Man, WTF is wrong with NASA

[So]

Originally posted by: blakeatwork

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I think the biggest issue right now is the (remaining) shuttles are older than a good portion of the members here.

It's a 20+ year old craft based on even older technology.

People are expecting way too much of them.

Could we design & build better? Sure, but it'll take time & money.

Right now they're all we have.

Viper GTS

I don't think Space Exploration will really come of age until it becomes a global concern, and not just something the G8 fiddles around with. Combine the resources of NASA, the ESA, Russia, Japan, whoever, stick'em all in a room, and don't let'em out until they've come up with something that works the first time, every time...

Pipedream I know

Bah. The US could easily make space exploration come of age if we:
1. Grew up about nuclear power to get to and while in space
2. really comitted an extended program to developing an SSTO craft suing Turbojet/PDE/Scramjet technology.
3. Designed a new generation of spacecraft, based on the DynoSoar/CTV concepts and built a LOT of them (not 5, not 50, but 500 or 5000). They would cost about what a carrier group costs to maintain if we built enough of them, and didn't treat them like eggshells.
4. Began a serious research program into space elevator technology.

Don't fool yourself. If politicians stopped d!cking around and being petty, we could do it 100% alone and it wouldn't even be that large of a drain on the US. In fact, in the long run, it'd provide a huge economic boost, paying for itself.

 

[shilala]

Foam falls off a 20 year old machine and people get whipped up.
If a fvckin door fell off your 20 year old car, you'd say "Whatta ya want, it's 20 years old?"

The space program is in a rough position right now. There's not enough money to develop everything they want to develop and government wants the private sector to step up and develop machines that will take up for the waning shuttle program.

I don't see NASA building another shuttle type device. I think they'll head towards replacing hubble and developing a Mars mission.
Now there's an opportunity for certain death. Be on the first launch to Mars.

 

[91TTZ]

People are making it sound like the reliability of the Shuttle is decreasing because of age, and this is responsible for the disasters. This is incorrect. The first Shuttle exploded because of problems with the O-rings. These were brand new pieces that failed because of the temperature and design. The most recent Shuttle disaster was due to a chunk of foam falling off and breaking the carbon-carbon leading edge of the wing. Again, this had nothing to do with the Shuttle's age.

After each flight, the Shuttle is stripped down and partially rebuilt. If any parts are showing wear, they get replaced.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: junkerman123
Topic Summary: Is it really that hard to make a working space shuttle...

I don't know. Why don't you go get a PhD in rocket science, build us a rocket, and tell us how difficult it is to do.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: shilala
Foam falls off a 20 year old machine and people get whipped up.
If a fvckin door fell off your 20 year old car, you'd say "Whatta ya want, it's 20 years old?"

While the basic design may be 20 years old, each external tank is brand new and only used once. The foam isn't falling off of a 20 year old tank.

The space program is in a rough position right now. There's not enough money to develop everything they want to develop and government wants the private sector to step up and develop machines that will take up for the waning shuttle program.

I don't see NASA building another shuttle type device. I think they'll head towards replacing hubble and developing a Mars mission.
Now there's an opportunity for certain death. Be on the first launch to Mars.

 

[ActuaryTm]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: junkerman123
Topic Summary: Is it really that hard to make a working space shuttle...

I don't know. Why don't you go get a PhD in rocket science, build us a rocket, and tell us how difficult it is to do.

You might want to make this individual your lead engineer.

His knowledge of peener flappery design is unparalleled.

 

[chrisms]

I have a doctorate in divinity and let me tell you what those guys do isn't as easy as you Mr.'s think it is.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: eLiu

And the space shuttle is some OLD sh!t...designed in the 70s/80s. It's some incredible amts of engineering achievement for its time (>20 yrs ago)...making something go up isn't relatively hard...letting it come down is a bit harder...making it repeat this action is ass-hard.

Besides it's not like NASA is a bunch of wonder-geniuses. Lots of smart ppl there but when the equipment gets old, continual repairs & fixes doesn't prevent other problems from showing up.

I know cars < space shuttle, but just look at all the "my car died" threads here. If ppl have difficulty keeping their old vehicles running, you ought to have some feel for how hard it is to keep an old shuttle running.

