Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What does it take to make the Space Shuttle Fly?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the 6-billion-pounds-of-twinkies dept.

chrisd writes: "There is a fascinating web presentation called "Terminal Count" on CNN about what it takes to prep a shuttle for flight. Very interesting stuff. Includes lots of video and more. Fun quote: 'A running joke is that a shuttle is considered ready for launch once the stack of paperwork stands as high as the rocket.'"

25 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Damaged tiles by FFFish · · Score: 3

    Yah, well, we might believe you if you weren't a member of the [Durham University Fart Lighting Society] we just might believe you.

    But you are a DULFSer, [as this film clip shows]!

    Atmospheric reentry, damn right. Ain't no silo-ceramic high-tech tile gonna survive that sorta abuse!

    --

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  2. Self Distruct by augustz · · Score: 3
    Wow, the last video has some interesting shots of technicians wiring up the shuttle with a ton of explosives so it can be destroyed in flight, crew and all, should it go badly of course.

    Let's just hope they aren't runing windows, or blue screen of death might take on a whole new meaning.

  3. And in that stack... by miracle69 · · Score: 5

    A running joke is that a shuttle is considered ready for launch once the stack of paperwork stands as high as the rocket

    And that, my friends, is where the FBI happened to find the lost McVeigh documents.


    HI Mom!

    --
    Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
  4. And they call it reusable... by cisko · · Score: 3

    If you have to go through a 1.2M-item checklist before sending it up again, that's more like rebuildable than reusable.

    If we are serious about having the ability to do interesting things off this planet, we need a reusable vehicle that can be turned around much more simply. The ISS is _it_ until we get a simpler way into orbit.

    1. Re:And they call it reusable... by MegaGremlin · · Score: 4

      I wonder if the have to get a new product activation code for each launch if they're replacing that many components....

      --

      .sig
    2. Re:And they call it reusable... by DerekLyons · · Score: 5
      If you have to go through a 1.2M-item checklist before sending it up again, that's more like rebuildable than reusable.

      Hardly true at all. This isn't somebody's desktop computer, but rather is an extremely complicated and expensive piece of nearly irreplaceable hardware that will kill if not properly prepared. As hard as it may be to believe, to do so takes time and effort that's extremely hard for the uninitiated (meaning 99.999% of /. readers) to comprehend. (No mean to insult, but there is darn little comparable experiences out there, and none of it in the IT field.)

      f we are serious about having the ability to do interesting things off this planet, we need a reusable vehicle that can be turned around much more simply.

      The current crop of proposed 'low end' space transports cut their costs of operations by cutting capabilities and redundancy. That's not to say that a vehicle of the Shuttle's class couldn't be done cheaper and faster, but it still won't be down in the range of the smaller, cheaper (and much less capable) transports. (In the same way that a Cessna is far cheaper and easier to operate than a 747 or even a 707.)

      A 747 turns around as fast as it does because many generations of aircraft preceded it, and billions of dollars and trillions of man hours in engineering, maintenance, and experience, have been spent to achieve those goals. The Shuttle is a first generation vehicle that operates in a far more demanding and far, far less benign environment than does a commercial or private aircraft.

      No, I'm not a NASA cheerleader, but I am someone who has helped prepare an expensive, complex, dangerous vehicle for extended operations in an extremely hostile environment far from home or safety. (A nuclear submarine)

    3. Re:And they call it reusable... by pavonis · · Score: 3
      Okay, it's certainly true that with the Shuttle, as it is, NASA shouldn't be expected to be any less careful than it is. But it's also true that while the word 'reusable' does apply to the Shuttle, the extent of replacement and refurbishment required defeats much of the point of reusables in the first place. That is, the cost savings are, with the most optimistic sorts of accounting, moderate; the turnaround time is probably worse; and, with so many of the more dangerous parts being expendables or needing major referbs, the safety improvement is questionable. (And don't forget that the engineers think we're lucky we never got a catastrophe with the SSME's; we're finally going to upgrade those damned propeller blades...)

      Bear in mind that when the shuttle was proposed, it was pitched as having two-week turnarounds and cost maybe a fifth as much per flight. NASA officials sold it this way because they were looking for a way to survive in the post-Kennedy/Johnson political climate. Myself I find it hard to blame them, but it certainly should be understood that it's much too hard a vehicle to fly and that we desperately need easier ones.

      The various 'low end' transports generally cut their costs by being simpler and relying on easier technologies whenever possible. While some of the operating savings are intended to come from, say, cheaper fuels, the bulk of them have more to do with things like the number of people you need to do a launch, the redundancy and safety measures you NEED based on the reliability of your equipment, understanding how long you can expect different pieces of equipment to survive, and so on. It's an engineering design problem. A very difficult one, to be sure, but not one so far on the bleeding edge that we can't understand the problems and costs involved.And of course, we understand them rather better than we did in 1978, and we have better ways of dealing with them. (Also, not running a few billion dollars in debt on development costs for unneccessary technologies helps keep the op costs down. Venturestar, anyone?)

      As for cutting capabilities- well, the big problem with the shuttle is, that because NASA knew when they were building it that they would have no money for other programs for a long time, it had to be rather a horse of all colors. Human ferry-er, cargo ferry-er, space science lab (for eight completely different kinds of science,), in space manuevering ability, DoD was told they needed to do all their launches on the Shuttle so then they had a bunch of cargo specs to add, trying to get an impossible combination of cost and turnaround time, and all of this on technology that was barely capable of it at all... It's appropriate for the next generation of launchers to be much more specialized. We don't need to use only one to do everything. If that's 'low-end', well, sign me up...

  5. Lucky Bastards by ColaMan · · Score: 5

    But for an elite few, it is the beginning of a 1.2 million-step process of maintenance, repairs, checks, double-checks and still more checks


    An "an elite few?" How about we replace that with "Some Poor Bastards?"

    I can just see it...

    (Two NASA engineers are watching another shuttle landing from the observation deck, doing good impersonations of slack-jawed yokels)

    Bob: "Looks like the shuttle made it back again in one piece, Joe."

    Joe: "(Sigh) Well, you know what that means , Bob."

    (Both men pull out 1.2M item checklist, and trudge towards shuttle.)


    ** Windows has detected a mouse movement.
    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
  6. The shuttle paperwork by AnalogBoy · · Score: 4

    Has proven it's need. It's helped solve a few different problems that could have been fatal to the shuttle - When you only have a limited number of orbiters, and a limited number of parts for those orbiters, you want to make sure EVERYTHING is accounted for and documented.

    warning - opinion follows:

    IMHO, they should gut the shuttles and redo them in modern technology - cut the weight of the shuttles (The glass cockpit was a start).. But they still have those N+1 redudant hugeass computers on board - and lots and lots of copper wiring. Apparently with the scrapping of the X-3x projects and the Aerospike engine failure, we're going to be using them for quite a long time - so lets modernize them.

    I've always wondered.. Why cant the shuttle be designed to use a different "style" of booster (I know all about the LFB) more like a "Sled".. Have a high-altitude jet aircraft take the shuttle up as far as possible, release it, and let a reusable sled which contains the boosters and fuel tank take it the rest of the way up (and re-enter upon completion). I am obviously not a rocket scientist, and im too tired to think properly right now, and i'm probably grossly overestimating the altitude potential of a jet aircraft capiable of lifting the shuttles bulk.. but, i wanted to stick that theory out and see if it can get chopped off. :)

    Goodnight /.

  7. Re:Damaged tiles by Chris+Brewer · · Score: 3

    "One can always hope that space program technology will eventually trickle down to us."

    Hello! They're called Teflon coated frying pans.

    One thing though, if you're up in the weightlessness of space, wouldn't you want your eggs to stick to the frying pan?
    --

    --
    Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
  8. I wouldn't mind getting the Russians to advise... by fantomas · · Score: 3

    Ok, not a flame, but a genuine, (if somewhat idle) thought. I was impressed and shocked at how much work goes on to turn round the Shuttle - 2 to 3 people working for 2 weeks to clean one window - wow, the salary bill itself must be insane for turning around the ship.

    How does this compare this with the Russian Soyuz modules? I'd be interested to know the comparison of costs. Ok, so what you get is vastly different but what I mean is that the Russian space program seems to be set up like a heavy engineering factory, they knock 'em out day in day out like Ladas. They work, they go, they bang out another one. It would be fascinating to find out about how they have turned a high tech industry into another factory production line.

    It would be fascinating to invite over some of the engineers working in the Russian plants to see if they could streamline some of the processes used on the Shuttle, take it down from the equivalent of tuning a high performance racing car towards a regular service of a goods truck.

    I know the Shuttle is amazingly complicated but it is a complete suprise that it appears to be virtually rebuilt each time it goes up, there must be a more sustainable, long term engineering solution we can apply with 20 or years expereience behind us. I'd say the Russians would be worth bring on board for their heavy engineering rather than 'gee whizz high tech' attitude towards getting these things done (I am reminded of the old tale about NASA spending all that time and money developing zero-g pens while the Russians just gave their cosmonauts 10 cent chinograph pencils and got on with the next task... ).

  9. Re:Oh, Hell, why not? by Maurice · · Score: 3

    It would be very nice if we could launch rockets horizontally because they would be accelerating in the needed direction to attain orbit velocity. Unfortunately air drag is so high at supersonic speeds so rockets are launched vertically up until they get out of the densest part of the atmosphere and then a gravity turn (uncontrolled) is made to point the rocket to the east. You are right it would take the same amount of energy if gravity was the only acting force, since it is a conservative force. But drag force isn't.

  10. I didn't get it... by mangu · · Score: 3
    What has the ISS to do with reuse? The ISS can't get down into the atmosphere and then take off again, can it?

    Perhaps the most "reusable" space vehicle is the Apollo 11 capsule. It has been sitting there at the Smithsonian in DC for a few decades, and people never get tired of staring at it. It's an infinitely reusable conversation piece...

  11. Working for the government by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 3

    Anyone who has ever worked for the fed would realize how much paper work is involved in everything. I have friends who have seen them put a bar code on a mouse and keyboard and then go back to make sure the mouse hadn't been stolen every year. It would of course be MUCH cheaper to buy a new mouse each year. Luckily they don't barcode mice anymore :) Anyway, when you see how much paperwork is involeved with trivial things it is no wonder you get an insane amount of paperwork when you want to do something important. Remember when NASA lost a probe becuase they didn't convert to metric right? On the bright side, with all that checking and rechecking I bet that probably won't happen the shuttle. Of course it is easy to see that they have gone way past overkill. BTW, is it me or was the way CNN put the story in a tiny window VERY annoying?

  12. Re:Damaged tiles by Karl_Hungus · · Score: 3

    How strange, I too have tiles that look burnt and charred in my bathroom, but I can't recall having done a atmospheric reentry in my shower stall.

    NASA uses a top-secret, super-duper cleanser, known only by its code-name, "Formula 409". If only there was a way you could get your hands on some, it might work on your shower. One can always hope that space program technology will eventually trickle down to us.

    --

    --
    Freeper Logic
  13. What does it take to make the Space Shuttle Fly? by Karl_Hungus · · Score: 5

    What does it take to make the Space Shuttle Fly?

    A very, very, very, very, very, very large rubberband. Bringing an inanimate carbin rod along makes emergency repairs much easier, too.

    --

    --
    Freeper Logic
  14. Re:Oh, Hell, why not? by AaronStJ · · Score: 5

    First, any physics student knows it takes Less expended energy to lift 100 million-odd tons of mass straight up than it does to move it up a gradual incline.

    Ahem. Any physics student known it take the exact same amount of energy. An incline spreads out the work over a longer time scale, but the work is lessenned, and it balances out perfectly. It's the same way pulley systems work. Sure, you have to pull for longer, but it's much easier to pull.

    --
    Stupid like a fox!
  15. Damaged tiles by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4

    How strange, I too have tiles that look burnt and charred in my bathroom, but I can't recall having done a atmospheric reentry in my shower stall.

    "A door is what a dog is perpetually the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  16. official shuttle resources and mission plans by Preposterous+Coward · · Score: 3
    www.shuttlepresskit.com has cool stuff about Shuttle missions.

    Here is a link to the mission plan for STS-99, for example.

    Check out this on-board experiment:
    ON-ORBIT DETAILED TEST OBJECTIVES (DTOs)
    URINE COLLECTION DEVICE (DTO 690)
    The purpose of this DTO is to evaluate the fit of several sizes/types of manual Urine Collection Devices (UCDs) and their adapters (anatomical interface) in microgravity; evaluate the capability of the adapter and valve design to accommodate urine flow with minimal leakage; and evaluate hygienic aspects of the UCD design with respect to minimizing urine remaining in or around the adapter which could potentially get loose into the cabin. This accomplishment will also increase the accuracy of science measurements of total urine volume within the bag. This DTO will also evaluate the user-friendliness of urine collection operations, and (Lower Priority) evaluate techniques for returning urine to the Waste Collection System (WCS).

    --

    "Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
  17. homer's answer by unformed · · Score: 3

    DYNAMITE, and Lots of it!

