Re: should space shuttle be cancelled?

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 15:20:43 +0200, "Henk Boonsma"
<hboonsma@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I believe that once the Shuttle has retired, the people will start voicing
>their REAL objections to the vehicle. Too many people at NASA and the
>contractors are earning their bread and butter with it so for now you won't
>hear them.

Certainly.

>But the fact remains that the Shuttle is *fundamentally flawed* in many
>ways, both in concept and design.

I do not believe that. The only real flaw I see in the Shuttle system
is in having no crew escape system. All the other problems with the
Shuttle are simply technology not meeting Shuttle requirements.

So the tiles and wing edges are very fragile. On the other hand had
they been as hard as carbon nanotubes, then they would pose no safety
concern, or even need any servicing.

Apart from the lack of a crew escape system, then the Shuttle design
seems great for their "space truck". Okay, so I would also say that
the original SRB design was flawed as well. However, the problem with
the Shuttle ever since is that the technology does not yet exist to
make it work like it should do.

Instead they are pushing their requirements too far, where as a result
the Shuttle is indeed very fragile.

>It functions well as long as nothing goes
>wrong but it's WAY too fragile to withstand the rigours of launch and
>reentry (and operation in outer space probably too).

True, So one day in the future when they have solved all these
technology problems, which currently make the Shuttle weak, then so
can they really do a Shuttle #2 design... if desired.

>I guess NASA is just counting its blessings so far (including the current
>mission).

The Shuttle has a rather high kill rate. The solution is just to
accept that the Shuttle can kill.

>The only nice
>thing about it is the huge living space inside it (compared to the cramped
>capsules of the Apollo era and of the upcoming CEV)

Astronauts, who have been on the Russian system, say that their more
cramped conditions are actually more comfortable. So it is not about
lots of space, but a good seat and good leg room.

The problem with the Shuttle is that the seats are in the wrong
position for both launch and reentry. The old Buck Rogers syndrome
strikes again, when ideally the whole cockpit should have been able to
swivel around.

So I am sure that these astronauts will enjoy being launched in the
CEV.

>and the large cargo hold.

The only problem with their cargo hold is that all this required
structure is what creates the requirement that makes the Shuttle weak.

>It's a great space 'truck' but not for much use for anything else.

Too much mass to be efficient.

>Expendable rockets could do its job a lot cheaper, albeit with somewhat less
>flexibillity.

True. And in many cases you do not have to care if your cargo goes
bang, when you can simply replace it. So that removes the need for
human launch safety requirements.

>The US has already lost 14 astronauts to this wretched vehicle so far, with
>a reasonable chance for more if the problems with it aren't adressed soon
>(and that's not just the foam problem either).

The Shuttle will never be safe any time soon.

>The sooner they get rid of the thing, the better.

True. However, before they can do that they really do need to get
their CEV up and running. It is no good removing their only space
launch ability, even if it is a flawed weak system.

>It has stuck us in orbit with no apparent goal or
>vision and has sucked up huge amounts of money with relatively little to
>show for it.

Well completing the ISS and serving the Hubble are two worthy goals.

>My guess is that if they can solve the foam problem the Shuttle will fly
>until 2010

That is for sure. If they don't make 2010, then that only means that
they lost another Shuttle and 7 crew.

>but that's a big if since the fundamental flaw is that they're
>not using a double walled tank and they won't replace the ET for just a few
>years of service.

Should you compare the STS-112 and STS-114 launches, then it seems
quite obvious that they have completely replaced the ET.

The issue is not them not being able to do a double walled tank, but a
question of the launch mass involved. As it certainly looks to me that
they removed quite some mass from the ET during this upgrade.

So they could have easily done a double walled tank, and to fix this
problem once and for all, but they do not do so when they simply do
not wish to carry all that extra mass into orbit.

The reason being that with a future Endeavor launch, that this Shuttle
of the least mass, could well break the record on the greatest cargo
mass ever to be launched on a Shuttle.

>I'm also pretty sure that NASA will not want to use duct
>tape to solve the problem (even if it's the reasonable thing to do, as
>suggested by some people in this NG) for fear of the publicity it would
>create.

If it works...

Cardman.
.

Loading