This is a completely uneducated post. It echoes many other posts I've read in this thread. People keep bringing up the Shuttles age because they have absolutely no clue about the kind of maintenance that goes on with it.

Your analogies are not even close to being correct. In fact their inaccuracy make them look stupid. I doubt people with those old cars strip them down and rebuild them every time they go out for a drive. With the Shuttle, everything is inspected. People whose cars break is because they neglect maintenance. All the parts on them have exceeded their life expectancy and are just waiting to fail. With the Shuttle, they know what the life expectancy of all the individual parts are and they replace them before their time is up. I bet most of the posters on this thread think that they just land the thing and hook it up to another fuel tank and set of boosters. This is wrong.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Neither of the Shuttle disasters had anything to do with the craft's age. This viewpoint is rooted in ignorance and is spread mostly by the media and common people that don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Fenixgoon]

one day, engineers will run the country instead of politicians, and then the US will have an uber efficient economy, and NASA will have the 100 billion in funding i'd like to give it... *yet another pipedream*

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Armitage

While the basic design may be 20 years old, each external tank is brand new and only used once. The foam isn't falling off of a 20 year old tank.

Exactly.

Just about everything that wears down is replaced after every flight, including all 25,000 thermal tiles.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
This viewpoint is rooted in ignorance and is spread mostly by the media and common people that don't know what they're talking about.

The problem with the craft is not the age of the parts, but the design. We have better boosters, better materials for heat shielding, better computers (which, admittedly, are being improved on the shuttle) and, we can't apply the lessons about the design of the shuttles that we've learned until we build a new generation.

Lesson #1: It's a poor decision to attach the craft in parallel with the propulsion system.

 

[SagaLore]

They need to stop wasting money on antiques, and build a new shuttle from scratch with newer technology.

 

[zebano]

The most important thing to realize is they are a government agency; hence they are neither agile nor effecient.

nuff said.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
This viewpoint is rooted in ignorance and is spread mostly by the media and common people that don't know what they're talking about.

The problem with the craft is not the age of the parts, but the design. We have better boosters, better materials for heat shielding, better computers (which, admittedly, are being improved on the shuttle) and, we can't apply the lessons about the design of the shuttles that we've learned until we build a new generation.

While you certainly have a point, there's also alot to be said for working with a known quantity. While the shuttle isn't perfect, we have alot of experience regarding how to do it, what may go wrong etc. Some of those lessons were more expensive then others.

When you start fresh, you'll have to re-learn much of this for the new system. It's not a reason not to go there, but a consideration. New launch vehicles almost always have a higher rate of failure initially.

Lesson #1: It's a poor decision to attach the craft in parallel with the propulsion system.

Not sure what you're getting at here? Meaning that the new design should be a verticle stack with the vehicle at the top instead of along side?

That may be true, but improvements to the heat shielding, and the tank design may negate the importance.

 

[FreshPrince]

guess what? that $300M+ they wasted on the deep impact project....could've been used to save lives? :shocked:

I mean how much would it cost to fix a simple foam problem?

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
This viewpoint is rooted in ignorance and is spread mostly by the media and common people that don't know what they're talking about.

The problem with the craft is not the age of the parts, but the design. We have better boosters, better materials for heat shielding, better computers (which, admittedly, are being improved on the shuttle) and, we can't apply the lessons about the design of the shuttles that we've learned until we build a new generation.

Lesson #1: It's a poor decision to attach the craft in parallel with the propulsion system.

So how long have you been working for NASA? You seem to know a lot about running a space program.

 

[BooGiMaN]

some peopl are real asswipes at understanding and appreciating what engineers do and have to put up with...


are you the same troll that put up a similar post after the last space shuttle blew up?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
This viewpoint is rooted in ignorance and is spread mostly by the media and common people that don't know what they're talking about.

The problem with the craft is not the age of the parts, but the design. We have better boosters, better materials for heat shielding, better computers (which, admittedly, are being improved on the shuttle) and, we can't apply the lessons about the design of the shuttles that we've learned until we build a new generation.

While you certainly have a point, there's also alot to be said for working with a known quantity. While the shuttle isn't perfect, we have alot of experience regarding how to do it, what may go wrong etc. Some of those lessons were more expensive then others.

When you start fresh, you'll have to re-learn much of this for the new system. It's not a reason not to go there, but a consideration. New launch vehicles almost always have a higher rate of failure initially.

