Space Shuttle Goes Back to Work

dalewj writes "The Discovery rolled over from the Orbiter Processing Facility to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA's Kennedy Space Center this morning. May 15th is the scheduled launch for STS-114. I was at NASA last month and got to see the payload for the space station thru lots of glass and I have to wonder, how far behind is the space station at this point?"

Comments

The Space Shuttle is such a waste

[Steven Edwards]

Compare the cost to launch per pound via a rocket vs the Shuttle. The Shuttle has turned in to one of the most wasteful pork projects the US has undertaken. I am all for porkbarrel spending in space such as a moon base or mars mission but this project has got to be killed.

Re:The Space Shuttle is such a waste

[Vellmont]

but I would rather see a permanent colony on the moon, that is something that could truely benefit man.


I'm really quite curious as to how this will benefit man? Unless you're mining for He-3, what would we be doing on a moon base? It's not zero-G (or micro-gravity which is the more accruate/preferred term) so any long-term human microgravity experiments are out. Re-fueling inter-planetary spacecraft? Maybe, though I don't know if it's really worth it or not in terms of launch costs since you could probbably equally launch a seperate fuel payload from earth. (Compare that cost to maintaing an entire moon base). We originally went to the moon as a political show of power over the Soviet Union, and because the space program was a good way to get everyone onboard funding balistic missile technology. Now that the cold war is over, what's the impetus?

My point is there has to be a tangible goal for having a moon base that isn't more easily achieved by other means. The cool sci-fi factor just isn't enough.

Re:The Space Shuttle is such a waste

[Rei]

First off, the CEV is still in the design phase. However, in general, the concepts have been a capsule on top of a Delta-IV heavy or an Atlas-V. Atlas's lower stage's oxidizer turbopump and its upper stage's LH and LOX turbopumps directly benefit from SSME turbopump research. All of the Delta's engines benefit heavily from SSME research. Both Atlas's upper stage and all of Delta benefit heavily from shuttle research on tanks and insulation.

Guess who provides and services the SSME high pressure turbopumps. If you answered "Pratt & Whitney", you're correct. Now, guess who developed the RL-10B-2 used by the Delta-IV heavy. If you guessed "Pratt & Whitney", you're right again. Now, guess who developed the RL-10A-4-2 used by Atlas V's upper stage. If you guessed "Pratt & Whitney", you're right once more.

Lets keep going with this angle, shall we? What method did they develop for the shuttle to keep insulation from peeling off? Laser shearography. What technique does Delta-IV heavy use? Same. What about the centaur? Same. What type of insulation do they use on their tanks? SOFI (Spray-On-Foam-Insulation). What alloy does the shuttle use for most structural components, and the Delta-IV and Altas-V are considering? An aluminum-lithium alloy. Etc. I could keep going for hours; the shuttle is the core of a lot of modern US rocketry technology.

> No, that's what you _want_.

Ok, praytell, explain how a titanium-alloy frame would not:

* Produce a ~40% increase in payload for a shuttle-sized craft
* Allow for a much simpler TPS (as titanium alloys allow for a "hot frame", eliminating the need for tiles altogether, although you still need some leading edge insulation and internal thermal blanket insulation)
* Reduced fatigue (and thus longer lifespan and simpler inspection)
* Greater resistance to frame damage

You're basically arguing against the fundamental property of titanium and majority-titanium alloys there. It's not what I "_want_"; we're talking about basic properties of the metal. Argue against physics all you want.

As for wings, if you want to try and make a fully reusable capsule, go for it. I'm not enthusiasic, to say the least, for such prospects. Just ignoring that issue, you (like most other people here) seem completely unaware that wings are for a lot more than landing. They make reentry of large craft, and craft with return payloads, a lot easier, because you can skim the upper atmosphere for a longer period of time by using lift from the wings. They're also a larger radiating surface area. Lastly, the space in the wings isn't wasted; it is used. The only "waste" is control surfaces and associated mechanics, plus some loss due to having a less geometrically optimal shape for internal storage (although it is a benefit, not a drawback, when it comes to reentry, as discussed earlier).

BTW, NASA builds few of their craft. It's all the Boeings, the Lockheeds, the Orbital Sciences, etc, that do the construction. Blame them if you want to blame someone. Of course, I'm sure you're ready to start citing companies who have been widely successful with orbital craft in the US (i.e., US labor costs, part costs, etc) for comparison to those funded by NASA. Right?

Re:The Space Shuttle is such a waste

[mpe]

A space shuttle isn't a car. I really doubt you could make a craft that can go into orbit and re-enter the atmosphere without any damage.

IIRC quite a bit of damage was being caused by sand on the runway.

How do you make sure that every one of thousands of hoses, wires, and other parts is not damaged after a flight?

These arn't very different from those on a commercial aircraft. Boeing and Airbus appear to have worked out how to do it. The major difference on the shuttle is the heatsheild. Which is constructed of materials which are highly fragile.

From an engineering standpoint, there isn't a single design goal that demands a reusable spacecraft.

In which case why isn't NASA looking at alternatives, rather than returning their "deathtrap design" to service.

Missed watching the launches

[LiNKz]

To be honest, I look forward to this launch. In the past five years we have had terrorist attacks, wasted wars, and sad accidents.. and I really miss watching the launches too. I'm going to enjoy this launch.. and you know, it is good that we're still going up, instead of becoming too scared to tinker and explore.

Not far behind

[bogaboga]

thru lots of glass and I have to wonder, how far behind is the space station at this point?"

Not very far behind...the Russians, whose Soyuz system is "decades behind ours", and have had almost 2,000 successful launches with it, have been very helpful in keeping the ISS going. I have also heard that they (the Russians) have been giving us some technical ideas on how to deal with the complexities of space travel. Of course NASA administrators will not admit this.

Still has uses...

[spagetti_code]

If we cannot build and maintain a space station, we will have no chance at flying to Mars, establishing a base on the Moon, or even just living safely outsite the Van Allen belt.

The Space Station has taught us a lot, including:

• How to live in space
• How triple component redundancy may not be enough with current technology.
• How we don't have a safe and reusable way to fly there yet

On top of that, the occasional experiment is done there too.

Again - if we can't get this right, whats the chance of living on the moon or mars in our lifetime?

Re:About time. Not really a joke

[rapidweather]

A prespective from someone born before WWII:

The idea that we could go to the moon was considered by some as being too much of a technical challenge, that just too many things could go wrong. I then watched on tv as the first moon landing was made. After that, I assumed that the government would always have enough money to explore space, put up a space station. In the 40's and 50's, the space shuttle in it's present form was not expected, or put forth in the ideas of what the future of space travel would be like. Buck Rogers had a spaceship that looked like a real space ship. I had expected the first powered space ship would go beyond Earth, to at least the Moon. The Apollo craft were shot into space, and guided themselves into place around the moon, using small rockets, with no comparison to the power of the Space Shuttle rocket motors. One would think that the Space Shuttle could go out far beyond the Moon, just for the fun of it, but with nothing there to see or do, then no mission.

Even so, the Space Shuttle is an amazing vehicle, and has had a long and dangerous history, now to continue for a while longer. Fixing the Hubble telescope was one of the good moments, how cool that was. Concerning the Shuttle accidents, I suppose we did always expect space ships to be destroyed, but by enemy alien spacecraft, death rays, or something. The idea of a space ship that would have design flaws, or push the limits of their design, was not commonly entertained. Most of what we kids knew came from comic books, so the idea of orbiting satellites was not even there, or the lumbering space truck that the Space Shuttle seems to resemble, wasn't in comic books either.

Too bad that there is so little of the national budget spend on space exploration, we all wanted "men on mars" by now.

No one needs to take the Shuttle Program for granted, it is one of a kind, and one wonders if funding will be available for something to take it's place.