Science How the Space Shuttle Killed an American Halley’s Comet Mission

[garyw]

That wasn't actually too fantastic. You could really launch about once per week, if you would have had less time required for TPS and engine servicing.

This is the break down according to the book:

shuttle safety inspection - 1 hour
servicing including payload removal and install 96 hours
prepare for mating - 5 hours
assemble srbs and orbiter - 34 hours
move to pad - 22 hours
load fuel and board crew - 2 hour

total - 160 hours which is actually a shade under 7 days.

 

[Urwumpe]

This is the break down according to the book:

shuttle safety inspection - 1 hour
servicing including payload removal and install 96 hours
prepare for mating - 5 hours
assemble srbs and orbiter - 34 hours
move to pad - 22 hours
load fuel and board crew - 2 hour

total - 160 hours which is actually a shade under 7 days.

Yes, all with todays knowledge, pretty fantastic numbers. :lol:

Only the move to pad is actually realistic, the tanking took already in the early plans 6 hours.

 

[Cras]

I suggest you read both the 1968 Integrated Manned Program Plan in which the shuttle was initially proposed, and "The Space Shuttle Decision" by T.A. Heppenheimer.

Well good for that book, but that doesn't change the fact that when the Space council, which would have been chaired then by Spiro Agnew, recommended to the President that the United States pursue 3 different objectives. A new launch vehicle for LEO, for which they picked the Space Shuttle proposal which was kicked about a few years prior, LEO infrastructure, that being a Space Station primarily, and a manned mission to Mars.

Nixon said no to Mars, greenlighted the station and the Shuttle.

NASA then got its budget axed, it became rapidly apparent that they could not afford to pursue both a station and the Shuttle at the same time, so they needed to pick one to develop first, and they choose the Shuttle. It was only after this that the Air Force got involved with their requirements for the larger cross range, the polar flight capability, the large payload bay. But none of this changes the fact the Shuttle's primary purpose when envisioned was for the construction and support of a LEO space station.

It was then moved to that it would assist with Skylab....that too didn't come to fruition.

So this idea that the Shuttle building a space station as some sort of, after thought, and a plan in which the Shuttle had no business doing is flat out not true.

 

[worir1]

Technology always moves forwards. The use of it may reverse from time to time noticing they have mist a turn...

 

[Hlynkacg]

Which is why we now only have subsonic commercial airlines whereas 10 years ago we had concorde.

Or why SpaceX uses capsules and Gas generator cycle engines, while we had spaceplanes and staged combustion engines once only 2 years ago.

Technology exists to serve a purpose complexity for complexity's sake is counter-productive

Not according to 'the space shuttle handbook' - 1979 which is fun to read as it's so damn optimistic about what the shuttle could do. In that (chapter 9) they talk about power from space, space stations, including an early version of the dual keel design and more

Note that in 1979 the Shuttle was already in the final phases of assembly and testing, in a sense it was all over but the shouting.

Well good for that book, but...

...So this idea that the Shuttle building a space station as some sort of, after thought, and a plan in which the Shuttle had no business doing is flat out not true.

I said that station-building was something that the shuttle was not originally designed for and not particularly good at. A subtle but important distinction.

As for the rest, please don't be offended but I consider Heppenheimer's interviews with the actual people involved and NASA's own archives to be more reliable sources. They're free to access on the NASA history page so unless you have contemporary sources that argue otherwise I'll have to respectfully disagree your conclusions.

 

[Urwumpe]

Technology exists to serve a purpose complexity for complexity's sake is counter-productive

The fourth law of applied thermodynamics: Complexity, like Entropy, can't be reduced.

If you only do simple things, you can do so with only simple technology. A US V8 engine of the 1970s is simple and relatively powerful. But extremely heavy and ineffective compared to modern complex engines, that serve a whole range of new functions.

It is foolish to believe, that by reducing complexity, more complex goals can be reached. What you have in complexity put into the rocket engines, is saved elsewhere, in often far more complicated problems. Using Staged combustion can for example be cheaper, than finding a way to further reduce the dry weight of the rocket by 20-30%