  18. Re:What it take to make the Boeing 747 Fly by DerekLyons · · Score: 3
    thereby ignoring the fact that that the incredibly over-sold Shuttle has been operational for about as long as the Boeing 747 jumbo jet which can take you from California to China and back for under $900.

    You also ignore the following facts;

    • There are hundreds, (thousands?) of 747's in service, and only four Shuttles.
    • The 747 is a late generation aircraft, the Shuttle is a first generation reusable.
    • The 747 is a child's toy compared to the complexity of the Shuttle.
    • The 747 operates in a far simpler and more benign enviroment than does the Shuttle.
    • The 747 also requires incredible amounts of maintenance, support, and facilities, but most of this is out of the public eye.
    • Your ticket cost is held down by the revenues generated by the cargo in the belly of the 747 and by competition. (Plus the USD$900 you cite is for coach class...)
    In other words, apples and oranges.
  19. Yeah, but... by r_j_prahad · · Score: 3

    If ever a mission specialist were to download an MP3 off of Napster while in flight, the RIAA would make damn sure it never flew again.

  20. Re:I wouldn't mind getting the Russians to advise. by Mantis69 · · Score: 3
    I currently work at ESA, and I have worked both with NASA and the the Russians (RKA). The contrast between the two is pretty extreme. I thought ESA was pretty bureaucratic until we dealt with NASA. It is unbelievable how much paperwork needs to be done for the smallest things.

    We had to deliver some equipment (2 SUN workstations) to JPL and had to do much paperwork and negotiations over this. When we arrived we were besieged by guys with clipboards, who were not sure if we could deliver this equipment, whether we could install it in the computer room. Eventually my German colleague got pissed off a took the machines himself out of the car and into the computer room. There followed much frantic ass-covering paperwork, phone-calls and hand-wringing, before everything was settled. Sometimes I wonder with the level of bureaucracy how they got a man on the moon.

    The Russians, on the other hand, are a very different kettle of fish. The Russians launched 4 ESA satellites last year and we had to install some stuff in Baikonur for the launch. They are very laid back, and quite excited to see new equipment. A lot of the quipment they have is very out of date, but the fact remains that the Soyuz launcher has done over 1000 launches without problems. It was quite amusing during the first launch, that at T-minus 10 minutes, 3 guys could be seen walking and smoking about 100m from the launcher! Our boss got a bit excited and wanted to know what they were doing there. 'Having a smoke and a walk' was the reply. He was speechless (a rare thing) and at T minus 5 one of the guys casually looked at his watch and they then got under cover. Both launches went without a hitch. The Russians are very confident with the Soyuz launcher having used it for about 40 years and they are not so safety and arse-covering paranoid as NASA and ESA.

    --
    Mr Churchill, If I was your wife I would put poison in your tea! Madam, If I was your Husband I would drink it!
  21. On the slightly interesting side by Pet_Targ · · Score: 3

    There is so much space junk floating around above earth, that more often than not they REPLACE the windows on the space shuttle, because they have been damaged by so many micrometeoroid impacts.

    --
    THX. The Audience is listening.
  22. Interesting and sad by nomadicGeek · · Score: 3

    long time listener, first time caller, love /.

    I did some work for NASA at Kennedy Space Center last year. It was the coolest job I've ever had and at the same time it was a little sad. I was struck by how primitive everything is on the ground. Ground handling costs dominate the cost of space flight. Much of the ground handling is amazingly primitive. The manpower costs and time involved are astounding. Everything is done manually. Practically nothing is automated. There is much room for improvement.

    Much of this is due to union and labor issues. There is definitely an entitlement mentality there. The lab that I worked in was littered with old robots and machines developed to speed things up and reduce costs. In many cases the unions complained and had the machines removed. More efficiency = less entitlement.

    I worked with some very cool people who were passionate about their work. Many of them worked very hard. Unfortunately the majority are not as fired up. Many young and creative people work there after school, get frustrated, and leave.

    NASA is stuck in a rut that I believe there is very little chance of them escaping. Let's face it, they aren't rewarded for taking risks. They can waste millions on inefficient processes and they get a gee wizz report on CNN. Spend the same money on a failed probe and you might get your funding cut.

    Still after 20 years of space shuttle flight shouldn't it be getting cheaper to maintain with faster turnaround? Shouldn't it be cheaper to launch things into space?

    I always imagined by this time there would be space tourism. I never imagined that you would be able to become a cosmonaut for $20 million. I thought that America was supposed to be the land of entrepreneurs? So the Russians have the first man in space and then the first paying customer?