Space Shuttle Atlantis launches for the final time...

[gturner]

my preference would be to adapt existing technology where possible, rather than develop something entirely new.

there's something real familiar sounding about the F-1A designation. is it in use now?

The F-1A dates to the 70's. It was an F-1 with a redesigned turbopump and would provide at least 1.8 million lbs thrust. They had one on a float in a moon landing anniversary parade in Huntsville, brand new with plastic caps on the ends of the piping, $85 million new.

and as far as the Flowmetrics pump idea, I'm all for anything that will reduce costs that much, provided it's reliable and relatively safe. looks like a pretty interesting piece of technology.

The pump is so simple that it barely rates as "technology." It's just a pressurized tank design with two small pressurized tanks alternately fed from a light unpressurized tank. It has all the simplicity of a pressurized tank design without the increased wall thickness on the main tank and with none of the staggering cost and complexity of a turbopump. As has been said, from an engineering and cost standpoint a rocket is a bunch of stuff attached to a turbopump. The vast majority of engine failures trace back to the turbopump. We only use them because the save such a huge amount of dry weight on a stage. The pistonless pump saves almost as much weight at vastly reduced cost, risk, and complexity.

 

[MANT!]

I was never a fan of the Ares lower stage being an SRB.. Solids have an amazing ability of going CATO at bad moments..and one you start em up...YOU CAN"T SHUT EM DOWN... for Cargo flights, they make ideal booster rockets..but manned...not for me..

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL1xUWgBlFw[/yt]

like drilling a hole in a firework..they go boom too easy..


I for one want to keep the Orion (with a toilet..don't want royally pissed off astronauts)...use a Delta IV (NO SOLIDS) to boost it..and a evolved Delta HLLV to boost whatever we need for the next direction.(I would've preferred the moon as God and Werner Von Braun intended..but I'll take my manned spaceflight as I can get it)

But Obama is more a robotic explorer guy, sad to say...

 

[sojourner]

First off, all spacecraft are capable of touching down on land.

Without killing the crew?

Second, there's no reason a spacecraft needs a toilet. We send people up to do sh*t, not to just sh*t. Technology has come a long way, so now we can use 3M semi-adhesives from Post-It notes to tape a sandwich baggy to a butt, preserving those sensitive hairs.

um, OK, good argument?

Third, ARES can easily be uprated by attaching SRB's to it, assuming that SRB's can be man rated. The jury is still out on that.

No, no it can't (please, I would love to see a link backing this up, as it is completely without basis), otherwise they wouldn't be trying to shed weight from Orion to begin with.

 

[gturner]

First off, all spacecraft are capable of touching down on land.

Without killing the crew?

Much of the time, but let's be honest. The Space Shuttle touched down on land and usually didn't kill the crew, though, as I should point out, when it did many of the parts could still have been recycled. In fact, it's much easier to recycle parts from a spaceship scattered on land than one whose parts you have to find with a mini-sub and scuba divers.

Second, there's no reason a spacecraft needs a toilet. We send people up to do sh*t, not to just sh*t. Technology has come a long way, so now we can use 3M semi-adhesives from Post-It notes to tape a sandwich baggy to a butt, preserving those sensitive hairs.

um, OK, good argument?

Oh, so do you want a vanity and a sink, too? Maybe a bidet? Mankind did most of its exploration and expansion way, way before toilets were invented.

Did we stay in Africa because there weren't any porta-johns on the passage to Yemen? No.

Did we stay in the Middle East because there weren't any gas station restrooms on the coast of Southern Asia? No.

Did we give up the idea of sailing to Australia because there weren't toilets on the canoes or rafts the Aboriginals used to get there? No.

Did the Polynesians need toilets on their outriggers? No.

Did the Vikings need toilets on their longboats? No.

Did Christopher Columbus need toilets on the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria? No.

Did Captain Cook need a toilet on the Endeavor? No.

Did Captain Kirk or Captain Picard need a toilet on the Enterprise? No.

