Slashdot Mirror
What does it take to make the Space Shuttle Fly?
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.'"
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.
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.
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
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
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!
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
I wonder if the have to get a new product activation code for each launch if they're replacing that many components....
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)