If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
But, I dispute NASA that the Shuttle is the most complex machine ever built. I still say the mighty Saturn V was more complex. Take the Saturn Vs for Apollo 15, 16 and 17 as an example. As it sat before launch, it had the means to escape earth's gravity, the means to travel to and land on the moon, the means to travel on the moon's surface, the means to escape the moon's gravity, a separate module that orbited the moon, and the means to travel back to earth and reentered the atmosphere, safely returning it's occupants. That's a complex mission especially in the time of slide rulers and smart Germans.
Smart Germans is right (I'm currently reading Von Braun's book about a Mars mission. He wrote it in 1949 and had the whole thing planned out back then. Amazing.).
Anyways, I look at the complexity issue differently. I DO believe the Shuttle is the more complex vehicle, but the Saturn V flew a far more complex MISSION on a simpler design. That pretty much makes the Saturn the superior vehicle, but it never landed like a deadstick Rare Bear, which is what makes the Shuttle so bleepety-bleep cool!!!
_________
-Matt
Red Bull has no earthly idea what "air racing" is.
Smart Germans is right (I'm currently reading Von Braun's book about a Mars mission. He wrote it in 1949 and had the whole thing planned out back then. Amazing.).
Anyways, I look at the complexity issue differently. I DO believe the Shuttle is the more complex vehicle, but the Saturn V flew a far more complex MISSION on a simpler design. That pretty much makes the Saturn the superior vehicle, but it never landed like a deadstick Rare Bear, which is what makes the Shuttle so bleepety-bleep cool!!!
Understood, but can you tell me what the advantage is for the Shuttle to land like a plane (coke machine with wings)? The one great thing that I see is the ability to recover satellites and bring them back for repair/analysis, etc. The capsule is much simpler but far less dramatic.
Now, I like the shuttle and it has served us very well. The Russians obviously went back to the capsule after their Buran fun (what a waste). I guess it is a matter of opinion and then, we both are right. Although the slap down/blown tire speak in the CAIB was a little disconcerting.
The main selling point of a flying Shuttle was suppose to be it's ability to return satellites for recovery or repair/re-use. This neglected the fact that most satellites that could have made use of this feature sit in orbits well out of range of the shuttle. And since Challenger they really limite what the bird was allowed to carry.
The other selling point of cheaper flights due to dozens of flights per year never happened. The machine is just too complicated and fragile to get it ready to fly again that quickly without drastically sacrificing safety.
But they do have their advantages. It will be a shame to see the Shuttles go, especially when we have no equally capable spacecraft to replace it.
NASA should develop Orion for crew transfers of course, but also keep a pair of the shuttles active for cargo, recovery and special duty use. Just put ejection seats back in the shuttle for 2 crew members and stop using them as oversized passenger transports with 6-7 life-threatened passengers who cannot eject in an emergency.
I'd love to see them use one to bring the Hubble Telescope back for the Smithsonian when it's lifespan is finally up, instead of just letting it burn up in the atmosphere. That mega-digital-camera (with one hell of a zoom lense) has done so much for us that it deserves to be preserved rather than destroyed.
NASA should develop Orion for crew transfers of course, but also keep a pair of the shuttles active for cargo, recovery and special duty use. Just put ejection seats back in the shuttle for 2 crew members and stop using them as oversized passenger transports with 6-7 life-threatened passengers who cannot eject in an emergency.
I couldn't agree with this more. I know it'd be expensive, but it's such a logical thing to do, given the inevitable prospect of delays or teething problems with ares/orion. It almost seems as if they've "finally" gotten the bugs worked out of the STS; kind of a shame to put it to bed so quickly if it may be of use.
_________
-Matt
Red Bull has no earthly idea what "air racing" is.
There's a book out there "The Rocket Men" that gives a little history on some of the key personalities but is a great history of Von Braun and his contempories before, during and after the war. The history of their rocket developments, their retrieval and exodus to the U.S. and the early development here. A lot of book (over 3" thick...) but great reading.
For those interested, the following link will take you to the NASA Skywatch site where you can check for orbital sighting opportunities in your area. Last time I checked, the shuttle was scheduled to undock from the ISS on Thursday giving some mere earthlings the rare opportunity to see the shuttle and ISS "fly" in formation.
Comment