GoSlash27

Yeah, poor choice of wording on my part. Agreed. Best, -Slashy

DerekL, Yeah, it still has them... It just doesn't use them for setting the final trajectory like the previous versions did. Best, -Slashy

Best advice I can give: 1) Set yourself up for success with an intercept orbit. 2) Learn how to "push the ball" in retrograde, "pull" in prograde to keep yourself headed toward the target. 3) Keep your closure rate a function of your distance. If you do this and practice it until it becomes second nature, rendezvous is easy. Best, -Slashy

PakledHostage, Sorry, but the *entire problem* was that the orbiter itself was dead weight on most missions. A lot of the time, all we needed to take up was crew. We could do that with the shuttle, but we'd send along an entire airliner in the process. Most other times, all we needed to send was cargo. We had several other vehicles that were better at that job (and the Falcon Heavy is *clearly* superior... if it works). In some instances, we did need to do both or actually use the unique capabilities of the Shuttle. Spacelab, Hubble, the ISS, etc. And thank goodness we had the shuttle to deliver it for us when we needed it. But really... in most cases it was just a liability. Best, -Slashy

sevenperforce, Things have evolved since back when the shuttle was on the drawing board. Back then, the best way to get a vehicle where you wanted it was with a pilot and wings. Times have changed. Best, -Slashy

Found a screen- cap. The original Rockwell concept was actually HOTOL. Best, -Slashy

Well, yeah... but that's why it was supposed to have jet engines originally. Still looking for the original HOTOL concepts. A lot of broken links... Best, -Slashy

PB666, See above. It was a distraction in another thread. Perfectly fine to talk about a contentious subject so long as 1) it doesn't violate the rules and 2) everybody involved conducts themselves civilly. So far we're doing just fine. Best, -Slashy

PB666, I brought it up because the subject was a distraction in a different thread. As always: when we disagree, it's not the disagreement that derails a thread. It's how we conduct ourselves. Best, -Slashy

sevenperforce, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_design_process ^ Looked like this. Best, -Slashy

Yup. The original plan was supposed to be HOTOL. In the budget cuts following of Apollo, the entire project was threatened to be axed. Everything was eliminated except the shuttle itself, but the R&D was still too high, so Rockwell was forced into a compromise design to balance R&D with operational cost. Hence vertical launch with "reusable" SRBs. Best, -Slashy

Yup. And while we're being critical, it was a compromise design that never fulfilled the original requirement that was envisioned for it. "STS" in it's original form was an entire transportation network, not a single vehicle. The shuttle wasn't supposed to be vertical launch or unpowered on return. It was supposed to be cheaper to operate, have much quicker turn- around time, and pay for itself through reusability. None of those things happened. The engines (SRB and LF) wound up cheaper to replace than refurbish, and that obviated the entire point of the design. Still... what we got gave us unprecedented access to LEO and made a lot of things possible that wouldn't otherwise have been. Best, -Slashy IIRC, That happened when I was 14 years old. I was pretty shaken by it, but I understood that astronauts understand and accept the risks when they volunteer. It was a different time then. What bothered me more was finding out later that people had seen the danger, raised the alarms, and pleaded for an abort on that launch and they were overridden. I see that as more of a failure of leadership than design. Best, -Slashy

The main safety problem was having the manned vehicle and payload clinging to the side of the rocket instead of sitting on top. If something blows up or comes loose, it's far safer to have it behind you rather than next to you. Lessons learned... Best, -Slashy

My favorite STS launch video: The view from the SRBs from launch to splashdown. Best, -Slashy

Well, the Shuttle's thrust was in line with the Falcon Heavy. It's payload , OTOH, is not. You're welcome I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject over there. Best, -Slashy

Also, I should point out a couple details for clarification. #1, the original launch sequence animation didn't include nuking a city or the words "mission accomplished". #2, ICBMs (or at least American ICBMs) are not tasked with counter- value targets like cities. They are tasked with targets that require precision, like counter-force and command/ control. Thus, this animation isn't quite accurate. It does, however, give the general idea of how an ICBM does it's thing. Here's a less callous version of the same animation: The part that is of interest to us is at 1:29. The 3rd stage thrust termination ports blow out on command, thus giving a precise end to the acceleration in the SRB powered boost phase. This was actually how the energy was managed in the Minuteman I and II. Less accuracy, single larger warhead. Minuteman III brought in the hypergolic MIRV bus, which allowed independent targeting of multiple, smaller warheads on a single ICBM and obviated the need for the thrust termination ports. Best, -Slashy

Wcmille, Aye. I did away with them in later iterations. Best, -Slashy

I started this thread to have a place to discuss the Shuttle without having it spill over into other threads. Personally, I never "hated" the Shuttle. I think it was a beautiful piece of engineering and I loved watching it launch. It had some unique capabilities that served us well. But the way I see it, we just don't need those capabilities anymore. We're not building any new space stations or repairing Hubble. Moreover, the STS was never as safe or cost- effective as other launch vehicles for the job of delivering crews or payload to LEO. The Shuttle was sucking up NASA's budget, getting old and more dangerous with each flight, and keeping us confined to LEO. It was time to let it go and move on IMO. I loved it when we had it. I and all of my nerd buddies went out and drank a toast to it on the successful conclusion of it's last flight... but I don't mourn it. I'm glad we're moving on to bigger and more ambitious projects. Best, -Slashy

Wow, thread- jack much? This thread is about SpaceX, not the shuttle. Best, -Slashy

Wcmille, Thanks, but the form really just follows the function in these cases. Flight plan: Standard gravity turn with 5° prograde kick at 80 m/sec velocity. TWR (vac): If you mean initial TWR of the core when the boosters are released, it's 0.7G. DV (vac): In the above context, 1,600 m/sec. I don't use KER, so some of my figures may differ or may not be able to wholly answer your questions. @Nich did a KER analysis of one of my rockets: If you need more info, I can kick you a .craft file to play with. Best, -Slashy

Here's an interesting possibility: ZUMA (an NSA SIGINT sat) actually was released into LEO and the Falcon 9 did perform nominally... but then ZUMA failed afterward and was left in a low, degrading orbit. Nobody knows where or when it will come down. It would, naturally, be to our advantage to not have our enemies aware of this fact. Obscuring this satellite's true fate would be helpful in the short term in that case. I think this fits best with the info we have at the moment. Best, -Slashy

Laie, I do it the same way you do. 5° AoA on the climbout (which translates to nose at prograde with the static incidence), and decrease pitch as necessary until I clear the wall. My SSTO spaceplanes are generally too underpowered to exceed Mach 1 at sea level, they generally jump into the supersonic regime around 6km altitude in level flight. I think others tend to go supersonic at sea level because they have the thrust to pull it off. Best, -Slashy

PB666, Sorry, but this is all just a word salad to me. Can you explain it in plain English? Best, -Slashy

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Best, -Slashy Yup. Like all the congress- critters who like to show off their status by publicly commenting on classified matters. Plus, this one has it in for SpaceX, so he's always looking for a reason to blame them, even if "it" isn't their fault. Put 'em together, and he blabs to the press that Zuma is (was?) an intelligence gathering satellite. Which I kinda figured anyway.. This is just a supporting data point.

A helpful quote from the WaPo: U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who said he received a “preliminary briefing,” had two concerns about the possible loss of the satellite. “One is the loss of the intelligence that would have been available,” he said. “The second concern is the reliability of the delivery systems. And that issue is being debated between the contractors, SpaceX and the satellite manufacturer, Northrop.” This is why they don't like to brief congress- critters: They talk too much. Best, -Slashy