Lesson #1: It's a poor decision to attach the craft in parallel with the propulsion system.

Not sure what you're getting at here? Meaning that the new design should be a verticle stack with the vehicle at the top instead of along side?

That may be true, but improvements to the heat shielding, and the tank design may negate the importance.

All your points are valid, but I think it is clear that we need a new vehicle, or perhaps an array of vehicles, to take us to the moon and beyond, as well as LEO, cheaply and reliably (I'm talking more about improving the cheaply, if we weren't so paranoid, the shuttle is fairly reliable).

Your last point is 100% valid, and the team designing the new vehicle should consiuder that, but considering what I know now, I feel that a stack is probably an inherently better design.

 

[blahblah99]

How many of you who are talking out of your ass have done engineering work? Designing something that complex requires years of research and testing. If they were to redesign the spacecraft using today's technology, you will not see it operational and functional until decades later. By then, today's technology will be considered "old".

Remember, anything going into space has to withstand extreme temperature differentials, vibration, radiation, and be 100% reliable. How many electronics do you own can withstand the extreme temperatures of space?

The problem with is NASA is that they are a monopoly. As soon as space exploration is deregulated, there will be competition, and competition creates innovation.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
This viewpoint is rooted in ignorance and is spread mostly by the media and common people that don't know what they're talking about.

The problem with the craft is not the age of the parts, but the design. We have better boosters, better materials for heat shielding, better computers (which, admittedly, are being improved on the shuttle) and, we can't apply the lessons about the design of the shuttles that we've learned until we build a new generation.

Lesson #1: It's a poor decision to attach the craft in parallel with the propulsion system.

So how long have you been working for NASA? You seem to know a lot about running a space program.

So only employees of Nasa can have an educated opinion of the shuttle program or be interested in space?

Please stop trolling. If you have an opinion, or something to add, go right ahead.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: So


The problem with the craft is not the age of the parts, but the design. We have better boosters, better materials for heat shielding, better computers (which, admittedly, are being improved on the shuttle) and, we can't apply the lessons about the design of the shuttles that we've learned until we build a new generation.

Lesson #1: It's a poor decision to attach the craft in parallel with the propulsion system.

I agree somewhat, although better computers are not going to help the Shuttle. Spaceflight isn't very processing intensive, it uses relatively simple math. Don't forget, we made it to the Moon and back six times using 1960's era computers.

About making a new craft, you try to build on your prior knowledge, but it introduces new problems into the picture. Compare the last model year of a car design and the first model year of the new design. Although the newer car design is newer, it usually had many more problems compared to the last model year of the older design. With the old design, its flaws have already surfaced and you've worked out those flaws, while with the new design you're going to have to go through that process all over again.

I'd be sad to see the Shuttle go. Growing up, I saw it inspire many people to get into science and technology. It gave you something to strive for, even if you don't become an astronaut. While simpler designs are probably more cost effective, they lack the excitement that inspires people.

Space Shuttle

 

[So]

Originally posted by: blahblah99
How many of you who are talking out of your ass have done engineering work? Designing something that complex requires years of research and testing. If they were to redesign the spacecraft using today's technology, you will not see it operational and functional until decades later. By then, today's technology will be considered "old".

Remember, anything going into space has to withstand extreme temperature differentials, vibration, radiation, and be 100% reliable. How many electronics do you own can withstand the extreme temperatures of space?

The problem with is NASA is that they are a monopoly. As soon as space exploration is deregulated, there will be competition, and competition creates innovation.

Your predicted 'time to market' is a bit too long. IIRC, the shuttle began design in 1967, and felw in 1981...a mere 14 years. Heardly 'decades' and the tech, in 1981, was far from 'old' by the standards at the time. AFAIK, that's pretty long for a Nasa vehicle design.

According to this the saturn V began development in 1961 and launched 6 years later, putting a man on the moon a mere 8 years later.

 

[Armitage]

The biggest problem with the shuttleis how it was envisioned to be used - which drove the design. It was/is to be a launch vehicle capable of carrying large payloads to space - get rid of the expendable boosters & all that. And it was also determined that it was to be reuasable as much as possible.

