
The height lift-drag ratio of the space airplane is 6.5 against 5.5 for Space Shuttle;
The space airplane Buran returned 20 tons of payloads against 15 tons for Space Shuttle orbiter from an orbit to an aerodrome;
The cutting lay-out pattern of thermal protection tiles of Buran is optimal and longitudinal slits of tile belts are orthogonal to the flow line. Sharp angles of tiles are absent. The tile belts of the Buran fuselage and fin have an optimal position.
Also for another comparison between USA and Russia's space shuttle go to:
http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/info.html [k26.com]
Another benefit of Buran being able to have unmanned space flights.
One of the big benefits of the Russian Space Shuttle is the thermal protection system, unfortunately I do not know enough about it to compare it with the USA Suttle. Last I heard the USA Shuttle they must check every ceramic tile under the underbody, which cost a bucket load of money (At least the Americans have it).. If someone could elaborate on this I would be very grateful.
Re:The shuttle paperwork (Score:2)
World record cargo lift by plane: 273,400 pounds
(Antonov 124-100, though a 747-400 is close)
Largest helicopter lift AFAIK: 9100Kg=20000 pounds
Shuttle life-off weight: 4.3 *million* pounds
Shuttle landing weight: 230,000 pounds
Of course you could lighten the shuttle's load a bit by removing the big tank, but it's a long ways between 4.3 million pounds and 273,400 pounds. As someone else has pointed out, towing might be a better option.
That said, I doubt the shuttle's airframe, especially wings, are designed to handle much more than the maximum landing weight in atmospheric flight (where the weight vector is perpindicular to the wings). I am now imagining a space shuttle blasting down a runway, and the wings take off but the fuselage stays on the ground.
-Paul Komarek
Where's the Beef? (Score:2)
An in depth analysis/commentary on just what is involved in making a shuttle launch would be an amazing piece to read I think. Unfortunately in depth news pieces seem to be a thing of the past.
I guess that's it ...
Re:Damaged tiles (Score:3)
But you are a DULFSer, [as this film clip shows]! [www.baso.sk]
Atmospheric reentry, damn right. Ain't no silo-ceramic high-tech tile gonna survive that sorta abuse!
--
Self Distruct (Score:3)
Let's just hope they aren't runing windows, or blue screen of death might take on a whole new meaning.
Re:I wouldn't mind getting the Russians to advise. (Score:2)
You may think it looks like the Concorde, but that is just a coincidence. No espionage here; move along...
Seriously, the article mentions that after the thawing of the cold war, there was an exchange of info between the TU-144 designers and Boeing/NASA. If the Buran is so faboo, why aren't we rushing to incorporate it's technology?
If anything, this kind of mondernization would be a great crusade for Senator John Glenn. No one would argue if he had to go up against a bunch of unions, as he is the ideal poster child for such things.
Re:Oh, Hell, why not? (Score:1)
Re:Self Distruct (Score:2)
420,000 lines of code with just one error in it. A change of about 6000 lines of code (for GPS navigation) took 2500 pages of documentation. A good read.
Re:Working for the government (Score:1)
And in that stack... (Score:5)
And that, my friends, is where the FBI happened to find the lost McVeigh documents.
HI Mom!
Re:And they call it reusable... (Score:1)
This isn't somebody's desktop computer, but rather is an extremely complicated and expensive piece of nearly irreplaceable hardware that will kill if not properly prepared.
That's my point. I'm not saying that we should take less time checking out the shuttle; we need reusable orbital transports that are one iteration less complicated, expensive, and irreplaceable.
A 747 turns around as fast as it does because many generations of aircraft preceded it, and billions of dollars and trillions of man hours in engineering, maintenance, and experience, have been spent to achieve those goals.
We can't get to the 747 level all at once. But we can at least iterate to the next generation. There's no doubt that getting stuff into orbit is a hell of a difficult job. But given the 20 years of learning we have on the shuttle, we could build something that's better. Not perfect, just better.
Re:I didn't get it... (Score:1)
I think what was ment by "...The ISS is _it_..." was that the ISS is the pinacle of what we will be able to achieve in space (not the best reusable launch platform) unless we get a more effecient / faster turn-around / simpler reusable launch system.
That's what I meant, sorry if I was less than clear.
And they call it reusable... (Score:3)
If we are serious about having the ability to do interesting things off this planet, we need a reusable vehicle that can be turned around much more simply. The ISS is _it_ until we get a simpler way into orbit.
Fly? (Score:2)
Re:The shuttle paperwork (Score:2)
Something like this was actually one of the original designs for the shuttle.
I am obviously not a rocket scientist, and im too tired to think properly right now, and i'm probably grossly overestimating the altitude potential of a jet aircraft capiable of lifting the shuttles bulk.. but, i wanted to stick that theory out and see if it can get chopped off.
Depends how high you want to take it, about 15km wouldn't be too hard, the 747 NASA use to ferry it around can probably manage that. However the higher you go the faster you need to fly to maintain lift. Which is especially important on release, the shuttle has to fly for several seconds unpowered whilst the launch aircraft gets out of the way. (Both of the rocket exhaust and the shock waves resulting from the transonic acceleration of the shuttle.)
Towing is more efficent that carrying too.
Re:Oh, Hell, why not? (Score:2)
At what altitude is the second stage motor fired on such rockets? Jet engines are rather more efficent that rockets at low altitude, dense air is the thrust medium for a jet, for a rocket it just gets in the way...
Lucky Bastards (Score:5)
An "an elite few?" How about we replace that with "Some Poor Bastards?"
I can just see it...
(Two NASA engineers are watching another shuttle landing from the observation deck, doing good impersonations of slack-jawed yokels)
Bob: "Looks like the shuttle made it back again in one piece, Joe."
Joe: "(Sigh) Well, you know what that means , Bob."
(Both men pull out 1.2M item checklist, and trudge towards shuttle.)
** Windows has detected a mouse movement.
Re:Self Destruct (Score:2)
Re:For the conspiracy theorists out there (Score:1)
Wait.. you mean you don't believe the world is flat? Moron! It says so in the bible!
:)
The shuttle paperwork (Score:4)
warning - opinion follows:
IMHO, they should gut the shuttles and redo them in modern technology - cut the weight of the shuttles (The glass cockpit was a start).. But they still have those N+1 redudant hugeass computers on board - and lots and lots of copper wiring. Apparently with the scrapping of the X-3x projects and the Aerospike engine failure, we're going to be using them for quite a long time - so lets modernize them.
I've always wondered.. Why cant the shuttle be designed to use a different "style" of booster (I know all about the LFB) more like a "Sled".. Have a high-altitude jet aircraft take the shuttle up as far as possible, release it, and let a reusable sled which contains the boosters and fuel tank take it the rest of the way up (and re-enter upon completion). I am obviously not a rocket scientist, and im too tired to think properly right now, and i'm probably grossly overestimating the altitude potential of a jet aircraft capiable of lifting the shuttles bulk.. but, i wanted to stick that theory out and see if it can get chopped off.
Goodnight
Re:I wouldn't mind getting the Russians to advise. (Score:1)
Re:Self Distruct (Score:2)
The Pad Rat's Page [geocities.com]
Why the Delta Clipper was killed. (Score:1)
Can we say "layoffs"?
Re:Self Distruct (Score:1)
I've listened to them on a flight, where the machine locked up, advice from the ground was to remove the network card, and reboot into "safe mode"
Scary, very scary.
Re:Damaged tiles (Score:3)
Hello! They're called Teflon coated frying pans.
One thing though, if you're up in the weightlessness of space, wouldn't you want your eggs to stick to the frying pan?
--
Re:Amazed At The Tone (Score:1)
From this I take it that you have never lived poor in the Grand Old US of A.
No, you are wrong. I just don't have a chip on my shoulder about it.
Poor ppl exist here. Shitty jobs exist here. Exploitation exists here. Worse than the pre - collapse USSR (which incorporates more than the Russian republic)
Now, that's some uninformed rubbish.
Do you want an example of experimentation that the us did to further our technological knowledge? what about the nuclear tests that they conducted on US soldiers to determine the exact effects of radiation?
That's precisely the type of dangerous military cold war thinking that begs for a strong civilian presence in space v/s a military one (IE USSR and US if we aren't careful). I don't claim to be apologizing for every wrong the US ever committed, or ignoring them. You seem to be missing the point entirely.
You want one example of a job with horrible working conditions? cole miners. want another? sweat shops. Want another? under the table construction (you know, without the safety equipment). Want another? migrant worker. Just because you have a cool middle or upper class techi job does not mean that everyone in this country is doing fine.
And everyone in every other country IS doing fine? And coal mining is a breeze in Kajakastan? Again, you assume too much, and make your point on those assumptions, rather than my original post. Coal mining has historically been a difficult job. Even when US mines conditions were much worse (depression era) than today, being a coal miner in the US was still one of the better places to do that difficult and dangerous job. I am a descendant of coal miners and steelworkers. They did well enough to allow their children to do other work, if they wished. One of my "bourgeoisie" (he's laughing) co-workers is descended from migrant workers. The US system allows this. What is your point? The other things you mentioned are illegal, so occur less often here than, say, China.
I was born a us citizen. I grew up very poor. Most of my pre-teen peers are either dead or on major drugs to try to forget what they do for a living. I was lucky and have a natural aptitude with computers. I was also obstinate and stubborn, and refused to give up. So I got out.
In general, I'd like to keep the US a place where more people can be "lucky" like you. Being rich or poor doesn't give you exclusive license to screw up your life with "major drugs", or have things to forget. Or be dead for that matter. "I was also obstinate and stubborn, and refused to give up. So I got out." is as much an American story as anything. So is being appalled at people being poor in your country, as am I.
One basic premise exists in all economic systems. Balance exists. If one person makes an insane amount of money, other ppl go without. Those on top necessitate those on the bottom. It is an ugly fact of life. I dare you to drive into a ghetto in any major city in the US, then go to the ppl you see and try to explain how great our system is. You are painfully ignorant.