We don't need no stinkin' toilets.

Third, ARES can easily be uprated by attaching SRB's to it, assuming that SRB's can be man rated. The jury is still out on that.

No, no it can't (please, I would love to see a link backing this up, as it is completely without basis), otherwise they wouldn't be trying to shed weight from Orion to begin with.

You can slap an SRB to anything, including a Winnebago. All you need is a slide rule and some duct tape.

 

[sojourner]

Much of the time, but let's be honest. The Space Shuttle touched down on land and usually didn't kill the crew, though, as I should point out, when it did many of the parts could still have been recycled. In fact, it's much easier to recycle parts from a spaceship scattered on land than one whose parts you have to find with a mini-sub and scuba divers.

Ya lost me, as we were arguing that Orion had lost that capability, the shuttle obviously has not. I am not sure what your point here is anymore?

Oh, so do you want a vanity and a sink, too? Maybe a bidet? Mankind did most of its exploration and expansion way, way before toilets were invented.

Did we stay in Africa because there weren't any porta-johns on the passage to Yemen? No.

Did we stay in the Middle East because there weren't any gas station restrooms on the coast of Southern Asia? No.

Did we give up the idea of sailing to Australia because there weren't toilets on the canoes or rafts the Aboriginals used to get there? No.

Did the Polynesians need toilets on their outriggers? No.

Did the Vikings need toilets on their longboats? No.

Did Christopher Columbus need toilets on the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria? No.

Did Captain Cook need a toilet on the Endeavor? No.

Did Captain Kirk or Captain Picard need a toilet on the Enterprise? No.

We don't need no stinkin' toilets.

I'll send the plumber right over to remove yours.
You do realize in all of those examples (except the fictional one), the people in question could either A) crap over the side or B) dig a hole where they were.

You can slap an SRB to anything, including a Winnebago. All you need is a slide rule and some duct tape.

Really? NASA seems to disagree with you. As I said before, if this were true they wouldn't be gutting Orion everytime you turn around to reduce weight.

 

[gturner]

Nope. 40 minutes of ranting about how what's going on now is stupid and how the previous administration was stupid to not fund Constellation and how the previous 3 administrations had become so risk-adverse that people stopped caring about NASA and how the shuttle was stupid to begin with. Then he talked about shooting people and hiding the bodies in a barn and he didn't give two shits about being caught because he's old and will die soon.

It. Was. EPIC. So awesome.

We can't use ANY of it.

But it sounds like he was right on the money.

Based on the Wall Street bailout, this year's deficit, and all the other spending we're doing before some new financial meltdown hits us, G. W. Bush should've blown about $500 billion to a trillion on the Constellation program. At least we'd all jobs now, cool aerospace jobs.

The previous administrations were risk adverse, from Nixon on, and it got worse with the Shuttle program. As long as a shuttle could go up and down we they were content, and when one couldn't they were content to let review committees debate the details of O-rings and glue guns. Our space program was treated with no more vision than making sure the Erie Canal stayed nagivable. I fear that trend continues, but the new mantra is that we are 'visionary - and that vision is that we must redirect our vision toward new longer term visions - in the far future - when we will do visionary things - with vision!'

As for shooting people and hiding bodies in the barn, doesn't the guy have someplace better to hide bodies?

 

[gturner]

Much of the time, but let's be honest. The Space Shuttle touched down on land and usually didn't kill the crew, though, as I should point out, when it did many of the parts could still have been recycled. In fact, it's much easier to recycle parts from a spaceship scattered on land than one whose parts you have to find with a mini-sub and scuba divers.

Ya lost me, as we were arguing that Orion had lost that capability, the shuttle obviously has not. I am not sure what your point here is anymore?

My point was that Orion can still come down over land, just that it might be a bit bumpy towards the last bit. Perhaps with onboard GPS it could aim for lakes or ponds.

