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.
Originally posted by: Armitage
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.
There is no regulation restricting space exploration. Anybody with the money is free to have a go at it. The problem is that there is currently no return on invenstment for manned space flight, or interplanetary exploration. There is for satellites, and that's why you see lots of comm satellites going up - but even that is heavily subsidized in one way or another - Intelsat didn't pay for any of the R&D for the boosters they launch on, or much of the infrastructure that supports the launches.
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Does anyone here understand what the problem is with the foam ? Let me 'Splain:
First and formost - the foam is an insulator. Without the foam you would get a build up of ice on the external tank
that would accumulate to be several feet thick - the tank carries liquid oxygen in the top one third, and liquid hydrogen in the lower 2/3rd's.
The cryogenic fluids are way below the condensation and freezing temperature of water, so as it condenses on the surface
it quickly solidifies and subsequently builds up another layer of ice.
It would be too heavy to lift off, as it would add several hundred thousand pounds to the system's weight.
second - the foam is the barrier between the cryogenic cold and the ambient atmosphere which is the source of the offender - water vapor.
Third - the foam is a plastic material, rather soft, but it is a foam because it contains millions of bubbles.
The bubbles give the plastic material it's actual insulation properties, but as the shuttle climbs to high altitude the atmospheric pressure drops.
When the pressure at high altitude is sufficiently low the bubbles that make up the foam expand in a simi-rigid structure
and rupture that casing and break off and are carried away by the aiirstream flow at high velocity.
This is where the failure lies, when bursting bubbles within the foam separate the foam into chunks that enter the flight dynamic airstream
and proceed to strike the orbiter, which in turn may inflict strike damage to the thermal protection system, be it the tiles, blankets, or carbon-carbon edges.
If you were to go up and look at the tiles on the belly of the shuttle you would be shocked by their physical apperance,
gouged, grooved, burned, discolored . . . all the accumlative results of debris strikes from launch and flight that have been
dynamically fired on re-entry to make them even harder than we can produce them in our manufacturing process on earth.
The change in the bubble producing gas that aereates the foam plastic material is where the root problem is now, materials process.
The computers are a moot point, they are not any part of the problem, and they provide no form of solution.
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Armitage
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.
There is no regulation restricting space exploration. Anybody with the money is free to have a go at it. The problem is that there is currently no return on invenstment for manned space flight, or interplanetary exploration. There is for satellites, and that's why you see lots of comm satellites going up - but even that is heavily subsidized in one way or another - Intelsat didn't pay for any of the R&D for the boosters they launch on, or much of the infrastructure that supports the launches.
Don't you have to deal w/ the FAA for the trip up and down?
Originally posted by: So
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.
Originally posted by: Armitage
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Armitage
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.
There is no regulation restricting space exploration. Anybody with the money is free to have a go at it. The problem is that there is currently no return on invenstment for manned space flight, or interplanetary exploration. There is for satellites, and that's why you see lots of comm satellites going up - but even that is heavily subsidized in one way or another - Intelsat didn't pay for any of the R&D for the boosters they launch on, or much of the infrastructure that supports the launches.
Don't you have to deal w/ the FAA for the trip up and down?
Sure you do - just as anything that flies does. I'm sure the process is a bit more ardous for a launch, given the different issues involved. But commercial launches take place all the time - mostly from government sites, but also the pegasus air launch & sea launch capabilities which are not government owned/regulated.
There are regulations, but the regulations don't give NASA a monopoly in space exploration. Economics does.
Originally posted by: NorthRiver
Whatever you say smart guy,
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: So
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.
People seemed to be more capable back then. It seems that back then, they had book smarts AND common sense. Now you have people with book smarts and little else.
In addition, most people are about average intelligence (obviously). A crowd of average people isn't going to produce great strides in technology. If you notice, most of the big advancements in science come from a very small group of people, because they're the ones with the gift of having the raw intelligence high enough to figure out things that most people cannot understand. Take people like Isaac Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Max Plank, Oppenheimer, etc, for instance.
In order to do that, you have to be elitist, in order to make sure that you're not being slowed down by less capable people. That's the problem about making decisions by committee- it makes decisionmaking a democratic process, and it averages out the intelligence of the group. The ideas set forth by visionaries are outvoted by the greater number of average people.
Much of our early space program was under the direction of one man- Wernher von Braun. He was the guy responsible for making the world's first ballistic missile, the German V-2.
Originally posted by: So
I agree though, decision making by comittee is a problem. Actually, the new Nasa chief (no clue what the title is) seems to have some sort of vison. We'll have to see, of course, but maybe, maybe he can spark something.
Yes. It's the most complicated and powerful vehicular machine ever constructed by human beings. It has more than 1 million separate parts, travels farther and faster than anything else, and makes in excess of 35 million horsepower at launch.Is it really that hard to make a working space shuttle...
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Does anyone here understand what the problem is with the foam ? Let me 'Splain:
First and formost - the foam is an insulator. Without the foam you would get a build up of ice on the external tank
that would accumulate to be several feet thick - the tank carries liquid oxygen in the top one third, and liquid hydrogen in the lower 2/3rd's.
The cryogenic fluids are way below the condensation and freezing temperature of water, so as it condenses on the surface
it quickly solidifies and subsequently builds up another layer of ice.
It would be too heavy to lift off, as it would add several hundred thousand pounds to the system's weight.
second - the foam is the barrier between the cryogenic cold and the ambient atmosphere which is the source of the offender - water vapor.
Third - the foam is a plastic material, rather soft, but it is a foam because it contains millions of bubbles.
The bubbles give the plastic material it's actual insulation properties, but as the shuttle climbs to high altitude the atmospheric pressure drops.
When the pressure at high altitude is sufficiently low the bubbles that make up the foam expand in a simi-rigid structure
and rupture that casing and break off and are carried away by the aiirstream flow at high velocity.
This is where the failure lies, when bursting bubbles within the foam separate the foam into chunks that enter the flight dynamic airstream
and proceed to strike the orbiter, which in turn may inflict strike damage to the thermal protection system, be it the tiles, blankets, or carbon-carbon edges.
If you were to go up and look at the tiles on the belly of the shuttle you would be shocked by their physical apperance,
gouged, grooved, burned, discolored . . . all the accumlative results of debris strikes from launch and flight that have been
dynamically fired on re-entry to make them even harder than we can produce them in our manufacturing process on earth.
The change in the bubble producing gas that aereates the foam plastic material is where the root problem is now, materials process.
The computers are a moot point, they are not any part of the problem, and they provide no form of solution.
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
The Greatest Generation > Post WWII Baby Boom > Parents are too indulgent > Hippy Movement > Hippies grow older > Hippies turn into white-collar hypocrites> hypocrites gain control of US Congress for 40 years > American public schools become a playground for social experimentation, not the "Three Rs" > American public education system turns to sh!t > Kids can't read, don't care about math, don't know their government, economics, history > Grow up to become Feminists and Metosexuals > Pussification of America > Not enough kids smart enough NOR willing to take the risks of intense R&D, space flight, etc., etc., etc...
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
We've moved on to discussing the merits of a new launch system.
I don't see any of that in this thread.
Where is the conversation concerning a dead lift vehicle to take huge heavy parts and components to a parking orbit ?
Where is the discussion about being able to build, launch, and sustain a fleet of vehicles to move people to low or high orbits
to actually work with the parts and retreive them to earth when needed.
The original concept of the 'Shuttle as a Space Truck' included placing the external tank into an orbit so that they could be 'ganged'
into a space station-like work and lodging platform.
They are dumped with enough fuel that they could be simply steered to park - and still have enough Hydrogen and Oxygen
left over that it could provide a breathable atmosphere, provide power - and the residue is water.
We have flown over 100 missons, each time wasting an external tank.
100 tanks that are 154 feet long, 32 deet in diameter, containing 2 cryogenic capable container vessels would go a long way to providing a
working platform & exploration launch point that could be located between 150 to 300 miles up, several in different orbits, each with special capabilities.
Originally posted by: Armitage
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.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Armitage
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.
seriously. cost per pound on a space shuttle is ginormous, because you have to lift the orbiter. if you only had to lift some sheet metal and the payload, your cost per pound can be much lower. the crew module of the shuttle doesn't weigh all that much by itself, and could be made into a lifting body design, ala the dyna-soar project of the 1960s, further reducing the weight. yes, you would need two launches for every mission that requires both a heavy payload and the crew module, but the average cost per pound is likely lower than the shuttle's current rates. the saturn v was 1000 a pound. the space shuttle is an order of magnitude greater than that.
whatever happened to the DC-X project?
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
We've moved on to discussing the merits of a new launch system.
I don't see any of that in this thread.
Where is the conversation concerning a dead lift vehicle to take huge heavy parts and components to a parking orbit ?
Where is the discussion about being able to build, launch, and sustain a fleet of vehicles to move people to low or high orbits
to actually work with the parts and retreive them to earth when needed.
The original concept of the 'Shuttle as a Space Truck' included placing the external tank into an orbit so that they could be 'ganged'
into a space station-like work and lodging platform.
They are dumped with enough fuel that they could be simply steered to park - and still have enough Hydrogen and Oxygen
left over that it could provide a breathable atmosphere, provide power - and the residue is water.
We have flown over 100 missons, each time wasting an external tank.
100 tanks that are 154 feet long, 32 deet in diameter, containing 2 cryogenic capable container vessels would go a long way to providing a
working platform & exploration launch point that could be located between 150 to 300 miles up, several in different orbits, each with special capabilities.