Re: Is public support for manned space programme dead ?

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 05:18:11 GMT, John Crichton <crichton@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

The main problem with
the Shuttle system was the tandem staging of the Shuttle, External Fuel
Tank, and SRBs. It was a terrible idea to have these explosive burning
components attached side by side. No only did it maximize the chance of
something falling off and hitting the crew vehicle, or hot gas getting
in the wrong place and blowing the thing up, but it minimized the
ability to have a viable escape system in place when one of these bad
things happened.

And yet, had management pulled its head out of its ass, both accidents
were completely avoidable... the hardware was warning them of the
danger for months, if not years. The 1986 management did nothing even
with engineers imploring them not to launch. The 2003 management still
didn't believe the danger signs, even with photographic evidence of
Columbia's fatal hit. With this kind of bureaucratic bungling, no type
of launch vehicle will be safe.

I would have liked to have seen a lifting body crew vehicle atop a
sequential stack (like Apollo/Saturn). We would then get the extended
cross range ability of a winged vehicle with a real escape system (a la
Apollo/Saturn escape tower) and nothing could fall off the rocket and
knock holes in the crew vehicle.

Beefing up the vehicle to survive foam impacts of course being
impossible...

I do like the fact that they have separated the crew launch vehicle from
the heavy payload lifter.

Why? How many unmanned cargo haulers exist in any other field? This is
another "wrong lesson learned."

I would have liked to see a lifting body crew
vehicle capable of 5 ~ 7 crew atop a stack derived from EELV components
with a heavy lifter also made from EELV components with perhaps some STS
derived SRBs strapped on.

I'd like to see a new manned spacecraft that doesn't throw away the
expensive service module after every flight. Whether a big capsule,
lifting body, or HL-20 like winged vehicle is only a detail. Throwing
away everything like Apollo (now that water landing is baselined and
reusability essentially dead) is doomed to being economically
unsustainable, I suspect.

Brian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rocket design up in air, says Marshall chief
    ... >'Man Rated' vehicle, the SRBs would have had to be LRBs. ... abort or launch failure cases. ... engine failures ranging from one to all engines, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: NASA goes with RS-68
    ... Has anyone else noticed that a CaLV core with five RS-68s ... would be able to lift itself without SRBs? ... Such a vehicle, ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Ares 1 booster vibration problems
    ... attach points to the stack rigidize the SRBs. ... The Shaft is really an ... all-new vehicle at this point, ... design problems by attempting to use existing elements, ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: NASA goes with RS-68
    ... would be able to lift itself without SRBs? ... Such a vehicle, ... topped by an EDS-class upper stage, ... somewhere around 50 tonnes into low earth ...
    (sci.space.history)