Seriously though, coming down like an airplane creates an enormous design compromise. It means you have to launch something with big wings, which are heavy and create lots of drag. It makes it expensive to retain aerodynamic stability during launch while keeping the big wings on top of the stack (like a backwards arrow), which leads to putting boosters beside the wings, which leads to wing damage and loss of ship and crew. Been there, done that.

I would advise against optimizing a space ship design around the last three minutes of a mission that occurs far from space when vastly cheaper, lighter, and simpler solutions have been tried and proven.

The Russian solution to use retro-rockets in addition to parachutes (and come down on land) was in large part chosen because they didn't trust us and didn't control the oceans, and freedom of the seas meant the West might witness any catastrophe they could otherwise cover up.

If a deep-space craft doesn't need landing gear, retro rockets, wings, or all the other stuff we could add to make landings more photogenic, why add it?

As was once said about the Pentagon, the Army generals may ask you to build a tree-climbing tank, but if you build it it will suck at both climbing trees and being a tank.

Oh, so do you want a vanity and a sink, too? Maybe a bidet? Mankind did most of its exploration and expansion way, way before toilets were invented.

Did we stay in Africa because there weren't any porta-johns on the passage to Yemen? No.

Did we stay in the Middle East because there weren't any gas station restrooms on the coast of Southern Asia? No.

Did we give up the idea of sailing to Australia because there weren't toilets on the canoes or rafts the Aboriginals used to get there? No.

Did the Polynesians need toilets on their outriggers? No.

Did the Vikings need toilets on their longboats? No.

Did Christopher Columbus need toilets on the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria? No.

Did Captain Cook need a toilet on the Endeavor? No.

Did Captain Kirk or Captain Picard need a toilet on the Enterprise? No.

We don't need no stinkin' toilets.

I'll send the plumber right over to remove yours.
You do realize in all of those examples (except the fictional one), the people in question could either A) crap over the side or B) dig a hole where they were.

In space, nobody can hear you crap.

Just had to throw that out there.

We went to the moon without having an toilet. They pooped in little baggies. We used to poop in chamber pots, but those just aren't as cool as modern plastic and adhesive technologies. One of my friends had colon cancer and now he has a colostomy bag, which is an even better way to handle things in the proto-poo stage.

Ooooo!!!! I know! Midgets with colostomy bags!

You can slap an SRB to anything, including a Winnebago. All you need is a slide rule and some duct tape.

Really? NASA seems to disagree with you. As I said before, if this were true they wouldn't be gutting Orion everytime you turn around to reduce weight.

I think they're gutting it because they have to chose between

a) Adding another stack to the launch stage and launch tower, and possibly raise the roof on the VAB, which will cost a fortune.

b) Add SRB's, requiring the design of mating collars (which would require redesigning the SRB's for the attachments and certifying them for the increased load), which will take lots of time.

c) Get rid of the toilet, bidet, vanity mirror, electrically operated toilet paper dispenser, infrared sink controller, wet towel hopper, and magazine rack.

 

[sojourner]

My point was that Orion can still come down over land, just that it might be a bit bumpy towards the last bit. Perhaps with onboard GPS it could aim for lakes or ponds.

Seriously though, coming down like an airplane creates an enormous design compromise. It means you have to launch something with big wings, which are heavy and create lots of drag. It makes it expensive to retain aerodynamic stability during launch while keeping the big wings on top of the stack (like a backwards arrow), which leads to putting boosters beside the wings, which leads to wing damage and loss of ship and crew. Been there, done that.

I would advise against optimizing a space ship design around the last three minutes of a mission that occurs far from space when vastly cheaper, lighter, and simpler solutions have been tried and proven.

The Russian solution to use retro-rockets in addition to parachutes (and come down on land) was in large part chosen because they didn't trust us and didn't control the oceans, and freedom of the seas meant the West might witness any catastrophe they could otherwise cover up.

If a deep-space craft doesn't need landing gear, retro rockets, wings, or all the other stuff we could add to make landings more photogenic, why add it?

