Re: In two years time...

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13ss3dh5hv06vfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Oh really? So Bush's decision to end the shuttle program and begin VSE
were
simply a coincidence after Columbia was destroyed?

Two years after it was destroyed! There's only three problems with the
shuttle: 1: there's only three Orbiters left; 2: the location of the Orbiter
itself - on top of the stack would have been fine for Columbia at least; 3:
using solid boosters - the original liquid design would mean that Challenger
and her crew would still be with us.

Problem (2) is due to a bad design choice (hindsight being what it is).

Problems (1) and (3) are political. Typical. The total development saving,
at the time the decision to use solids instead of liquids was said to be
$600 million - 6% of total (claimed) development costs. It's also cost more
because the cleaning of the solids is highly dangerous and very difficult
work.

Liquids would have been less expensive on launch and would have made the
entire stack lighter at launch - less propellant for a smaller ET. Simply
using liquid boosters, with the Orbiter in its current position would
probably have saved Challenger too.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In two years time...
    ... itself - on top of the stack would have been fine for Columbia at least; ... using solid boosters - the original liquid design would mean that Challenger ... because the cleaning of the solids is highly dangerous and very difficult ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: In two years time...
    ... itself - on top of the stack would have been fine for Columbia at least; ... using solid boosters - the original liquid design would mean that Challenger ... because the cleaning of the solids is highly dangerous and very difficult ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Griffin Wants Inline SDLV and 5 Segment SRB/CEV
    ... >>> That would still have cost more than they had budget for (solids are ... >>> how refurbishable a liquid in that class would be after being dropped ... >>> probably will cost more than the development of the ... >>The record is good for solids, and is consistent with the view reported ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: A very basic question...
    ... A lot of chemistry necessary for life requires liquid solvents. ... Lots of different scientists from lots of different countries stand behind the same claim. ... Most solids are denser than their liquid phase, sink to the bottom and stay there allowing the entire bulk the solidify. ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Griffin Wants Inline SDLV and 5 Segment SRB/CEV
    ... >>> recovered segments, with new grain. ... A liquid would have huge tanks that would ... That doesn't establish an advantage for the solids. ... >>from seawater than the gimballing system on the solid. ...
    (sci.space.policy)