• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Looks like The Titanic killed a few more people

Page 30 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Paratus said:
Definitely would have been a complication to get a shuttle and the required support equipment out there although I’m not too familiar with SLC-6.
Click to expand...

A long list of construction issues and operational safety concerns when they were getting it ready for the Shuttle. Also possibly cursed at the time by a local Native American tribe because it was partially built on a sacred site...which considering its launch history for a good while seems not impossible.
 
K1052 said:
A long list of construction issues and operational safety concerns when they were getting it ready for the Shuttle. Also possibly cursed at the time by a local Native American tribe because it was partially built on a sacred site...which considering its launch history for a good while seems not impossible.
Click to expand...
1748628009116.jpeg
Oh you down’t wanna launch from thair. Sometimes scrubbed is bettah.
 
hal2kilo said:
The DC-X was in development but it fell over after landing ONCE, and they cancelled the project. Guess why, because something else was sucking up all of NASA's budget.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, the public really wanted to go back to space and trying to include full propulsive landing for boosters would have almost meant starting over with a whole new vehicle. You're probably pushing it back to late 80s at least at that point.

And I always thought the on-the-fly calculations required just weren't possible with the computing power available at the time, but I guess that wasn't the major issue.
 
K1052 said:
A long list of construction issues and operational safety concerns when they were getting it ready for the Shuttle. Also possibly cursed at the time by a local Native American tribe because it was partially built on a sacred site...which considering its launch history for a good while seems not impossible.
Click to expand...

The Launch Control center was about a 1/4 mile from the pad. Very compact site for launching something as big as the Shuttle.

SpaceX has been granted a lease for SLC-6 and they are going to take it over for F9 and FH launches.
 
dainthomas said:
Well to be fair, the public really wanted to go back to space and trying to include full propulsive landing for boosters would have almost meant starting over with a whole new vehicle. You're probably pushing it back to late 80s at least at that point.

And I always thought the on-the-fly calculations required just weren't possible with the computing power available at the time, but I guess that wasn't the major issue.
Click to expand...
Yea, the microprocessor was just starting to become an option, an culture was still stuck of custom design by defense contractors.
 
Paratus said:
The USAF was trying to use the shuttle for heavy lift DOD payloads and the shuttle was supposed to be reusable enough to have a quick turn around before launching again.

One design requirement for the shuttle was a US Air Force requirement to have a cross range capability to take off from Vandenberg, deploy a USAF satellite in a polar orbit, and then land an orbit later.

Since the Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator that means for the Shuttle to land near Vandenberg it needed enough glide capability to cover the 1000+ miles the Earth had rotated in the single orbit it was up there.

That meant it needed large wings which required a more complicated thermal protections system and more surface area susceptible to foam shedding off the external tank.

The Shuttle never used this capability as it was never able to meet the launch cadence they wanted. After Challenger the Airforce eventually moved back to using expendable launchers for all payloads.

The push for high flight cadence and large cross range capability led directly to design and programmatic decisions that led to Challenger and Columbia.
Click to expand...
And ironically if they had gone the SpaceX route they could have had a high flight cadence and a large cross range capability because it's a giant stainless steel bus that costs pennies compared to launching an airplane into space. Even before reusability enters the equation.
 
I worked in a machine shop In the mid-80s and we had a part of the nose gear ( scissor linkage) from the shuttle in our MRB cage, Way up on the top shelf. It's probably still there.
We were a sub for Cleveland Pneumatic who did a lot of landing year for Boeing and the Shuttle, among other things.
 
I've always wanted to drop things off heavy lifters. It should pencil out for smaller payloads. The midpoint of the atmosphere by mass is about 18000 feet. If you can get above 60% of the soup with 500 knots on, that's a pretty good head start.
 
Paratus said:
The USAF was trying to use the shuttle for heavy lift DOD payloads and the shuttle was supposed to be reusable enough to have a quick turn around before launching again.

One design requirement for the shuttle was a US Air Force requirement to have a cross range capability to take off from Vandenberg, deploy a USAF satellite in a polar orbit, and then land an orbit later.

Since the Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator that means for the Shuttle to land near Vandenberg it needed enough glide capability to cover the 1000+ miles the Earth had rotated in the single orbit it was up there.

That meant it needed large wings which required a more complicated thermal protections system and more surface area susceptible to foam shedding off the external tank.

The Shuttle never used this capability as it was never able to meet the launch cadence they wanted. After Challenger the Airforce eventually moved back to using expendable launchers for all payloads.

The push for high flight cadence and large cross range capability led directly to design and programmatic decisions that led to Challenger and Columbia.
Click to expand...
So essentially conflicting design requirements and expecting too much out of a single platform?

F-35 says hi

I wonder if/when we will ever learn our lesson
 
There's a new documentary on netflix or maybe you can find it elsewhere called:

Titan: The OceanGate Submersible Disaster


45 mins in.. Rush tests a miniature model of the submersible (25% to scale) and guess what happens.. it pops at the exact same pressure the real thing did.

Like holy fucking shit dude.. did you ignore your own pressure tests??
 
Indus said:
There's a new documentary on netflix or maybe you can find it elsewhere called:

Titan: The OceanGate Submersible Disaster


45 mins in.. Rush tests a miniature model of the submersible (25% to scale) and guess what happens.. it pops at the exact same pressure the real thing did.

Like holy fucking shit dude.. did you ignore your own pressure tests??
Click to expand...
That and ignoring the proven predictive nature of the system they designed to monitor the hull for filament breakage by sound from those same tests.
 
brycejones said:
That and ignoring the proven predictive nature of the system they designed to monitor the hull for filament breakage by sound from those same tests.
Click to expand...

I watched the entire doc (finishing it this morning)

They built 2 submersibles that could go down to the Titanic.

2019 built 1st submersible.. worked a few times..

2020 they noticed a crack running along the entire length. And they opened it up and saw the crack had penetrated 3 inches of the 5 inch hull depth.

2021 during covid.. built 2nd submserisble

2022 2nd submersible went down to titanic but in order to cut costs.. it was not inspected for cracks.. even though the accoustic monitoring system detected a very large crack.

Rush said to the accoustic monitoring engineer.. if you're not going to okay the sub ready for diving.. one of us needs to go and it won't be me. Even the female pilot then left as she didn't feel it was safe without testing and Rush didn't want to "test it without people" before hand.

Spring 2023 bad weather.. all dives called off for spring..

then next dive in summer 2023 .. IMPLOSION!
 
Lost_in_the_HTTP said:
Somebody should sue him.

Serving the papers might be a problem though.
Click to expand...

Another part of the doc.. he originally hired a submersible pilot who was fired because he had safety concerns and didn't want to get in the sub.

The pilot submitted an OSHA complaint and he was sued by Rush and it was costing him so much.. he withdrew the complaint.

Rush then said to all employees.. I have no problems spending money to ruin someone's life if they talk shit about me.. or I'll just use that money to buy a Congressman instead of obey the laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top