As was once said about the Pentagon, the Army generals may ask you to build a tree-climbing tank, but if you build it it will suck at both climbing trees and being a tank.

Who said anything about wings, landing gear, and photo ops? The Orion capsule was going to use an airbag system for soft touchdown on land. The whole reason to prefer land touchdown is survivability of the crew once the ship is down. No chance of it sinking with all hands and it eases recovery.

I think they're gutting it because they have to chose between

a) Adding another stack to the launch stage and launch tower, and possibly raise the roof on the VAB, which will cost a fortune.

b) Add SRB's, requiring the design of mating collars (which would require redesigning the SRB's for the attachments and certifying them for the increased load), which will take lots of time.

c) Get rid of the toilet, bidet, vanity mirror, electrically operated toilet paper dispenser, infrared sink controller, wet towel hopper, and magazine rack.

OK, I am just going to stop here and say that you might need to read more about ARES I/Orion. There has never been anything published saying they were considering your A) or B) and your C) is just you taking the piss (so to speak) in regards to one item being removed from Orion that is illustrative of the problems with the program. (and trust me, if you were an astronaut that had to spend 30 days in an Orion capsule, you would be pretty upset over the loss of the toilet)

Oh, and I am and have been very firmly in the "wings on spacecraft are stupid" camp.

 

[gturner]

Who said anything about wings, landing gear, and photo ops? The Orion capsule was going to use an airbag system for soft touchdown on land. The whole reason to prefer land touchdown is survivability of the crew once the ship is down. No chance of it sinking with all hands and it eases recovery.

And airbag system works great - if it deploys and if you don't land on something spikey, land on a giant billboard, a street sign, a grain silo, a tractor, hit the side of a building, hit a helicopter, get runover by a truck, or roll down the side of the Grand Canyon.

We went through this on Gemini designs. They thought that the only way to make land recovery viable was to use a Rogallo wing (the tube and fabric design used by hang gliders) so the pilot could directly determine the landing point. They also added landing gear. Much more thought and calculation followed, and the idea was dropped. It was not resurrected for Apollo, despite the higher prestige and massively increased potential mass of the craft, because if the oceans didn't exist NASA engineers would've invented them just for the weight savings of a spashdown.

I think they're gutting it because they hve to chose between

a) Adding another stack to the launch stage and launch tower, and possibly raise the roof on the VAB, which will cost a fortune.

b) Add SRB's, requiring the design of mating collars (which would require redesigning the SRB's for the attachments and certifying them for the increased load), which will take lots of time.

c) Get rid of the toilet, bidet, vanity mirror, electrically operated toilet paper dispenser, infrared sink controller, wet towel hopper, and magazine rack.

OK, I am just going to stop here and say that you might need to read more about ARES I/Orion. There has never been anything published saying they were considering your A) or B) and your C) is just you taking the piss (so to speak) in regards to one item being removed from Orion that is illustrative of the problems with the program. (and trust me, if you were an astronaut that had to spend 30 days in an Orion capsule, you would be pretty upset over the loss of the toilet)

Oh, and I am and have been very firmly in the "wings on spacecraft are stupid" camp.

Getting back to the previous comment from Squiggy (indirectly), the reason they never published a consideration of A or B is that the funds for Constellation were almost nil. Bush wanted to stay mostly within NASA's existing budget, which precluded expensive side-steps, fundamental booster engineering, or infrastructure changes.

A single solid is simple, and increasing the height of the stack is simple because the SRB wall thickness is far thicker to contain combustion pressures than to resist buckling under payload force, so lengthening a stack is also simple. But at five segments they've maxed out the existing facilities. Increasing the diameter of the segments requires retooling everything, from production, transport, to refurbishment, and adding strap-on segments also requires extensive engineering, the cost of which should be well quantifiable from the Titan IV, Atlas, and Delta programs that underwent the process.

