STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-13 21:45:02

The Space Transportation System holds the title for THE most complex engineered system ever devised by the hand of man... it is so complex, that no single person can truely understand it all.

Such a machine will never have remotely perfect conditions, and if NASA intends to fly the thing into space another dozen times, then they are going to have to accept this fact. Someone will always be able to come up with "something scarry" about Shuttle I imagine.

Vir Stellae · 2005-07-14 07:35:52

%$#@ing useless shuttle.... :angry:

Palomar · 2005-07-14 07:56:57

*So, just out of curiosity, approximately how much money is lost in these postponements? Ferrying the shuttle to the launch pad, fueling it, crew preparations, etc.?

Any guesstimates?

Also, will they have to DE-fuel, then re-fuel again?

Haven't seen these particulars discussed in articles I've been reading, so am asking...

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-14 08:46:22

Cost? The Shuttle engineers pretty much draw a sallery if the thing flies or not (one of the greatest problems with the whole enterprise). I don't know the cost of the all the logistical preperations, but the majority cost is still the Shuttle Army, which doesn't change... unless you count overtime hours to try and fix the thing before the July launch window closes.

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-14 11:36:59

Hey, at least they're getting a salery and no overtime!

And if they are getting overtime, they shouldn't be.

Palomar · 2005-07-14 12:38:20

Hey, at least they're getting a salery and no overtime!
And if they are getting overtime, they shouldn't be.

*Oh for the days when a NASA vehicle could get struck by lightning and still carry 3 people safely to the Moon. Yeah, I know Apollo had its mishaps too...but it seems like glory days gone by.

But the probes and rovers/robots are spectacular. Thank goodness on that account.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-14 15:00:03

If there's one thing NASA/JPL are good at, it's sending probes into space. There are stats on sending probes to Mars, something like 1/3rd don't make it, but when you look at the stats, NASA has made the majority of them. It's really wonderful to see what they do with the probes. Having watched both of the rover missions, the Cassini mission, AND the Deep Impact mission, all live, I am happy that NASA/JPL are on the job in that regard.

The Space Shuttle is just outdated, SDV will hopefully change all that.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-14 17:38:40

The problem with Shuttle isn't its age, and infact the problem with Shuttle is that its basic design is inherintly, irreperably flawed.

It was designed to make everybody happy...

-The USAF for heavy spy satelites, space weapons, and surruptitious action against the Soviets (steal Russian spy satelite)

-Congress happy, since their states would be picking up a steady supply of money forever (even if it hurt the program)

-NASA public relations happy, to see the space program "progressing tward the average man" with cheap weekly launches

-NASA brass happy, since their engineers would be picking up a steady supply of money forever, who also lied about how difficult such a vehicle would be to develop to secure funding

-Gov't accountants & Nixon, who wanted Shuttle to be developed on the cheap, for about half or a third what a REAL shuttle would cost... it wound up costing double anyway

When you put all these things together, the Shuttle design couldn't possibly do all of them, so what we wound up with was a vehicle that didn't do anything it was advertised to do, except keep NASA engineers employed and Congress happy.

Rxke · 2005-07-15 02:47:14

And, for a re-usable vehicle it's horrible re: servicing.
You'd think there was some forethought, like: "this is going to b launched, hence serviced a lot, let's build it so servicing is as simple as possible"

But no, It's like if you want to change a tyre, you have to dismantle te seats first, sometimes...

I know I sound like a broken record, but they should've only built Columbia, test it for some years, then build Colombia Mk II, with some minor adjustments; test/use... ... Mk II etc.

Mk V would still be seriously flawed, but it wouln't have been a complete disaster...

SpaceNut · 2005-07-15 04:59:41

Or how about making it so that all parts need less servicing, allowing for a quicker turn around after each use.

Rxke · 2005-07-15 05:15:37

Well, that would gradually be implemented in Mk II, II , etc...
Upgrade as you go, so to say... I guess a lot of the servicability-issues only reared their ugly heads *after* the shuttles were in service for awhile... Ouch.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-15 07:22:34

No no! You do not fully understand... have you been reading Space Island Group glossies or something? The whole strategy of the Shuttle design is flawed, the whole concept of the vehicle is all wrong! Its not just its basic shape, which is itself all terribly wrong, its the way the designers were thinking when Shuttle was on the drawing board. The basic design, the shape and configuration of Shuttle, cannot be remedied no matter how much you upgrade it, it is by all measures and in all senses of the term a bad design! No upgrade of Shuttle would cause it to no longer be a horrible design!

"guess a lot of the servicability-issues only reared their ugly heads *after* the shuttles were in service for awhile..."

Early in the program though, the NASA Brass had to know what kind of a debacle Shuttle would turn out to be, and thats all there is to it. The flimsy heat shield that can't be improved, no escape option at all if you have to abort, early model engines exploding, lousy low-speed aerodynamics, and best of all you have to launch an 80MT airplane to lift ~25MT of cargo! NASA knew, but making Shuttle a good vehicle was never the intent, and was even undesireable... if the thing was a nightmare to operate, then you could employ literally tens of thousands of engineers to operate it (and its progeny, the space station), the true goal of Shuttle, as far as NASA was concerned.

BWhite · 2005-07-15 07:53:19

Prior to watching the John Glenn shuttle launch in person (and thereafter buying Case for Mars at the Kennedy gift shop) I had almost zero interest in the space program.

Thereafter I started reading everything I could as fast as I could.

Anyway, my very first internet post about space was to draw an analogy about the shuttle orbiter. I said using orbiter was like using a minivan to move, while living in San Francisco.

Park the minivan at the bottom of a hill, by your old apartment. Fill with furniture. Then, gather 12 strong men to push it up the hill.

Unload the furniture, turn on the engine and drive back down for another load.

Not quite exactly accurate, but its still close, IMHO. :;):

= = =

Send up as little dead weight (dry mass) as possible. Only bring back that which is essential to bring back.

SpaceNut · 2005-07-15 08:04:52

From NasaWatch:
Insight into Low Flow Sensor Anomaly

Note from someone@Nasa.gov: "The level sensor itself is a platinum wire. The wet/dry situation is a measure of resistance. After the tank was drained, one sensor showed wet but 3 hours later showed dry. In a later test the sensor again disagreed with the others but 5 minutes later agreed. Current thinking is that the vast time difference in the reading returning to nominal indicates that this is a mechanical problem where vibration (wind gusts, etc.) that can produce instant effects would be causal, rather than electrical where environmental (temperature, humidity) changes that are slow to build and slow to dissipate would be the culprit."

Then our tax payer dollars at work for the cancelled flight was to the tone of $73,000.
Congress Takes Costly Trip to See Shuttle

Then to answer the question on what the delayed flight cost for that day:
NASA said the launch scrub cost the space agency an estimated $616,000 in fuel and labor.

Palomar · 2005-07-15 08:36:09

Then our tax payer dollars at work for the cancelled flight was to the tone of $73,000.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/2005071 … l]Congress Takes Costly Trip to See Shuttle
Then to answer the question on what the delayed flight cost for that day:
NASA said the launch scrub cost the space agency an estimated $616,000 in fuel and labor.

The Air Force flew 35 lawmakers to Florida on Wednesday in two C40B aircraft, the equivalent of a 737-700 business jet. The cost, based on an hourly rate of $7,960, totaled $63,680, the service said. The round trip is about four hours.
NASA ferried nine House members in a smaller executive jet, similar to the type used by corporate executives. The space agency said the cost of that plane was $9,456.

*Oh well, guess this little mouse better keep spinning on her wheel so the Big Cheeses can have their perks. They're so elite and entitled after all. Which boot do I lick first? :angry:

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-15 11:46:49

The thing is, they don't say if the lawmakers paid for it out of their own pocket or not. 35 people at $64k is 'only' $1800 or so. Quite affordable for the lawmakers, and quite politically smart for those involved in the programs. If it's their own spending money I don't see anything terribly wrong with it.

Palomar · 2005-07-15 11:54:07

The thing is, they don't say if the lawmakers paid for it out of their own pocket or not. 35 people at $64k is 'only' $1800 or so. Quite affordable for the lawmakers, and quite politically smart for those involved in the programs. If it's their own spending money I don't see anything terribly wrong with it.

*"...The Air Force flew..."

"...NASA ferried..."

Both entities are taxpayer funded.

Unless USAF and NASA are in the business of taking private money for domestic/private flights. Could be, but I've never heard of that...

--Cindy

::EDIT:: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050715/ts_ … CUl]Launch delayed until late next week.

Engineers working through 200 possible scenarios as to what went wrong.

Commodore · 2005-07-15 16:18:24

Hey, anytime we can get the people who control the pursestrings interested in space seems worth it to me.

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-15 16:27:26

Hmm, you're right Cindy, seems they got some general or something to get them there and back, or something, the details really are sticky. If they're basing their rate on commercial entities, it could be inflated. For a military based flight, they should only include fuel costs, the rest being irrelevant.

I think I recall the Army charging for "hops" but I can't really remember to be honest.

Okay, we're going off topic, sorry about that!

Looks like we may have a launch next week. I'll clear my shedule.

Rxke · 2005-07-15 16:29:05

.

Both entities are taxpayer funded.

Errrr...

Were they to pay it out of their "own" pocket, where does that money come from?

Palomar · 2005-07-15 16:39:04

*Maybe there's a communication gap here. But:

1. It's Friday.
2. I've been online for 12 hours now.
3. My brain is nearly fried.
4. The fumes from the welding torch (home repairs) got to me hours ago.

...there's more, will skip it, I can barely see the monitor at this point...

Bigshots in D.C. last thing on my mind right now, or that stupid shuttle.

Back on topic...

--Cindy

clark · 2005-07-15 16:50:52

Looks like we may have a launch next week. I'll clear my shedule.

Oh, those poor, poor women. What ever will they do without you?!

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-16 13:39:15

Heheh. No comment to that, clark. :;):

SpaceNut · 2005-07-16 20:17:49

The external tank was previously tested back in april or may and they had a similar problem. After a short search here is a link.
Shuttle Tank Test Key To First Re-Launch Since Columbia

A valve and a sensor that acts as a fuel gauge failed in tests on April 14,

I believe after a second test Nasa chose to swap out the tank. Only to have the same problem. Seems like somebody is not doing there job in the testing of the parts to be used for the tanks.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-16 22:00:20

I'm not feeling too good about the competance of the Michoud folks anymore (who build the ET)... it was originally their sloppy work that caused the destruction of Columbia, and now their fault that the tank sensors are faulty.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-07-13 21:45:02

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#27 2005-07-14 07:35:52

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#28 2005-07-14 07:56:57

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#29 2005-07-14 08:46:22

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#30 2005-07-14 11:36:59

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#31 2005-07-14 12:38:20

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#32 2005-07-14 15:00:03

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#33 2005-07-14 17:38:40

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#34 2005-07-15 02:47:14

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#35 2005-07-15 04:59:41

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#36 2005-07-15 05:15:37

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#37 2005-07-15 07:22:34

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#38 2005-07-15 07:53:19

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#39 2005-07-15 08:04:52

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#40 2005-07-15 08:36:09

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#41 2005-07-15 11:46:49

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#42 2005-07-15 11:54:07

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#43 2005-07-15 16:18:24

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#44 2005-07-15 16:27:26

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#45 2005-07-15 16:29:05

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#46 2005-07-15 16:39:04

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#47 2005-07-15 16:50:52

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#48 2005-07-16 13:39:15

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#49 2005-07-16 20:17:49

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

#50 2005-07-16 22:00:20

Re: STS-114 Mission Coverage and Discussion

Board footer