|
Author
|
Topic: Act: Fly shuttle until Orion is ready
|
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 12-22-2007 10:24 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by Max Q:
How about a UNSA (United Nations) be formed to build a unilateral space agency to do it properly for the first time in years.
Not to get into a political discussion but the UN is the wrong agency for anything that required thought, a successful track record or responsible money management.Competition works. Without it complacency sets in and productivity and innovation decrease. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 12-22-2007 10:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MCroft04:
And flying Saturn V's wasn't (inviting disaster)? We need to keep thinking risk vs reward. Had we had the same attitude during Apollo, we would have quit after Apollo 11.
Why would we have quite after Apollo 11? Flying the Saturn never killed 2 crews like flying the shuttle has.If we had the attitude NASA had during Apollo 11 we would have moved far beyond the shuttle into something more. While the shuttle is amazing it has stagnated the manned US space program as other than deliver cargo to ill thought out and executed space station, it has dome little in the last 15 years. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43239
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-22-2007 11:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Flying the Saturn never killed 2 crews like flying the shuttle has.
The shuttle flew just fine the first 13 times it was launched, too. Safety comparisons between the shuttle and Saturn V are flawed based on their widely divergent flight histories. And while some may point to the Saturn V's crew escape system, that could have failed, too. Any way you look at it, when you strap yourself onto a rocket, regardless what shape it is or how many failsafe features it has, you face the real risk of having a bad day. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 12-23-2007 03:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Safety comparisons between the shuttle and Saturn V are flawed based on their widely divergent flight histories. And while some may point to the Saturn V's crew escape system, that could have failed, too.
Keep in mind the escape system for the Saturn V wasn't some slapped-together affair that had a high probability of failure. It was a carefully designed system that was thoroughly tested in numerous flight situations. The odds of both the Saturn V lower stage and the escape system failing on the same flight were fairly low. In contrast, what options for escape were available on the shuttle when the SRBs were lit and attached? The options for escape don't even appear until the shuttle has passed the most risky parts of the launch phase (ignition, liftoff, tower clearance, max q). While you can't necessarily compare their safety based on their flight history records, you certainly can compare their safety based on their designs. But for fun, let's do this little exercise. Let's say the shuttle has a 1% launch failure rate (which appears to backed up by its flight history). Then, to be conservative, let's say that the Saturn V booster has a 5% failure rate and the launch escape system has a 5% failure rate...numbers that are well outside the likely probability for that design. For both the Saturn booster and the launch escape system to fail on the same flight, you're looking at an combined failure rate of once in every 400 flights...or a 0.25% total failure rate...four times better than the shuttle. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 12-23-2007 04:04 AM
Actually, Apollo Saturn did kill one crew, Apollo 1 and it happened before the thing even got off the ground. Okay, so you say that was a failure with the Apollo spacecraft, not the Saturn booster right? Well, Shuttle is the booster and the spacecraft also (the spacecraft being the orbiter). So one should consider Saturn as Apollo Saturn when making comparisons to the Shuttle launch vehicle for the sake of things being equal. Since Saturn was also mentioned and not Saturn V, one could group the Saturn 1B into the listing since both launch vehicles had common components and one evolved from the other.I will concede though that Apollo 1's crew was not killed by anything involving the Saturn vehicle itself while with the shuttle program's two missions that involved fatalities, aspects of the launch hardware were the culprits while the orbiter itself performed its job. Compared with the Apollo spacecraft, the orbiter seems to be a better vehicle as it hasn't had an onboard fire (Apollo 1), or an oxygen tank explosion in flight (Apollo 13). Absurd comparison I know, but so is trying to judge the success of Saturn's few launches with no loss of life to that of a shuttle program which has had two failures in well over 100 launches. Statistics hadn't caught up to the Saturn Apollo yet when the two programs ended. There is also some data I've heard that if Saturn V had a worst case failure of the first or second stage, resulting in a sudden uncontrolled combustion of its fuel in a massive fireball, the LES might not have been able to pull the capsule away fast enough from it. But again we are dealing with hypotheticals. |
machbusterman
Member Posts: 1778
From: Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland
Registered: May 2004
|
posted 12-23-2007 11:57 AM
The problem with the Shuttle is it is the b**tard son of the initial design. The Shuttle became too big/heavy/complex simply because the USAF/DOD kept adding additional parameters to its operation. Had NASA gone with the initial lifting-body type of design I think we'd have had many more launches and it would undoubtedly have been cheaper to maintain/operate. Remember the still-born Venture Star Program? That was a HUGE waste of the US taxpayers dollars as that concept was never going to reach the desired cost of $1,000 per pound of payload placed in orbit. The last time I saw some stats the Soyuz was around $2,200 per pound. The Shuttle was $10,000 per pound. The Shuttle is simply too big, too heavy and too inefficient but its what NASA is stuck with at the moment. When it was developed the S-IVB had an operating cost of slightly less than $210 per pound placed in orbit. Maybe if NASA had kept with the Saturn they could've had more Buck Rogers for their bucks!! |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 12-23-2007 07:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by machbusterman:
When it was developed the S-IVB had an operating cost of slightly less than $210 per pound placed in orbit.Maybe if NASA had kept with the Saturn they could've had more Buck Rogers for their bucks!!
But is that $210 per pound in 1960s dollars? If so, then when one factors inflation in, it will probably go up into the thousands as well. The Shuttle and Soyuz costs are more up to date. |
Max Q
Member Posts: 399
From: Whyalla South Australia
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 12-23-2007 08:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MCroft04:
I'd never ignore your opinion; I respect it. But I do like to debte these issues with others and am thankful to cS for allowing us to do it.
Ohh mate I'm so sorry sometimes my sense of humor is funny only to me I never for a moment intended to imply that you would but I didn't read my own post in that vain once again sorry I also love cS. |
Max Q
Member Posts: 399
From: Whyalla South Australia
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 12-24-2007 03:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Not to get into a political discussion but the UN is the wrong agency for anything that required thought, a successful track record or responsible money management.
I understand your meaning, I don't actually mean the UN but an international science body is what I mean. quote:
Competition works. Without it complacency sets in and productivity and innovation decrease.
I also take your point about competition and am aware that it appeals to our baser instincts. But I always take on-board the words from the Apollo era "We came in peace for all mankind". I can't see how competition is conducive to "Peace for all mankind" Competition says we won, you lost. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 12-24-2007 07:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Max Q:
Competition says we won, you lost.
Yes, there are winners and losers. The USSR won with the first man in space, the US won the race to the moon, the USSR won the the first space station, etc, etc, etc.Any sort of international joint effort will simply result in an endless money pit on a watered down set of goals that the American Taxpayer will be expected to pay for. That sort of thinking is what gave us a debacle of an ISS and a program that lacks any sort of goals. |
kosmonavtka
Member Posts: 170
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 12-24-2007 08:53 PM
I like the idea of the UNSA (and the U.N.). Competition is overrated (and some countries/cultures seem obsessed with it *pointed cough*). |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43239
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-24-2007 10:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kosmonavtka:
Competition is overrated...
Interviewing Paolo Nespoli before STS-120, I asked him about the merits of competition vs. cooperation in space, given that his own spaceflight was the result of the latter but that much of the previous 50 years of space exploration was driven forward by the earlier. He responded: quote:
I personally think — no, I know, I know that when I am challenged or put on the spot, or something, I do respond much better than when I am just relaxed and not given an occasion to do something, or I am not put on the spot. So I think when countries like the United States in the 70s, in the 60s actually, were put on the spot and had to show that they have the technical capabilities, the knowledge and the political will to tackle something impossible that somebody else was showing you they could do, I think the country responded very well. So I think there is a merit in pride in somebody pointing at a goal that nobody has done and achieve it. So maybe [that] part of our inner gizzards, the way in which we respond to things, there is a merit there. But I think there is a moment for everything. There is a moment for challenging and a moment for isolating from anybody else and really go for something, and there some other moments when we need to step back and share and do things in a team. So I think the International Space Station is one example, I think it is important that this is done as a cooperative program. I think though that if the United States really had a goal to go to Mars, for example, that is a really important and difficult task, I think they would be ready to respond. Maybe they would do it easily if they were challenged from a technical point of view, a military point of view, I'm pretty sure they would do it. But we don't want to be in war constantly because under war, only the best survive and therefore we go ahead. I think we get tired of always being chased around. So winning isn't everything.
Like Nespoli, I believe there is a time and place for both competition and cooperation. With that in mind, perhaps it is not a United Nations-type organization that we need, but rather something closer to the Olympics, where the world unites to compete with each other. |
Max Q
Member Posts: 399
From: Whyalla South Australia
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 12-25-2007 02:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
...American Taxpayer will be expected to pay for. That sort of thinking is what gave us a debacle of an ISS and a program that lacks any sort of goals.
I don't think the United States tax payer should have to pay for it either. That's not what I am advocating. But if the blinkers are on regarding competition and the US tax payer are silly enough to pay for it then cooperation will never be a serious option. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 12-25-2007 01:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Not to get into a political discussion but the UN is the wrong agency for anything that required thought, a successful track record or responsible money management.
Concur... and individual nations have divergent requirements for space that would not be well represented by having to adjudicate through the UN. One critical shortfall - Operationally Responsive Spacelift, (a capability neither satisfied by the Shuttle or likely to be fulfilled with Ares because of the length of time required to prep the vehicles coupled with their restrictive launch envelopes) is needed for reconstitution of space assets in the event satellites are lost as the result of ASAT attack, solar outburst, payload failure, ect to address the immediate needs of Continuity of Government, DOD requirements, critical civil infrastructure...once developed, priorities associated with use of this capability are predicated on national interests which should never be subordinated to an international organization.------------------
Scott Schneeweis
http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/ |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 12-25-2007 06:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I believe there is a time and place for both competition and cooperation. With that in mind, perhaps it is not a United Nations-type organization that we need, but rather something closer to the Olympics, where the world unites to compete with each other.
Closer to the Olympics? The international organization in which host countries routinely lose billions of dollars (while they take their 5-10% cut) hosting a several week affair for which many new expensive facilities were built? They are as bad as the UN at spending money. Cooperation can only be very limited and selective. |
Max Q
Member Posts: 399
From: Whyalla South Australia
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 12-25-2007 08:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Cooperation can only be very limited and selective.
And there in lies the problem, the USA has been alone in space for so long that it has lost the understanding (if it ever had it) that unifying goals can be found IMO.
|
advertisement