As a side note, the Shuttle program was delayed for two or three years when an engineer asked what dynamic resonance effects lighting the two SRB's would have on the external tank.

With the Orion Ares timeline already leaving a five year gap, as a manager what would you do? Add two or three more years while they certify a Shuttle SRB to be in the middle of an SRB stress sandwich, or tell the team to add the toilet later?

I know what I'd do.

Even so, it was not enough to keep the program from the budget axe.

Perhaps I'm just having trouble taking your toilet argument seriously, but that's because my sh*t don't stink.

 

[sojourner]

The argument isn't about the toilet. It's about the fact that ARES I could not be made to fit the requirements it was initially being built for. Yet instead of doing the sensible thing and switch to Delta or Atlas, Mike Griffin kept pushing everyone to try and make ARES I work. Remember when ARES was first proposed the sell points were "simple, soon, safe". I think we can agree it failed on all 3 of these and wasted lots of money.

 

[John Picard]

Much of the time, but let's be honest. The Space Shuttle touched down on land and usually didn't kill the crew, though, as I should point out, when it did many of the parts could still have been recycled. In fact, it's much easier to recycle parts from a spaceship scattered on land than one whose parts you have to find with a mini-sub and scuba divers.

Ya lost me, as we were arguing that Orion had lost that capability, the shuttle obviously has not. I am not sure what your point here is anymore?

My point was that Orion can still come down over land, just that it might be a bit bumpy towards the last bit. Perhaps with onboard GPS it could aim for lakes or ponds.

Seriously though, coming down like an airplane creates an enormous design compromise. It means you have to launch something with big wings, which are heavy and create lots of drag. It makes it expensive to retain aerodynamic stability during launch while keeping the big wings on top of the stack (like a backwards arrow), which leads to putting boosters beside the wings, which leads to wing damage and loss of ship and crew. Been there, done that.

I would advise against optimizing a space ship design around the last three minutes of a mission that occurs far from space when vastly cheaper, lighter, and simpler solutions have been tried and proven.

The Russian solution to use retro-rockets in addition to parachutes (and come down on land) was in large part chosen because they didn't trust us and didn't control the oceans, and freedom of the seas meant the West might witness any catastrophe they could otherwise cover up.

If a deep-space craft doesn't need landing gear, retro rockets, wings, or all the other stuff we could add to make landings more photogenic, why add it?

As was once said about the Pentagon, the Army generals may ask you to build a tree-climbing tank, but if you build it it will suck at both climbing trees and being a tank.




In space, nobody can hear you crap.

Just had to throw that out there.

We went to the moon without having an toilet. They pooped in little baggies. We used to poop in chamber pots, but those just aren't as cool as modern plastic and adhesive technologies. One of my friends had colon cancer and now he has a colostomy bag, which is an even better way to handle things in the proto-poo stage.

Ooooo!!!! I know! Midgets with colostomy bags!

You can slap an SRB to anything, including a Winnebago. All you need is a slide rule and some duct tape.

Really? NASA seems to disagree with you. As I said before, if this were true they wouldn't be gutting Orion everytime you turn around to reduce weight.

I think they're gutting it because they have to chose between

a) Adding another stack to the launch stage and launch tower, and possibly raise the roof on the VAB, which will cost a fortune.

b) Add SRB's, requiring the design of mating collars (which would require redesigning the SRB's for the attachments and certifying them for the increased load), which will take lots of time.

c) Get rid of the toilet, bidet, vanity mirror, electrically operated toilet paper dispenser, infrared sink controller, wet towel hopper, and magazine rack.

I honestly don't understand why anyone bothers to try and reason with you. You don't know what you're talking about, but then, I guess people here like your train-wreck style posts: no one wants to read them, yet they can't turn away.

 

[gturner]

I honestly don't understand why anyone bothers to try and reason with you. You don't know what you're talking about, but then, I guess people here like your train-wreck style posts: no one wants to read them, yet they can't turn away.

