Re: In two years time...

On Mar 5, 10:07 am, behlin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 5, 9:07 am, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 4, 11:28�pm, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deletet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews: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.

the original design had launch boost escape too, all that remained of
that was the strong crew area, thats why it survived breakup. it was
originally supposed to be a pod, with parachute.

probably both crews would still be with us today

if the shuttle were liquid with launch boost escape it could of been
modernized elminating the hydrazine, and cut operating costs, to
continue flying........

if if if

If the Hindenberg didn't use hydrogen there.....
If the Titanic used water tight doors....
if the- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

never the less building a manned capsule with solids and no launch
boost escape? all to save a few bucks?

that was pure insanity on nasas part
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In two years time...
    ... 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: In two years time...
    ... using solid boosters - the original liquid design would mean that Challenger ... because the cleaning of the solids is highly dangerous and very difficult ... Liquids would have been less expensive on launch and would have made the ... entire stack lighter at launch - less propellant for a smaller ET. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: OVER-Ged Bumpy ride in Soyuz?
    ... complex aerodynamics of the stack, especially at lower altitudes? ... Do other solid fueled vehicles such Ariane 5, ... or Titan III (which lifted off on solids only) ...
    (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)