I dare you to walk into a ghetto anywhere in the world and proclaim anything! Ghettos are a dangerous place, that's why they are what they are. I've had friends there, been there, and tried to help a few folks out of them by developing their "natural computer aptitude". You see every problem in the world as insolvable at a personal level, and completely controlled by outside "oppressor" or "power" factions. At the individual level, I don't believe that to be true. If I am "painfully ignorant" in this area, I only wish more people were.
And historically the Germans and the USSR'ians have been very innovative. A lot of it has to do with the innovation of a few brilliant individuals who could care less about what their government is doing, who they are at war with, and who is a stinkin commie bastard, and who is a great and wonderful, kind and compassionate hero of the great 'capitalism'. Intelligence and innovation exists without creed, political bent, geographic coordinates, sex, sexual preference, color, country of origin, or any of the other prejudices that you may hold.
I have a picture of Werner Von Braun (with my dad!) hanging on my wall. They are both personal heroes of mine. Although, I never forget that Von Braun used to further his rocket knowledge at the behest of the Nazi's (even if under duress). Hence my (modest) distaste with the militiarization of space. I am fortunate to occasionally meet with my Russian counterparts (software developers), and respect them greatly. I try to hold as few prejudices as possible, but I'm sure I have as many as the next guy. I do try to keep a "bent" toward rational thinking, and a "prejudice" towards personal freedom.
I too, can only handle so much ignorance.
Smilodon
V V
Amazed At The Tone (Score:2)
How great the Russian space program is/was. No argument here, they've accomplished much. But consider what it took to get them there. Communism. People could be forced to do any unpleasant or hazardous jobs. The "exorbitant" salaries of space workers (insert knowing laugh here) were not a consideration under this system. The opinion of the public (gasp! even
It's exactly these thorny "problems" (public/congressional support, having to attract/pay employees, etc.) that cause some of the unfortunate situations mentioned. If we had simply let the Air Force keep control of the program back in the late 50's/early 60's, given them Apollo-level budget and the ability to conscript any people or knowledge they might need, we'd probably have one hell of a space capability by now. Why, we'd probably already have had our first space war (just like Star Wars!) by now as well.
The moon landings were done in a spirit of patriotism and competition, as an alternative to war. When these feelings wane, it is difficult to maintain such an expensive program on logic and common sense. I think NASA does an admirable job of trying to do this as they beg in front of a group of politicians every year to try and explain why something like the Hubble is of some advantage to a congressman's district.
Still, I think this is a better way to maintain a space program than building it on the backs of people waiting in line for bread. I think the money complaints I've heard here are based more on "what I'd do with that money..." opinions than actual food being taken out of your mouth.
As far as replacing the shuttle with a wondrous new cheap, fast, easy, state of tomorrow's art vehicle, I'm sure you would get no argument from those "overpaid, NASA welfare" workers everyone seems to have seen when watching the CNN show. Most space workers have been layed off before, and don't fear it as much as you'd think. They work here because they want to, not because the pay and healthcare benefits.
But where is the money to develop this new vehicle? Lots of staring at the floor, clearing of throats, shuffling of feet by the naysayers at this point. Until the public demands this, and is willing to spend the money (IE no tax cut), the people in the CNN special work very hard indeed to keep the old birds flying.
I thought the CNN show was great in explaining some of the difficulties of seemingly "easy" manned orbital flight. But, remember that it was trying to be a little entertaining as well. Don't accept some of the glib reasoning of the CNN reporter on why things are done as they are, he's trying not to bore you with the details...
Sorry for the tirade...
Smilodon
V V
A nice hot cup of tea... (Score:1)
May 25th: do you know where YOUR towel is?
What it take to make the Boeing 747 Fly (Score:2)
Most people think the excitement ends when a jumbo jet lands. But for an elite few, it is the beginning of a 1.2 million-step process of maintenance, repairs, checks, double-checks and still more checks that render a jumbo jet ready for another take-off. In "Terminal Count," CNN Space Correspondent Miles O'Brien goes behind the scenes of the space shuttle Discovery to observe the crucial moments and fine details as NASA prepares Discovery for its 28th launch -- thereby ignoring the fact that that the incredibly over-sold Shuttle has been operational for about as long as the Boeing 747 jumbo jet which can take you from California to China and back for under $900.
Paying attention to facts. (Score:2)
There are hundreds, (thousands?) of 747's in service, and only four Shuttles.
With the entire world's launch industry's market at $2 billion per year and NASA's budget at $14 billion per year, whose fault is that?
If NASA would just fly their missions on commercial craft instead of making "we are the world" happy faces for us on TV, there would, long ago, have been a huge competitive launch services industry. See my comment on the Kelly Act below:
The 747 is a late generation aircraft, the Shuttle is a first generation reusable.
The Wright Brothers flew their first aircraft in 1903. Goddard flew his first liquid rocket in 1926. The growth curves of both industries progressed quite well to mass production within 2 decades, with airplanes being mass produced in WW I and sub-orbital rockets being mass produced in WW II. The Kelly Act of 1925 got the government out of the role of supplier and into the role of customer of transport services whereas there was no analogue to the Kelly Act in rocketry until a group of us sacrificed a few years of our lives and substantial personal assets in a grassroots battle against NASA's entrenched interests circa 1990 [geocities.com] and even then NASA didn't follow the clear intent of the law (PL101-611) when it decided to launch the ACTS on the Shuttle, among other violations of that and other programs such as launch vouchers -- which it resisted.
The Shuttle is an N-th generation craft by a communist bureaucracy that owns the means of production -- however it is less efficient than was the Soviet space program because the Soviets didn't have a private sector to tax to bail them out of starvation, so they had to figure out that shooting corrupt bureaucrats -- or threatening them with the equivalent due to the imminent loss of a clear competition with high visibility (eg: war or race to the moon) -- is the only way to get them to stop being malfeasant.
The 747 is a child's toy compared to the complexity of the Shuttle.
And E=MC**2 is trivial compared to 18th century theories of the caloric.
The 747 also requires incredible amounts of maintenance, support, and facilities, but most of this is out of the public eye.
I didn't ignore that, since I did say: when a jumbo jet lands. But for an elite few, it is the beginning of a 1.2 million-step process but of course, that "1.2 million-step process" is far more economical and scientific since the people engineering and operating it have to turn a profit -- unlike NASA which can just have you thrown in jail and given anal AIDS injections if you don't give them more money to cover their "technical difficulties".
The 747 operates in a far simpler and more benign enviroment than does the Shuttle.
A valid point... but let's be rational:
the USD$900 you cite is for coach class...)
And just what is "coach class" on the Shuttle?
What's the matter, the Goldin got yer tongue?
Your ticket cost is held down by the revenues generated by the cargo in the belly of the 747 and by competition.
If NASA weren't so intent on suppressing competition it might be able to follow presidential policies and corresponding laws that mandate that it use the lions share of that $14 billion per year to buy commercial launch services to actually do things in space.
Re:Paying attention to facts. (Score:2)
Aside from the fact that NASA spends the vast majority of its space transport money on the Shuttle, NASA doesn't fly nearly enough mission to justify its existence.
Guys like you just have to face the fact:
NASA's budget is 7 times the annual world-wide launch services market.
Of course, you won't face that fact -- you prefer the mountains of irrelevant facts that amuse and distract us all from the bottom line reality.
Funny, neither NASA or the goverment owned Rockwell, or owns Boeing, or Lockmart...
So are we then to conclude the government's refusal to accept stock in exchange for the gift of the capital to these companies for the Shuttle systems renders irrelevant their ongoing demands of cost-accounting, lobbyist support for NASA's programs from these companies and the fact that NASA is the sole "customer" for these companies in their Shuttle operations in judging the relationship as de facto ownership? In your dreams, baby.
As for my "rant" being "clueless" -- about the time you testify before congress on NASA reform, get two statutes you helped draft toward that end signed into law, pursue their enforcement with the NASA IG, work for one of the prime contractors for the Shuttle on an operational prep system for said Shuttle and go work for a private launch services startup is about the time I'll view your comments as anything other than sophistry from a NASA worshipper and/or beneficiary meant, not for my eyes, but for the eys of the easily misled.
Re:I wouldn't mind getting the Russians to advise. (Score:1)
Or the Chinese deciding to use a couple of hundred dollars worth of oak as a reentry shield (oak -> charcoal -> nice one-use ablative heatshield) rather than blow millions on some pretty tiles which keep falling off anyway : )
Homework? (Score:1)
(Okay, so I just wanted an early post... it was a lot cooler than typing 'fp' or something, right? Why the hell isn't my HTML code working?)
I wouldn't mind getting the Russians to advise... (Score:3)
Ok, not a flame, but a genuine, (if somewhat idle) thought. I was impressed and shocked at how much work goes on to turn round the Shuttle - 2 to 3 people working for 2 weeks to clean one window - wow, the salary bill itself must be insane for turning around the ship.
How does this compare this with the Russian Soyuz modules? I'd be interested to know the comparison of costs. Ok, so what you get is vastly different but what I mean is that the Russian space program seems to be set up like a heavy engineering factory, they knock 'em out day in day out like Ladas. They work, they go, they bang out another one. It would be fascinating to find out about how they have turned a high tech industry into another factory production line.
It would be fascinating to invite over some of the engineers working in the Russian plants to see if they could streamline some of the processes used on the Shuttle, take it down from the equivalent of tuning a high performance racing car towards a regular service of a goods truck.
I know the Shuttle is amazingly complicated but it is a complete suprise that it appears to be virtually rebuilt each time it goes up, there must be a more sustainable, long term engineering solution we can apply with 20 or years expereience behind us. I'd say the Russians would be worth bring on board for their heavy engineering rather than 'gee whizz high tech' attitude towards getting these things done (I am reminded of the old tale about NASA spending all that time and money developing zero-g pens while the Russians just gave their cosmonauts 10 cent chinograph pencils and got on with the next task... ).
Re:Damaged tiles (Score:1)
Re:I wouldn't mind getting the Russians to advise. (Score:1)
Nate
Re:On the slightly interesting side (Score:1)
Nate
Re:Lucky Bastards (Score:1)
--Fesh
Re:Lucky Bastards (Score:2)
--Fesh
Re:Oh, Hell, why not? (Score:3)
Re:The shuttle paperwork (Score:1)
Energy required to climb 300 km - E = m*g*h = m*9.8*300,000 = 2,940,000*m Joules.
Energy required to reach - 7.73 km/sec: E = 1/2*m*v^2 = 1/2*m*(7,730^2) = 29,900,000*m Joules.
Energy required to with your kids - priceless
Re:CNN kings of fraudulent media (Score:1)
It's all in the weight budget (Score:2)
If chemical fuels had 2x-3x the specific impulse to mass ratio, it would be a straightforward aerospace engineering project to build a commercial spacecraft. It would have internal tankage, the weight budget and robustness of a commercial airliner, would be fully reusable, and would be flyable to a landing under power. But chemistry doesn't permit that.
That's the problem.
Re:It's all in the weight budget (Score:2)
SSTO designs hit this problem in a big way. They're all exercises in extreme weight reduction. I've met the founder of Rotary Rocket [rotaryrocket.com], a commercial SSTO. They got quite far along, but weight growth made their vehicle suborbital, at which point investors lost interest.
I didn't get it... (Score:3)
Perhaps the most "reusable" space vehicle is the Apollo 11 capsule. It has been sitting there at the Smithsonian in DC for a few decades, and people never get tired of staring at it. It's an infinitely reusable conversation piece...
Re:The shuttle paperwork (Score:1)
The shuttles problem is that it was made with `modern technology' of the time. The result is a fragile mess and ghuge checklists.
Build a replacement with old and understood technology (which is probably still an advance on the STS)
_O_
Used to work for NASA subcontractor. (Score:1)
Re:Russian Space Shuttle compared to USA Shuttle (Score:1)
Re:Challenger is key (Score:1)
Re:Amazed At The Tone (Score:1)
Re:Interesting and sad (Score:1)
Re:CNN kings of fraudulent media (Score:2)
---=-=-=-=-=-=---
Re:And they call it reusable... (Score:1)
Assuming you meant STS, not ISS?
---
Re:Russian Space Shuttle compared to USA Shuttle (Score:1)
Re:And they call it reusable... (Score:2)
--
Re:And they call it reusable... (Score:2)
What I meant was that the ISS really doesn't help to get things off of Earth. And how it relates to reusable craft, I have no idea.
Once stuff is in orbit, yes, but we still need heavy-lift cargo craft to do the grunt work.
--
So... (Score:1)
Re:I wouldn't mind getting the Russians to advise. (Score:2)
launching the space shuttle 1 time extra per year:
$100M
launching soyuz:
$4M
(soyuz isn't particularly comparable with Shuttle, but still, launching a Proton V, which is broadly comparable as far as payload goes with the Shuttle costs about $5M).
Actually both numbers are a little arguable. Its possible to argue that the space shuttle costs upto $1.5 billion per launch if you include a reasonable fraction of the development costs... and NASA actually usually allows more like $300M per launch because they fold some of the pad and other overheads for the year.
Still, the Ruskies can get to space for an order of magnitude lower than NASA can. That's part of the discomfit around the Dennis Tito- that's an unsaid part of the politics; they simply can't do things that the Russians can.
I don't have information about whether the $4M include launch pad costs or not. Still, its hard to see how it could come anywhere near the NASA figures- I mean the entire Russian space program comes to only $120M or so...
Basically, modern day NASA is what you get when you get an extreme combination of pork-barrel, governmental specifications, defense and politcal white elephants.
Russia on the other hand, has little pork-barrel; and soviet governmental work is much more efficient (probably less efficient than capitalism though; but market forces and capitalism has nothing to do with space in the good ole' US of A).
Probably takes lots of coffee (Score:2)
Re:And they call it reusable... (Score:1)
The 1.2 Million signatures required to launch a shuttle are NOT a good thing.
In one case, there were three signatures saying that a work platform had been removed from the shuttle bay. And yet when the shuttle was lifted to vertical, the platform was still in the cargo bay and it dropped to the aft end and caused damage. Diffusion of responsibility is not a good thing--when everyone is to blame, no one is to blame.
Re:Working for the government (Score:1)
was stolen. OTH it is even more of a waste of our
money to go through the paperwork and what not
to keep track of the mouse. For some reason the fed
is more concerned about the $$$ they spend to buy
things than the $$$ they spend the employees to
keep track of things. A logical person would look
at it and realize that time and equipment both
cost tax payer money, but the government isn't logical.
In industry you see that the larger the company the more stupid red tape you must deal with.
There is no company bigger than the fed. I am not sure what we can do about it, I am just complaining about it anyway
Working for the government (Score:3)
We have this rocket, see (Score:2)
and it has more bureaucrats producing more paperwork than ever before, just to get it launched.
we want you to ride on it
right . . .
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Damaged tiles (Score:3)
NASA uses a top-secret, super-duper cleanser, known only by its code-name, "Formula 409". If only there was a way you could get your hands on some, it might work on your shower. One can always hope that space program technology will eventually trickle down to us.
What does it take to make the Space Shuttle Fly? (Score:5)
A very, very, very, very, very, very large rubberband. Bringing an inanimate carbin rod along makes emergency repairs much easier, too.
Re:Working for the government (Score:1)
I was always amused by the amount of paper that many government forms dedicate to telling us about the "Paperwork Reduction Act of 1974." heh...
I could never really figure out what it had to to with reducing paperwork, because there sure was enough of it, but I digress...
The reason for the accountability is because governments use taxpayer money to buy the mouse. They are responsible to the taxpayers to ensure that purchased mice aren't stolen and that it is used for the purpose intended, i.e. official government business. Any other use is a waste of our taxes.
NASA is accountable to us for the spending of our money via our elected representatives. Congress exercises its oversight over NASA. What does NASA risk by not documenting everything? Besides lives, probably their very budget! Should paperwork be reduced? I think so. Will Congress and the taxpayers let them?
Re:Oh, Hell, why not? (Score:5)
Ahem. Any physics student known it take the exact same amount of energy. An incline spreads out the work over a longer time scale, but the work is lessenned, and it balances out perfectly. It's the same way pulley systems work. Sure, you have to pull for longer, but it's much easier to pull.
How to lose the tiny window (Score:1)
http://www.blitzbasic.com/
Re:Damaged tiles (Score:2)
Well, there's Tang.
(And perhaps that "ice cream of the future" that's been sold in mediocre malls across the US for years now?
Re:And in that stack... (Score:1)
I worked at Boeing on the 747-400 and our version of that joke was that the FAA certified the airplane when the weight of the paperwork equaled the weight of the airplane.
Re:Oh, Hell, why not? (Score:1)
Damaged tiles (Score:4)
"A door is what a dog is perpetually the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
official shuttle resources and mission plans (Score:3)
Here [shuttlepresskit.com] is a link to the mission plan for STS-99, for example.
Check out this on-board experiment:
ON-ORBIT DETAILED TEST OBJECTIVES (DTOs)
URINE COLLECTION DEVICE (DTO 690)
The purpose of this DTO is to evaluate the fit of several sizes/types of manual Urine Collection Devices (UCDs) and their adapters (anatomical interface) in microgravity; evaluate the capability of the adapter and valve design to accommodate urine flow with minimal leakage; and evaluate hygienic aspects of the UCD design with respect to minimizing urine remaining in or around the adapter which could potentially get loose into the cabin. This accomplishment will also increase the accuracy of science measurements of total urine volume within the bag. This DTO will also evaluate the user-friendliness of urine collection operations, and (Lower Priority) evaluate techniques for returning urine to the Waste Collection System (WCS).
Re:USA FUCKING ALL THE WAY!!! (Score:1)
Challenger is key (Score:2)
Re:And they call it reusable... (Score:4)
Re:CNN kings of fraudulent media (Score:1)
I am sure that they have the publics best interest in mind - and am happy to see that CNN so willingly give internships to these gifted individuals from the military who are interested in ensuring that the american populous has correct and detailed information regarding events.
I mean - based on the governments track record with ensuring that even other countries are fully aware of our military secrets (china) it seems only fitting that they would assign a group to CNN to ensure that we are as abrest on the inner-workings of military/gov/nasa as the rest of the international intelligence community.
Although i dont understand what psy-ops would have to do with journalism. Oh well. I'll leave the important things to them to figure out. THANKS! for thinking of me!
Re:CNN kings of fraudulent media (Score:1)
Shuttle motor test firing next week and MORE! (Score:2)
On the subject of paperwork:
I just spent the last year contracted out to Thiokol. They make the reusable solid rocket motors for the shuttle. I did the editor for their new documentation system that is getting finished up. What they told me was that in the old days when they shipped a motor to NASA they shipped an equivalent VOLUME in paperwork. It was literally a trainload of paper. They have to document who did EVERYTHING and who inspected what and any deviations from normal procedure.
They have been sending electronic documents for about six years now but are migrating to a new system. The new documents are XML and the editor is written in Java. You would think that a bunch of instructions with checkpoints and buyoffs would be a pretty simple application but they go way beyound that. The documents are incredibly complex and powerful. Luckily the new system is going to be a lot easier to use than the old one.
The new system should go into production this summer. It will make the job of creating, maintaining, and keeping track of so much documentation much easier.
homer's answer (Score:3)
A remedy (Score:2)
--
Re:Oh, Hell, why not? (Score:2)
Secondly, the X-15 [af.mil] (for which eight Air Force Pilots were awarded Astronauts wings as they entered the official minimum altitude for "space") was launched from under the wing of a B-52. And this was a program that started in he late fifties! Also, when the Shutle lands at Edwards Air Force Base [af.mil] in California, it's transported piggyback style back to Kennedy Space center in Florida by a specially modified NASA Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft [nasa.gov]. They have "launched" orbiters this way before for the purposes of approach and landing testing [nasa.gov], so there must not be any unreasonable risks in seperation at those speeds / altitudes or with massive craft like those.
For your third point... um... either way, verticle or not, you're going to reach *vast* speeds and move huge amounts of air. One way or another, you want as aerodynamic a design as you can reasonably build.
Your fourth point... We definatly would not have been able to, if we had to strap a saturn V to a jet. But with a starting point of 60,000+ Ft, and 600+ MPH before you even light the engines, you don't need that large a rocket to push you the rest of the way, especially with more modern techlology tht we have today.
Re:What it take to make the Boeing 747 Fly (Score:3)
You also ignore the following facts;
- There are hundreds, (thousands?) of 747's in service, and only four Shuttles.
- The 747 is a late generation aircraft, the Shuttle is a first generation reusable.
- The 747 is a child's toy compared to the complexity of the Shuttle.
- The 747 operates in a far simpler and more benign enviroment than does the Shuttle.
- The 747 also requires incredible amounts of maintenance, support, and facilities, but most of this is out of the public eye.
- Your ticket cost is held down by the revenues generated by the cargo in the belly of the 747 and by competition. (Plus the USD$900 you cite is for coach class...)
In other words, apples and oranges.Re:And they call it reusable... (Score:5)
Hardly true at all. This isn't somebody's desktop computer, but rather is an extremely complicated and expensive piece of nearly irreplaceable hardware that will kill if not properly prepared. As hard as it may be to believe, to do so takes time and effort that's extremely hard for the uninitiated (meaning 99.999% of /. readers) to comprehend. (No mean to insult, but there is darn little comparable experiences out there, and none of it in the IT field.)
f we are serious about having the ability to do interesting things off this planet, we need a reusable vehicle that can be turned around much more simply.
The current crop of proposed 'low end' space transports cut their costs of operations by cutting capabilities and redundancy. That's not to say that a vehicle of the Shuttle's class couldn't be done cheaper and faster, but it still won't be down in the range of the smaller, cheaper (and much less capable) transports. (In the same way that a Cessna is far cheaper and easier to operate than a 747 or even a 707.)
A 747 turns around as fast as it does because many generations of aircraft preceded it, and billions of dollars and trillions of man hours in engineering, maintenance, and experience, have been spent to achieve those goals. The Shuttle is a first generation vehicle that operates in a far more demanding and far, far less benign environment than does a commercial or private aircraft.
No, I'm not a NASA cheerleader, but I am someone who has helped prepare an expensive, complex, dangerous vehicle for extended operations in an extremely hostile environment far from home or safety. (A nuclear submarine)
Imagine.. (Score:2)
Yeah, but... (Score:3)
Re:The shuttle paperwork (Score:2)
A very cool idea, that has been kicking around for a while. The old "UFO" TV series had a moon shuttle that was carried up into the high atmosphere by a jet, then decoupled and flew to the moon.
The best I could find was some blueprints here [simplenet.com]. Look at the Lunar carrier picture.
-----------------
Re:The shuttle paperwork (Score:2)
While there a number of plans out there for using the orbiter in other ways, I don't see this one... A 747, stripped of all unnecessary bits, can carry an empty orbiter. It sure as hell can't take off with a loaded one and the boosters it needs. I doubt that, even with bigger cargo planes, you could really manage this config without designing the plane from scratch. If you start designing massive planes for the purpose, well, you may as well bring the whole thing back to the drawing board, really.
That's really the trick with any large Shuttle upgrade. Since when you price these things, actual construction costs are absolutely trivial compared to design costs and operating costs, and since designing to match an existing (expensive, complicated) design is usually hardly cheaper than wiping the board clean, and since it probably makes more sense these days to build multiple one-purpose vehicles anyway, it just doesn't pay...
Sadly, the likely regime now is that we'll keep flying the shuttle for another 20 years, with a big chunk of the budget going into desperately trying to keep the things up to safety specs. It is possible that future Administrators will be more open to the idea of contracting out for launch services or for functional vehicles, as opposed to contracting out with exacting design specifications, and thus actually get competitive proposals and metal bent...
Re:And they call it reusable... (Score:2)
Well, sure, but of course then we ended up maintaining them anyway; we kept the Titan program going, and such, because the Shuttle couldn't meet the launch demand once the turnaround times slipped, and then after Challenger they started instituting cargo rules anyhow. And, while it isn't a launch vehicle of course, we ended up building a fabulously expensive space station-lab to do, really, the same sorts of science the shuttle science-setup is supposed to do, and that's been on the drawing boards since 1981. So sure, if the Shuttle could have been built to meet every need, but certainly at this point- and if you look at what people wanted but couldn't get funded for, even at the point of its design- there are a lot of needs it's designed to meet but isn't really making the grade on.You're quite right that it isn't appropriate to rip on the shuttle designers from today's perspective. I think they did an astounding job working from a terribly limited engineering and (especially) political base.But I think we can agree that NASA's plans in more recent times for moving beyond the shuttle have been, well, less than fruitful...
this is a basic error in the assumptions behind CATS, they ignore the need for larger capabilities.
I don't think they do. I mean, the folks starting businesses designed low-payload or low-crew machines, because they had a hard enough time finding venture capital for those! But in terms of the talk around town, I think there's a pretty fair consensus that we should look for a lightweight satellite launcher designed to fit the current commercial market, a ferry-crew-to-orbit vehicle that's as simple as possible and has no other functions, an in-space tug, and an as-friggin'-big-as-possible launcher for projects like ISS and interplanetary missions (manned or not). Plenty of people have sketched out designs for the latter; Buzz Aldrin preaches one full-time these days, for example. They just have little hope of getting to build them, in the current climate.