Hey, your avatar is "Everyone poops". Of course you'll be firmly in the poopy camp.

 

[gturner]

The argument isn't about the toilet. It's about the fact that ARES I could not be made to fit the requirements it was initially being built for. Yet instead of doing the sensible thing and switch to Delta or Atlas, Mike Griffin kept pushing everyone to try and make ARES I work. Remember when ARES was first proposed the sell points were "simple, soon, safe". I think we can agree it failed on all 3 of these and wasted lots of money.

But the ARES I first stage is already done. It's been flight tested and performed as expected, and did so within 2 1/2 years of the contract being awarded. NASA switched from a four stack to a five stack engine when the upper stage switched from an SSME to a J-2, which only has about 75% as much thrust as a space shuttle main engine. The SSME costs twice as much as a J-2 and would have to be heavily modified to air-start and restart in a vacuum.

Certainly there are some drawbacks to riding up on a bottle rocket, such as the Air Force calculation of a 100% fatality rate for failures during part of the launch phase, but that just makes each launch exciting.

The Delta IV lauch proposal has its own drawbacks, such as having to award the astronauts astronomical amounts of frequent flyer miles on Delta Airlines due to a trademark issue, and nobody has ridden up on an Atlas since Gordo Cooper.

 

[Lindley]

But the ARES I first stage is already done. It's been flight tested and performed as expected, and did so within 2 1/2 years of the contract being awarded.

Ares 1-X was a proof of concept intended to test certain key subsystems using hardware similar to an Ares 1 in key ways, but very different in other ways. I'm not sure that's enough to call it "done".

 

[gturner]

But the ARES I first stage is already done. It's been flight tested and performed as expected, and did so within 2 1/2 years of the contract being awarded.

Ares 1-X was a proof of concept intended to test certain key subsystems using hardware similar to an Ares 1 in key ways, but very different in other ways. I'm not sure that's enough to call it "done".

Oh, I'd call it done with a capital 'D'.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, like Lindley said, ARES I-x actually shared no flight hardware with ARES I. And Like Gturner said, ARES I is Done with a capital "D" as in Dead.

 

[Lindley]

Well, now, yeah.

 

[gturner]

As a next step I'd suggest we green light both the Delta IV and Atlas V proposals. That way there are two competing launch systems with similar capabilities, giving us two 'teams' in the game and avoiding multi-year downtimes because of any unresolved issue with one of them, as happened twice during the Shuttle program.

 

[sojourner]

So Gturner, are you a SpaceX fan or hater? I think they have potential if they can last long enough to not go broke.

 

[gturner]

I love SpaceX, especially because they aren't saddled with the massive managerial overhead of the big players.

ETA: I also think one of the big design problems with Orion is that we're trying to make one craft for two very different missions. The most common mission is still going to be LEO deliveries to the space station, which requires little more than Soyuz capability and would be ideal for the SpaceX Dragon or a similar craft, able to deliver some supplies and three or four people.

The other requirement is for a long-duration lunar type exploration craft. In making one vehicle fill both roles it means massive overkill on the LEO missions, which I think is a major reason for the cost overruns. An engineer with a clean sheet of paper working on a vehicle design for six people in deep space is going to add lots of gold plating to cover everything they might need or want.

Looking at it historically, we want a mega-Apollo lunar craft, far more capable than the original (Cadillac Apollo), and we also want an Apollo/Skylab, Apollo/Soyuz Saturn IB type craft (Buick Skylark Apollo). Last time we used the same Apollo CSM for both missions, just because it already existed. NASA was planning on Orion capsules only being re-used for about ten missions (meaning two or two-hundred, based on how good their estimates generally work out) so there's no big reason there should be only one design instead of two. The mating collars, interfaces, and diameter should perhaps be the same on both craft, to maintain commonality for the launch vehicles, but I see no point in pulling our hair out trying to make sure our LEO delivery van for 2014 has a ton or more of deep-space capabilities that won't be used until 2030.