The Space Shuttle - Quite complicated!
Discussion
They didn't.
Saturn V - a simple rocket to do a complicated job.
The Space Shuttle - a complicated rocket to do a simple job.
If you really want to truly understand how complex and dangerous the Space Shuttle system was, read "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane. Or the Haynes manual on the Space Shuttle by Dr David Baker - which is very direct in its appraisal of the systems strength and weaknesses.
I would also highly recommend the series of MIT lectures on the Space Shuttle which can be viewed on you tube - all 21 hours of it.
Saturn V - a simple rocket to do a complicated job.
The Space Shuttle - a complicated rocket to do a simple job.
If you really want to truly understand how complex and dangerous the Space Shuttle system was, read "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane. Or the Haynes manual on the Space Shuttle by Dr David Baker - which is very direct in its appraisal of the systems strength and weaknesses.
I would also highly recommend the series of MIT lectures on the Space Shuttle which can be viewed on you tube - all 21 hours of it.
I am a fan of any manned space flight and the Shuttle was a remarkable machine. Bit it failed in virtually every aspect of what it had been expected to do when the design was set in 1972.
It set back American MANNED spaceflight for three decades - and very nearly undid NASA completely. It might very well come to that yet as NASA is currently struggling to maintain its manned programme on highly restricted budgets.
I am hopeful they will pull through - they just had their first budget INCREASE in decades. And Orion, if the SLS system survives, might very well restore their manned programme to where it should always have been.
It set back American MANNED spaceflight for three decades - and very nearly undid NASA completely. It might very well come to that yet as NASA is currently struggling to maintain its manned programme on highly restricted budgets.
I am hopeful they will pull through - they just had their first budget INCREASE in decades. And Orion, if the SLS system survives, might very well restore their manned programme to where it should always have been.
The two are inextricable. The Shuttle was a technically very complex machine - as you obviously realise. The reason it was complex was because of the burdens that were placed upon it by those who were authorising its construction i.e. the politicians.
Please have a look at the MIT lecture videos. They go through absolutely EVERY facet of the entire Shuttle programme, from initial concept, the political battles to get it funded and built, the technical compromises made to get it built, its design, its operations etc etc etc.
It really is a great lecture series and you will get to fully understand why the Shuttle was what it was.
It's hosted by Dr Jerry Hoffman - who is an MIT lecturer - and who flew on the Shuttle four or five times - so he knows of which he speaks.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astrona...
Please have a look at the MIT lecture videos. They go through absolutely EVERY facet of the entire Shuttle programme, from initial concept, the political battles to get it funded and built, the technical compromises made to get it built, its design, its operations etc etc etc.
It really is a great lecture series and you will get to fully understand why the Shuttle was what it was.
It's hosted by Dr Jerry Hoffman - who is an MIT lecturer - and who flew on the Shuttle four or five times - so he knows of which he speaks.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astrona...
Just found this doc on you tube.
Listen to what NASA director Charles Boldin says about the Shuttle at 55 minutes -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pz9rKB0vBU
Listen to what NASA director Charles Boldin says about the Shuttle at 55 minutes -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pz9rKB0vBU
Yes - they worked as hard as they could to stop it killing people and pulled it when they decided that it would do it again sooner rather than later.
The programme was intended to launch 2,000 flights. It made it to 135 with the loss of two craft and 14 crew members.
By the standards that NASA themselves had intended it to do, it was an abject failure. Within the overall failure of the programme, there were some notable missions - notably Hubble and perhaps the construction of the ISS. Although the ISS would have been built far more cheaply and quickly with a small number of Saturn V launches, had they not thrown that capability away.
The main benefit that has been obtained from the Shuttle is the knowledge that nobody will ever design a spacecraft that operates in that manner ever again.
If you want an objective view of what the programme did or didn't achieve, the Haynes book on the Shuttle is pretty good. The text was written by Dr David Baker, a very well respected spaceflight writer (and who worked in Mission Control at NASA in the late 1960s and early 70s).