Re:And they call it reusable... (Score:3)
Bear in mind that when the shuttle was proposed, it was pitched as having two-week turnarounds and cost maybe a fifth as much per flight. NASA officials sold it this way because they were looking for a way to survive in the post-Kennedy/Johnson political climate. Myself I find it hard to blame them, but it certainly should be understood that it's much too hard a vehicle to fly and that we desperately need easier ones.
The various 'low end' transports generally cut their costs by being simpler and relying on easier technologies whenever possible. While some of the operating savings are intended to come from, say, cheaper fuels, the bulk of them have more to do with things like the number of people you need to do a launch, the redundancy and safety measures you NEED based on the reliability of your equipment, understanding how long you can expect different pieces of equipment to survive, and so on. It's an engineering design problem. A very difficult one, to be sure, but not one so far on the bleeding edge that we can't understand the problems and costs involved.And of course, we understand them rather better than we did in 1978, and we have better ways of dealing with them. (Also, not running a few billion dollars in debt on development costs for unneccessary technologies helps keep the op costs down. Venturestar, anyone?)
As for cutting capabilities- well, the big problem with the shuttle is, that because NASA knew when they were building it that they would have no money for other programs for a long time, it had to be rather a horse of all colors. Human ferry-er, cargo ferry-er, space science lab (for eight completely different kinds of science,), in space manuevering ability, DoD was told they needed to do all their launches on the Shuttle so then they had a bunch of cargo specs to add, trying to get an impossible combination of cost and turnaround time, and all of this on technology that was barely capable of it at all... It's appropriate for the next generation of launchers to be much more specialized. We don't need to use only one to do everything. If that's 'low-end', well, sign me up...
How to get the turnaround time down... (Score:2)
-----------------------
Re:I wouldn't mind getting the Russians to advise. (Score:3)
We had to deliver some equipment (2 SUN workstations) to JPL and had to do much paperwork and negotiations over this. When we arrived we were besieged by guys with clipboards, who were not sure if we could deliver this equipment, whether we could install it in the computer room. Eventually my German colleague got pissed off a took the machines himself out of the car and into the computer room. There followed much frantic ass-covering paperwork, phone-calls and hand-wringing, before everything was settled. Sometimes I wonder with the level of bureaucracy how they got a man on the moon.
The Russians, on the other hand, are a very different kettle of fish. The Russians launched 4 ESA satellites last year and we had to install some stuff in Baikonur for the launch. They are very laid back, and quite excited to see new equipment. A lot of the quipment they have is very out of date, but the fact remains that the Soyuz launcher has done over 1000 launches without problems. It was quite amusing during the first launch, that at T-minus 10 minutes, 3 guys could be seen walking and smoking about 100m from the launcher! Our boss got a bit excited and wanted to know what they were doing there. 'Having a smoke and a walk' was the reply. He was speechless (a rare thing) and at T minus 5 one of the guys casually looked at his watch and they then got under cover. Both launches went without a hitch. The Russians are very confident with the Soyuz launcher having used it for about 40 years and they are not so safety and arse-covering paranoid as NASA and ESA.
Can anybody spell STARSHIP? (Score:2)
Anyways, the ultimate re-usable vehicle would be a built-in-space extended-lifetime solar transit vehicle, a.k.a. starship. It won't depart from or re-enter the atmosphere, so all the aerodynamic and weight-stress problems can be ditched. Its size and mass can be expanded proportionately to the thrust of its powerplant (Scientific American has a marvelous article about Nuclear Propulsion in Space [sciam.com]. Finally, such a spacecraft could concieveably carry its own hydroponics, waste recyclers, and recreational facilities, in addition to mission-oriented facilities, to support a 14- to 30-person team.
Gentlemen, we can build it. We have the technology.
On the slightly interesting side (Score:3)
Interesting and sad (Score:3)
long time listener, first time caller, love /.
I did some work for NASA at Kennedy Space Center last year. It was the coolest job I've ever had and at the same time it was a little sad. I was struck by how primitive everything is on the ground. Ground handling costs dominate the cost of space flight. Much of the ground handling is amazingly primitive. The manpower costs and time involved are astounding. Everything is done manually. Practically nothing is automated. There is much room for improvement.
Much of this is due to union and labor issues. There is definitely an entitlement mentality there. The lab that I worked in was littered with old robots and machines developed to speed things up and reduce costs. In many cases the unions complained and had the machines removed. More efficiency = less entitlement.
I worked with some very cool people who were passionate about their work. Many of them worked very hard. Unfortunately the majority are not as fired up. Many young and creative people work there after school, get frustrated, and leave.
NASA is stuck in a rut that I believe there is very little chance of them escaping. Let's face it, they aren't rewarded for taking risks. They can waste millions on inefficient processes and they get a gee wizz report on CNN. Spend the same money on a failed probe and you might get your funding cut.
Still after 20 years of space shuttle flight shouldn't it be getting cheaper to maintain with faster turnaround? Shouldn't it be cheaper to launch things into space?