/sci/ - Science & Math

>cancel SLS
>bring back shuttles

>>10344767
>2040 first launch
>costs more and has a lower payload
>still no launch escape vehicle

>>10344869
>"Commercial success has shown the future belongs to reusable vehicles and for this reason it has been decided the SLS program will be reconstructed into the Evolved Space Transport System program"
>"To reduce costs, risk, and development time of this new program, it has been decided to utilize as much as possible available hardware namely SLS cores, segmented STS boosters, and the flight proven Atlantis Spaceship-Orbiter"
>"The new Advanced Space Shuttle will also boast the highest level of safety possible - ejection seats and even AI Pilot allowing it to fly into space without the need for humans on board further reducing mission risk for non-critical flights"
>First flight scheduled NET 6 years from now*

>>10344916
Blown out of proportion it doesn't really count as a shuttle flaw as it was caused by management directly ignoring hardware specs.

Columbia was more like a real failure than Challenger but even that was avoidable with some care.

>>10344921
Wasn't challenger deliberately sabotaged? Or did I dream that?

Thoughts on Dreamchaser? It's closer to the original plan for the shuttle, before the military turned it into a space truck.

>>10345932
It wasn't sabotage, just negligence.

>>10345932
Ostensibly, yes. Every NASA manager and his dog knew exactly what happened before the pieces landed.

>>10345998
Pretty bird

>>10346048
What do you mean? They knew there was something wrong with the shuttle when they sent her up?

>>10346003
I could've sworn i remembered hearing about someone calling the FBI and warning them that the shuttle was sabotaged by some chink terrorist organization.

I worked on the shuttle program as an intern for a few summers, saw several launches up close, and went inside an orbiter. I have seen many of the facilities up close like the orbiter, orbiter processing facility, crawlers, mobile launch platforms, vehicle assembly building, launch pads. Ask me anything

>>10344912

>>10346524
How do you justify being directly involved with the negligent killing 14 people?

>>10346515
An engineer knew that the a part of the SRB would degrade and fail when exposed to low temperatures but was dismissed. The Callenger launched on a very cold day and the guy and a group of engineers desperately wanted to scrub the launch but was also dismissed by management.

>>10346562
1. This was way after 2003
2. I wasn't really "directly" involved in anything, I was a fucking intern
3. Human spaceflight is a risky business my man

>>10346587
Both accidents could have been avoided. Thay knew both that the booster seals were at risk and that strikes on the thermal tiles were dangerous. Both had close calls with similar problems before.

>>10346568
Also there were really strong high altitude crosswinds that day, if it were just the O rings they would have probably been okay since if they burned through completely at liftoff the vehicle would have exploded right away, it was right as they were getting slammed around by those winds that the partially burned O rings finally failed completely and the casing burned through.

>>10346605
>risk
>danger
yep

>>10347312
>copy shuttle
>make it miles better and self landing
how did they do it lads

>>10347319
communism, it tastes awful and it works.

>>10347319
well you see, the Soviet space program in the 80s was competent but underfunded, while NASA was incompetent but overfunded

>>10346524
What part of the shuttle program where you involved in?

>>10348047
I'd rather not say exactly but it involved computer equipment

>>10344869
I wonder if "launch escape is a stpid meme, just make it not explode" guy is still around. He talked me around, back in the day.

>>10348939
National secrets and all? Kidding.

Did you ever get to see a launch? I always wanted to see one as a kid, but whenever I had a chance either it would be scrapped due to weather or I had other duties that kept me away, sadly.

>>10348952
Yeah I saw several from LC-39 area. It was pretty amazing. Never got to see a night launch though. You can still go see a SpaceX or ULA launch but it's not nearly as cool

>>10348960
The good shit was the Saturn V, and if SLS and Starship actually happen we'll have launches of that tier again

I hope we'll someday return to something resembling the golden age of human spaceflight (1950-1990).

most expensive death trap ever

>>10348944
The Shuttle did fine without launch escape system.

>>10353068
1966-1979 imo

>>10348944
>I wonder if "launch escape is a stpid meme, just make it not explode" guy is still around.
He's in every single SpaceX thread.

>>10353886
doesn't the bfr also have no launch escape? do they have any safety measures at all?

>>10353892
BFR is pretty much certain death in any scenario except "first stage is successfully shut down without exploding somewhere between the second half and the end of first stage flight." It also carries 100 people instead of the shuttle's 7.

>>10353892
I thought that the BFRs launch escape "system" is that the upper stage would detach and fly off if something bad happened with the booster stage?

>>10353892
Best safety measure is large flight history. BFR should have that in abundance by the time civilians are routinely allowed on it. After all, planes dont have an escape system either.