He actually wrote two books on the Shuttle, one in 1979 and the Haynes book (in 2010 just before the programme ended). It is very interesting to contrast the tone of both books. In the more recent book, he draws attention to the madly over-optimistic claims NASA was making for the Shuttle in the late 1970s.
His 1979 book -
The 2011 book -
I think there is little to celebrate about the Space Shuttle.
The programme was intended to launch 2,000 flights. It made it to 135 with the loss of two craft and 14 crew members.
By the standards that NASA themselves had intended it to do, it was an abject failure. Within the overall failure of the programme, there were some notable missions - notably Hubble and perhaps the construction of the ISS. Although the ISS would have been built far more cheaply and quickly with a small number of Saturn V launches, had they not thrown that capability away.
The main benefit that has been obtained from the Shuttle is the knowledge that nobody will ever design a spacecraft that operates in that manner ever again.
If you want an objective view of what the programme did or didn't achieve, the Haynes book on the Shuttle is pretty good. The text was written by Dr David Baker, a very well respected spaceflight writer (and who worked in Mission Control at NASA in the late 1960s and early 70s).
He actually wrote two books on the Shuttle, one in 1979 and the Haynes book (in 2010 just before the programme ended). It is very interesting to contrast the tone of both books. In the more recent book, he draws attention to the madly over-optimistic claims NASA was making for the Shuttle in the late 1970s.
His 1979 book -
The 2011 book -
I think there is little to celebrate about the Space Shuttle.
Eric Mc said:
They didn't.
Saturn V - a simple rocket to do a complicated job.
The Space Shuttle - a complicated rocket to do a simple job.
If you really want to truly understand how complex and dangerous the Space Shuttle system was, read "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane. Or the Haynes manual on the Space Shuttle by Dr David Baker - which is very direct in its appraisal of the systems strength and weaknesses.
I would also highly recommend the series of MIT lectures on the Space Shuttle which can be viewed on you tube - all 21 hours of it.
There is nothing simple about a Saturn V Saturn V - a simple rocket to do a complicated job.
The Space Shuttle - a complicated rocket to do a simple job.
If you really want to truly understand how complex and dangerous the Space Shuttle system was, read "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane. Or the Haynes manual on the Space Shuttle by Dr David Baker - which is very direct in its appraisal of the systems strength and weaknesses.
I would also highly recommend the series of MIT lectures on the Space Shuttle which can be viewed on you tube - all 21 hours of it.
Eric Mc said:
They didn't.
Saturn V - a simple rocket to do a complicated job.
The Space Shuttle - a complicated rocket to do a simple job.
If you really want to truly understand how complex and dangerous the Space Shuttle system was, read "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane. Or the Haynes manual on the Space Shuttle by Dr David Baker - which is very direct in its appraisal of the systems strength and weaknesses.
I would also highly recommend the series of MIT lectures on the Space Shuttle which can be viewed on you tube - all 21 hours of it.
There is nothing simple about a Saturn V Saturn V - a simple rocket to do a complicated job.
The Space Shuttle - a complicated rocket to do a simple job.
If you really want to truly understand how complex and dangerous the Space Shuttle system was, read "Riding Rockets" by Mike Mullane. Or the Haynes manual on the Space Shuttle by Dr David Baker - which is very direct in its appraisal of the systems strength and weaknesses.
I would also highly recommend the series of MIT lectures on the Space Shuttle which can be viewed on you tube - all 21 hours of it.
Eric Mc said:
Just found this doc on you tube.
Listen to what NASA director Charles Boldin says about the Shuttle at 55 minutes -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pz9rKB0vBU
Just watched that. Good docListen to what NASA director Charles Boldin says about the Shuttle at 55 minutes -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pz9rKB0vBU
Whatever your thoughts on what was best ( I thought the shuttle was a wrong turn) it was a feat to get in the air and that must be something n the annals of complex machines.