A vehicle that is large enough to carry big payloads & reusable can't come back with parachutes. You just can't make them big enough. So it glides back - which means it has a complex shape. Everything else anybody has put into space with the plan to re-enter it intact has a very simple shape and is therefore much easier to shield against reentry, and much stronger & lighter for their size. The shuttles tile system is a very difficult and fragile system to design and maintain, as was seen in STS-113

The answer is to build a simpler, smaller system just to get the crew up. DON'T use the shuttle simply to launch satellites, as has been done in the past - you can do that with a regular booster If it's a large payload that needs a crew, put the payload up on another launch with a cheaper expendable, and don't worry so much if it fails. Rendevous once it's up there.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: So


The problem with the craft is not the age of the parts, but the design. We have better boosters, better materials for heat shielding, better computers (which, admittedly, are being improved on the shuttle) and, we can't apply the lessons about the design of the shuttles that we've learned until we build a new generation.

Lesson #1: It's a poor decision to attach the craft in parallel with the propulsion system.

I agree somewhat, although better computers are not going to help the Shuttle. Spaceflight isn't very processing intensive, it uses relatively simple math. Don't forget, we made it to the Moon and back six times using 1960's era computers.

About making a new craft, you try to build on your prior knowledge, but it introduces new problems into the picture. Compare the last model year of a car design and the first model year of the new design. Although the newer car design is newer, it usually had many more problems compared to the last model year of the older design. With the old design, its flaws have already surfaced and you've worked out those flaws, while with the new design you're going to have to go through that process all over again.

I'd be sad to see the Shuttle go. Growing up, I saw it inspire many people to get into science and technology. It gave you something to strive for, even if you don't become an astronaut. While simpler designs are probably more cost effective, they lack the excitement that inspires people.

Space Shuttle

Hanging on to an antiquated design just because 'we know how it works' seems a bit silly. By that logic, shouldn't we still be flying redstones? (I know, that's a bit preposterous) You must realize that the benefits gained by an improved design are immense and the learning curve of a new vehicle will not be that long. Lets face it, the engineers have known about most of the major problems the shuttle has had since before the Challanger accident.

The shuttle's sentimental value is also overrated. Nobody would argue that we should sell the shuttles for scrap metal, we should keep them as monuments to the achievemnts of our past, but there's no reason that new vehicles can't inspire. The shuttle looks neat, but so would a moon base, a large deep space vessel soing to jupiter, a much improved space station that's big enough to be useful, and fifty launches a year or more.

Also, I want to make it clear that I realize that the current electronics is not a mjor issue for spacecraft.

 

[NorthRiver]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: eLiu

And the space shuttle is some OLD sh!t...designed in the 70s/80s. It's some incredible amts of engineering achievement for its time (>20 yrs ago)...making something go up isn't relatively hard...letting it come down is a bit harder...making it repeat this action is ass-hard.

Besides it's not like NASA is a bunch of wonder-geniuses. Lots of smart ppl there but when the equipment gets old, continual repairs & fixes doesn't prevent other problems from showing up.

I know cars < space shuttle, but just look at all the "my car died" threads here. If ppl have difficulty keeping their old vehicles running, you ought to have some feel for how hard it is to keep an old shuttle running.

This is a completely uneducated post. It echoes many other posts I've read in this thread. People keep bringing up the Shuttles age because they have absolutely no clue about the kind of maintenance that goes on with it.

Your analogies are not even close to being correct. In fact their inaccuracy make them look stupid. I doubt people with those old cars strip them down and rebuild them every time they go out for a drive. With the Shuttle, everything is inspected. People whose cars break is because they neglect maintenance. All the parts on them have exceeded their life expectancy and are just waiting to fail. With the Shuttle, they know what the life expectancy of all the individual parts are and they replace them before their time is up. I bet most of the posters on this thread think that they just land the thing and hook it up to another fuel tank and set of boosters. This is wrong.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Neither of the Shuttle disasters had anything to do with the craft's age. This viewpoint is rooted in ignorance and is spread mostly by the media and common people that don't know what they're talking about.

Whatever you say smart guy, but it still doesn't change the fact that this sh!t is old and they have had all of these years to come up with something better. With the money we blow on stupid sh!t, we could have one kickass spacecraft. Also, if we put our collective minds together instead of chopping them off, we could probably have some pretty amazing stuff by now.