>>10353931
Similar to shuttle, there are multiple "black out" regions during ascent during which the ship doesn't have the twr, or dv requirements to make a safe landing. Its performance is actually worse than shuttle in that regard since it can't land like an airplane.

>>10353943
Civilians will be flying on it before they even reach 10 missions, likely.

>>10353892
None and that is why responsible nations and companies will continue to use flight proven and trustworthy rocket architectures involving launch escape systems making sure human life is not lost.

>>10353931
Mark my words the BFR will inevitably kill more people than all the world's space flight programs did to this day.

Does a 747 have escape systems for every passenger? No? So what's the difference? If a 747 catastrophically fails you are just as dead as BFR. At least a rocket explosion will be nice and quick.

>>10354506
Do you think musk will go to prison when the passengers boil in their steel can upon reentry, or will he find a copout?

>>10354614
Imagine comparing a vehicle with 100+ years of development history and testing to a literal steel dildo made in cgi, and claiming “trust us, it will be as safe as an airliner”

>>10354506
But the total dead isn't that important for a vehicle that's meant to fly frequently. It's the failure rate.

Even a vehicle with a failure rate of 1 out of 500 will end up killing more people than the shuttle did if it were flown frequently enough.

Cars in the US kill over 30 thousand people per year. Is it because cars are super unsafe? No, its because there are over 200 million cars in the US driving about.

Anyways I doubt BFR is going to fly with its full passenger capacity until long after it's safety record is established.

>>10354619
If the united states was a normal country he'd be in prison already.

It's not though so I don't doubt americans being dumb as fuck will ignore him murdering bunch of people.

>>10354643
Yeah probably. The nasa managers didn’t go to prison after their incompetence and the disaster either.

>>10354614
>implying they won't have at least one unmanned automated full orbit and re-entry first
This isn't NASA, they don't have a bunch of test pilots to complain about not being in control.

>>10347319
>self landing
Again, that was because the test pilot astronauts bitched about not having full control. So they simply didn't add the parts needed to control Shuttle from ground.

>>10354708
oops meant to reply to >>10354619

>>10354634
>Anyways I doubt BFR is going to fly
me too.

>>10344767
make it more capable than LEO and I agree

>>10345932
O-ring fail on booster
yet in pictures, the boosters flew onwards, still working
someone explain this pls

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc

While the Shuttle may be a flawed vehicle, but damn it's launches were awesome!

>>10357498
there are two boosters

>>10357960
supposedly one of them blew up, yet we see both boosters flying along just fine after the explosion

I asked for an explanation, not a derp

>>10359151
You can't stop a solid rocket, they WILL continue firing until empty or until self-destruct charges are activated.

>>10359151
A solid booster without the bottom half is still a solid booster, it just doesn't have a nozzle anymore so doesn't produce nearly as much thrust. Unless the entire casing is completely destroyed the booster will continue to fire. Even if something cut the booster in half the forward section would keep thrusting away and the lower section would be thrusting out of both ends.

>>10359476
Although the end with the nozzle would make more thrust

>>10346524
i'm studying chem eng, do I have to change majors to get an internship at NASA? also where do they post openings

>>10347319
they had to abandon it because the plans they copied from were sabotaged decoys. it couldn't make a reentry

>>10359805
it survived the only reentry it attempted

>>10359809
true, but barely. and it was so badly damaged afterwards
"Once American spy agencies got wise, they banded together to strike back. The CIA started feeding flawed shuttle designs — NASA rejects — to the Soviet spies, which they passed off as new “improvements.” It worked. Included in the phonies were outdated heat shield designs that could have risked the spacecraft burning up on reentry."

>>10359798
I can't say for sure but I would be pretty surprised if they don't have a need for ChemE. They probably have more need for MAE and ECE though. Idk man, on their website? Try the website for each NASA center separately including their internship programs like Pathways. Also look at contractors, DoD, and industry. There is plenty of space shit going on beyond just NASA

>>10359841
>implying they had to go out of their way to make flawed plans

>>10357498
The o ring failed, sending a flame towards the main tank, severing the SRB connection to it and breaking the bottom of the hydrogen tank. Then the SRB collided with the upper oxygen tank and exploded it. That's why the SRBs are seen stiil flying after the main tank explodes

>>10344628
Do structures like that tower make anyone else's dick hard? I love seeing all those stairs and pathways high up in the air. It's like a video game map.

>>10361809
launch towers are great, yeah
I miss the Saturn swing-away

>>10344767
Go away US military.

>>10346003
>just negligence.

That is a type of sabotage. It is akin to self-mutilation. The people responsible should have been tried and executed.

>>10359841
>true, but barely. and it was so badly damaged afterwards

Sounds better than most 1st test flights.