Where da link go? I started to read that with interest yesterday but did not book mark it. I liked the paragraph where the big fan would be brought out when it landed in case of noxious fumes.
Where da link go? I started to read that with interest yesterday but did not book mark it. I liked the paragraph where the big fan would be brought out when it landed in case of noxious fumes.
Yes - the big fan (more a windmill actually) was part of the fleet of trucks that used to chase down the runway after the Shuttle when it landed.
After they nearly gassed the crew of the last ever Apollo mission (ASTP in 1975) NASA got very wary of having people exposed to residual fumes from the RCS thrusters.
After they nearly gassed the crew of the last ever Apollo mission (ASTP in 1975) NASA got very wary of having people exposed to residual fumes from the RCS thrusters.
All I wanted a bit of discussion - which is what I thought internet forums were all about.
And I even pointed him to some very good books, internet sites and documentaries so he could learn a bit more about the whole programme.
Oh well, some people are a bit thin skinned and fragile - just like the Shuttle.
And I even pointed him to some very good books, internet sites and documentaries so he could learn a bit more about the whole programme.
Oh well, some people are a bit thin skinned and fragile - just like the Shuttle.
It's all comparative.
The Saturn V was based on 1950s technology. Most of the basic design work was done between about 1955 and 1962 before the design was "frozen". By 1973, when they had flown 13 of the things, it was a pretty reliable and robust piece of kit.
No rocket is "simple" but I would argue that the Shuttle system was vastly over-complex, considering that it was a low earth orbit only spacecraft. And it was so complex that even after 135 flights the people who had designed it and those who managed the flights still didn't truly understand exactly how it behaved - especially during launch.
It wasn't actually me who originally said that the Shuttle was a complex vehicle with a simple mission and that the Saturn V/Apollo was a simple spacecraft with a complex mission, it was someone associated closely with both programmes - only I can't remember who
. I am pretty sure it was mentioned in the MIT series of Shuttle lectures I mentioned further up the thread. It might very well have been Christopher Kraft Jnr. I'll have to look at the lectures again (they last about 30 hours in total).
The Saturn V was based on 1950s technology. Most of the basic design work was done between about 1955 and 1962 before the design was "frozen". By 1973, when they had flown 13 of the things, it was a pretty reliable and robust piece of kit.
No rocket is "simple" but I would argue that the Shuttle system was vastly over-complex, considering that it was a low earth orbit only spacecraft. And it was so complex that even after 135 flights the people who had designed it and those who managed the flights still didn't truly understand exactly how it behaved - especially during launch.
It wasn't actually me who originally said that the Shuttle was a complex vehicle with a simple mission and that the Saturn V/Apollo was a simple spacecraft with a complex mission, it was someone associated closely with both programmes - only I can't remember who
. I am pretty sure it was mentioned in the MIT series of Shuttle lectures I mentioned further up the thread. It might very well have been Christopher Kraft Jnr. I'll have to look at the lectures again (they last about 30 hours in total).Toaster said:
Erm no it isn't, if you said they had a different approach I would agree, describing the Saturn V as simple doesn't go anywhere near describing its complexity.
Everything is relative.Including saying the Shuttle was a failure (which it was), from one point of view it launched many different payloads, boosted US/RU relations with the Shuttle/Mir program, which then allowed it to aid in the construction of the ISS and as someone said only had a failure rate of 1.5%. BUT, if you look at the original guidelines for what it was supposed to achieve, it was a failure, it wasn't reusable in the sense NASA wanted (ie turnaround time, number of components to be stripped/repaired before reuse etc etc) and (if I'm correct?) it was one of the (if not the most) expensive launchers per mass (whatever you wish to use) lifted to orbit.
I don't have anything against the Space Shuttle, in fact I am a huge fan of it, it captured my imagination when I was younger, which has led me to the point I'm at in my life, but unfortunately it just wasn't all it was cracked up to be.
At the end of the day the Saturn V is just a conventional rocket booster, just a lot larger.
The Space Shuttle was nothing like anything that had came before it, in many ways.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff