Believe it or not, there are people that are smarter than you.. they're called engineers, and I'm sure they can figure something out.
I always wonder about the people who say engineers were worried / there were telltale signs. How often do engineers complain? Every other flight? Only before columbia / challenger? That is some important information. And for telltale signs... how often are these same signs present and nothing happens? (For this one we have to look at commercial airliners to get more samples).
Recently some plane crashed probably due to elevator problems that were noted on the previous 9 flights. Do other planes ahve these same things noted, but not acted upon?
Recently some plane crashed probably due to elevator problems that were noted on the previous 9 flights. Do other planes ahve these same things noted, but not acted upon?
it's not easy to design an ejection mechanism that keeps people alive at mach 18 and you all made it sound so easy. Shuttles have parachutes, why don't they jump out at mach 18 when something is wrong
.they didn't implement an ejection mechanism because it's too hard to achieve/too expensive. I don't recall the newer design (which was rejected by NASA in 2001 i believe) have an ejection mechanism.
Somehow, I am more impressed with what
Honda can do for a mere $20,000 than
what NASA can do with $4,000,000,000
Honda can do for a mere $20,000 than
what NASA can do with $4,000,000,000
I am willing to see what a next-gen NASA space shuttle would have over the older ones. If you gave engineers a chance to design a new one with newer lighter alloys, and more sophisticated naviagation systems, etc. etc. I am sure it would be awesome...
OS
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 15,581
- 1
- 76
Eject.
Notice I did not say an ejection mechanism would have saved the crew of Columbia. But it probably would have saved the crew of Challenger. Regardless, there is no such thing as an ejection system that guarantees the crew's safety. It simply gives them one more chance.
As for the usability of an ejection mechanism, that's for aerospace engineers to figure out. I will say it's probably more doable today than it was in the 1970s when the space shuttle was designed.
It's not so much that but whatever the original design used is what is used from that point on. They don't upgrade anything even if modern, reliable computers are available.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Bignate603
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 13,897
- 1
- 0
Also, all hondas are produced in quantities of thousands, not 4. They have engineering models of full mock ups, tested in realistic conditions. There is no way to do a real world test on a space shuttle without going all way into space and coming back, where everything needs to work perfectly. There is no "oops, that didn't work, we'll fix that in the production version". You need to be right the first time. You try thinking of EVERYTHING that can go wrong. It's not easy. The fact that in 107 flights we've only had 2 go terribly wrong is a testament to how well they were engineered, how well they were made. We are truthfully the only space program that can operate on it's own. The Russian's program cannot feasibly do squat on it's own.
Well we really don't need the shuttle, a better solution would be using 2 different types of spacecraft. You see, the shuttle acts as a cargo ship, it brings up parts for the ISS as well as satellites. It would be better if we had a crew transport ship and a cargo ship. Soon enough the ISS will be where most of the experiments will be done instead of the shuttle.
Engineers thought of that already, back in the days when a rocket blows up, the crew is *dead*. The shuttle was designed with safety in mind because of that very reason that rockets are more dangerous. The idea is that if the solid boosters or fuel tank malfunction, the shuttle can seperate and land.
Seriously, I don't understand why the space shuttle is "such a complex system" ...
What's the difference between the shuttle and your average fighter jet? Aside from the whole "atmosphere" issue, I'm not sure why the control systems, etc, etc would be *drastically* different than those used to control a plane?
Honest question, I just don't see it.
What's the difference between the shuttle and your average fighter jet? Aside from the whole "atmosphere" issue, I'm not sure why the control systems, etc, etc would be *drastically* different than those used to control a plane?
Honest question, I just don't see it.
From what I understood from my friends at JPL and NASA, it was considered... but also considered essentially unsolvable. Shuttle failures on launch and re-entry are essentiall catastrophic... there is just too much energy being dissipated. On launch, they can't just cut the engines (it would fall like a rock)... and on re-entry, the thermal loads are immense. And the speed of ejection would be very difficult to deal with--remember, we didn't have ejection mechanisms on the SR71.... because ejecting at just Mach 3 at 100,000 feet proved to be, well, fatal for the few test cases they tried.
And if they get INTO space, they can just sit there... another shuttle can be launched, and the crew can be retrieved.... leaving it floating for repairs later.
Of course, there is another problem with ejection--you have to include the weight. And that's a BIG issue. Believe it or not, on take-off, the space shuttle is roughtly 80% fuel and 20% other (structure, crew, avionics, EVERYTHING else). And from what I understand, at take off weight, one extra pound of cargo demands 7 extra pounds of fuel (its not a linear relationship). So, when the shuttle was designed we were using our latest technology in propulsion, materials science (which is one of the BIG problems), and avionics... we didn't have "spare weight" to waste.
The X33/Venture-Star was going to be a SSTO (single stage to orbit vehicle) with a 10% structure requirement (90% fuel). But NASA's budget cuts and continual technical difficulties (most specifically, the enormous composite cryogenic fuel tanks) caused its cancellation. If I recall, we were originally planned (back in the 70s) to have the second-generation shuttle by 2000.
A plane is a stable airframe. Barring any sort of pilot error or catostrophic failure, it will fly. A shuttle, like a helicopter, is not a stable airframe.
And helicopters don't go mach 17
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
NASA has advance us (technology wise) farther than any other program/company in history. Without NASA, we would not have anywhere near the technology we have today. I saw an article on MSNBC a few weeks ago about the technology that has risen because of NASA and there are some pretty common items. Anyone who thinks NASA, or the space program in general is a waste is very short sighted. People, for some reason, think that all they do is go into space, waste a few million bucks, and come back down. In actuality, they are responsible for satalites (where would we be w/o them!), advances in aero-technology, lots of physics data, etc... The space program has probably been the best investment we have ever made.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
Yes, the shuttle can go tons faster than any fighter jet AND you can walk around in/live in the space shuttle. There are many differences. It's like comparing a car to a moped(sp?). They both use wheels that roll to move, they both use engines, but they are VERY different.
OS
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 15,581
- 1
- 76
Apparently, atleast one other engineer within NASA believes an ejection system can be done.
I don't buy weight as a reason for not having an ejection capsule. According to this page, the cargo capacity of the shuttle is 63K lbs.
Now here, the weight of the apollo command module is 11K lbs. Something like the command module is what I'd consider to be a bare minimum for an ejectable module, carrying it's own heatshield.
I still don't believe it cannot be done today, given enough effort.
Right.
I think many people fail to realize how much energy has to be disspiated to land the shuttle. As someone mentioned, 9 tons of fuel burned every second to push this thing up into space... that energy doesn't disappear, when they come back from orbit, a lot of the energy is still there. It takes some very sophisticated systems to dissipate these kinds of energy, planes quite simply do not have to deal with this to anywhere near the same extent
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 392
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter