Author Topic: Tuesday Shuttle launch just scrubbed (Read 1583 times)

Skydancer · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2005, 02:09:58 AM »

Scrub the shuttle and design a new version. Same idea different craft. The shuttle was fine as a first attempt but its getting very old. I'm sure NASA could do it better this time. Use the Money that the Iraq mess is currently wasting. That should about cover it and be far more worthwhile.

Meatwad · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2005, 02:21:45 AM »

there was a show on the discovery chanel about deep space travel. i forget the name, but it was a marathon. I think the ships name was pegasus. Wonder if anything like that can be achieved within the next 30 years.

Wolfala · « **Reply #17 on:** July 14, 2005, 02:55:05 AM »

Well...there are some pretty interesting designs being tested out in Orbiter....

Gunthr · « **Reply #18 on:** July 14, 2005, 07:41:46 AM »

I'm relieved that they resisted the pressure to launch this time.

Chairboy · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2005, 09:01:27 AM »

The CEV (known as the Constellation class spacecraft) is promising. The flexibility of Apollo, lower cost, smaller cross section to make re-entry less risky... it's pretty neat.

Basically, they've adopted the Soyuz idea, and an unmanned heavy launcher (based on Shuttle technology) would provide cargo lift. Between the two, our options in space should be greater.

Martlet · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2005, 09:25:04 AM »

Did someone change the calendar and make yesterday Tuesday?

Chairboy · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2005, 09:56:01 AM »

Doh! That was me, I are dumb. Tuesday is just 'stupid' for Wednesday, in this case.

Boroda · « **Reply #22 on:** July 14, 2005, 11:33:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDLV
+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle
=
Replacement

funny that with SDLV they copy an Energiya launch vehicle concept...

CEV is called "Spiral"?! "Spiral" was a name for a Lavochkin manned shuttle, small "space interceptor" vehicle.

http://www.moninoaviation.com/11a.html

As for R-7 - it is a beautiful combination of some primitive technologies: railway electric automation from 1920s, German liquid rocket technology from 1940s and "bearing skin" from American aviation industry of 1930s-40s. But the whole design is cheap, reliable and uses cheap non-toxic fuel components (LOX and kerosene), and this stuff is in serial production for 50 years now...

When Sergey Korolyov designed R-7 as an ICBM - he kept in mind a possibility to use it as a space launch vehicle. It took great effort to persuade the military to build such a big rocket, while space programm was only an option that was very effective in propaganda and demonstrated the ability of Soviet rocket technology, that helped Kruschev in his "missile bluff".

What really amazes me is that a country completely destroyed in 1945 could develop such tremendous projects as a Bomb in 4 years and then R-7 in less 12 years. People living in barrack communal homes, posessing something like one suit, one pair of boots and one winter coat, when half of the country were wearing second-hand military uniforms and quilted jackets, they designed things that made us first in space...

Wolfala · « **Reply #23 on:** July 14, 2005, 12:39:56 PM »

OK, I think the most productive thing would be to have a list generated, with graphics of possible shuttle replacements.

So, the criteria: SSTO, Heavy Lifter, etc. Point is, needs to be crew'd and have a decent endurance in the 300 - 500 km altitude range.

Wolf

Hangtime · « **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2005, 12:40:30 PM »

Lets see.. Soviet Space programme..

Soyuz prototype, fire, Bondarenko, Killed
Soyuz 1.. Chute Failure. Komarov, Killed.
Soyuz 11, Depressurized, 3 more dead.

Then there's the laughable near misses..

Soyuz 5.. reverse rentry. Holy smokin hatch gaskets, batman...
Vostok 1.. Service module jettsion failure.. holy smokin wires, robin!
Soyuz 18a.. Can you say 'motor failure, eject eject eject' 10 times real fast?
Soyuz 23.. How long can you hold yer breath, Comrade? Capsule impacts frozen lake, sinks. Cosmonaut/Submariner badges issued.
Soyuz T-10-1.. another motor failure, eject scenario. (The escape system on Soyuz really gets a workout, Boroda)
Soyuz TM5.. can you say 'WTF.. no de-orbit burn AGAIN?' Cosmonauts manually re-tried system next day, landed with do-do in their pannts.
Mir 2/23/97.. FIRE! Whoopsee!
Mir 6/25/97.. Collison! Geico coverage cancled after collision with Progress Resupply rocket. Some hasty cable hacking and module closeoffs by the 2 russian and 1 american astronauts save the farm.

And, my commie martyr friend; yer ground crews seem to be real expendable...

Plestek Cosmodrome.. 59 technicians in two seperate booster failures. Then there's Nedelin.. 126 flash fried technicians. Tsk, tsk..

I believe the current count is 96 Russians made it to space vs 277 for the USA. By my reckoning, you folks seem to enjoy a much higher fatality rate in your space program than ours. Also we can argue that there are doubtless plenty more losses/fatalities on your side that have never been made public.. while we always operate manned missions under public oversight.

Interesting, no?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #25 on:** July 14, 2005, 12:50:51 PM »

Hang, no offense, but in my opinion, if it were not for the Russian space program and JFK, we would still be trying to figure out how to get weather ballons to higher altitudes.

And if those disasters had occured here in the U.S., what would have happened?

Russia does deserve a bit of respect for getting the whole idea of space travel off the ground. And even through the disasters, they kept on going.

Wolfala · « **Reply #26 on:** July 14, 2005, 01:00:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hang, no offense, but in my opinion, if it were not for the Russian space program and JFK, we would still be trying to figure out how to get weather ballons to higher altitudes.

And if those disasters had occured here in the U.S., what would have happened?

Russia does deserve a bit of respect for getting the whole idea of space travel off the ground. And even through the disasters, they kept on going.

Amen

Chairboy · « **Reply #27 on:** July 14, 2005, 01:21:31 PM »

Both countries also have a butchers bill. The US program has lost 17 lives that were inside space vehicles, the Soviets have lost 4, so we could go back and forth all day.

It's easy to point fingers, but both countries share a common achievement, we've repeatedly put humans into the least forgiving environment yet and brought them back safely more then not (a LOT more then not).

Hangtime · « **Reply #28 on:** July 14, 2005, 01:22:39 PM »

Absolutely agree, the Soviets were the goad for our early program advancement agenda.

Sadly, due to the political polartity issues, we ran our own learning curve while they enjoyed the very public nature of our efforts. Had we known what happened to Bondarenko, Chaffe, White and Grissom would not have been imolated... just one example that comes to mind.

There are other instances where they *ahem* 'borrowed' from our painstaking R&D to facilitate their advancements.. THEIR programme successes were due in no small part to our 'public' persual of our quest for manned space flight... to a lesser degree, ours from theirs.

What's troubling from my perspective is NASA's apparent abandonment of the 'Space Plane' concepet in favor of the 'safer' capsule and service module program.. a step backwards in my eyes.

Yeager · « **Reply #29 on:** July 14, 2005, 01:33:13 PM »

Why not just drop a cable from the space station and use an elevator to deliver supples and such.....might take a few days to get back and fourth and a few hundred miles of cable.....but hey, imagine the view