The All Encompassing Space Blog: Introduction and My Point of View on the Space Shuttle
Jaime Cross
The main point of the orbiter in the eyes of Nixon and the rest of the world was for the shuttle to be routine. Making the shuttle and solid booster rockets reusable. At the time the solid rocket boosters were only able to land in the water. Of course, the ocean is mostly saltwater, Saltwater being corrosive it can damage the boosters internally and externally, which intern sadly ended the Challenger shuttle missions in an explosion T+ 79s into launch due to an O-Ring failure. This system drained money from the dwindling space exploration budget. The shuttle itself was the main thing to worry about when it came to reusability. For it to be set to launch back into space it would need to go through vigorous repairs, which again drained a lot of money. Also, the media was a big stress factor for NASA at the time of Challenger. NASA promised to the public to launch at least 50 shuttles per year. Yet they only launched at least four per year. Whenever NASA would delay the flight of a Shuttle the media would catch fire. They would excuse NASA of not for filling their promise to make space travel routine. Overall it comes down to money like most things do. NASA is dedicated to exploring the unknown was only going 250 miles above the Earth in Low Earth Orbit. Though they did do fantastic things there, like build the internationally know Space Station, It did fail in many other areas. Though I do find the Shuttle a great stepping stone to what we have got today, I feel that we needed to do much more to explore our solar system.
One out of the two Space Shuttle failures were due to the SBR's or more commonly known as the Solid booster rocket. They were not able to withstand the low temperatures that the Cape would sometimes take. There was an original design where the solid boosters were excluded. This would have prevented the challenger O-ring Failure. Yet due to the Air force wanting bigger satellites in the sky, NASA had to remodel its shuttle design to what it is today with the inclusion of a bigger payload compartment and the SBR's.
NASA predicted before the program that there would be a vehicle failure 1 in every 100 flights. This was incorrect. The shuttle missions went for 30 years, flying 135 flights. As we all know, there were two tragedies that occurred in those 30 years. This puts the failure rate at 1 in 68 flights. Making NASA's predictions way off the mark. This makes the Space shuttle the most dangerous spacecraft ever to be made for manned space flight. (though this is only due to the lack of nations putting people into space. It's only been the US, Russia, and China.) There is no one to blame in this matter, they tried their best to make a spacecraft that was able to handle the harshness of space yet they had to suffer the consequences of flawed use of the Solid Booster Rockets.
Though the SBR's are not to take all the blame in this matter. The infamous orange fuel tank strapped to the bottom of the Orbiter was to blame for the Columbia incident. The Orange fuel tank carries Liquid hydrogen and Liquid oxidizer which needed to be isolated in the fuel tank in order for it to propel fuel into the RS-25 engines. This meant that the tank needs to be contained with foam. The foam that was said to be harmless. During the launch at approximately T+ 81s, a piece of insolent foam broke off the side of the Liquid fuel tank and at a rapid pace ripped into the left wing of Space Shuttle Columbia on STS-107 (Jan 16, 2003). This mishap was not found until the day after when flight controllers were reviewing the launch. Originally NASA didn't worry about it. Would you? Your initial thought is that "It's foam, what harm can it cause?". Try foam flying down toward the wing at 545 mph. This ripped through the heat shield in the left-wing and eventually killed the crew on re-entry. The Orbiter was a delicate vehicle. After use, you could poke one of the heat shields with no force at all and still break apart the shield.
Now NASA has developed something called the Space Launch System. The SLS is sadly derived from the Shuttle, and I say this because I would have hoped they would have developed new technologies to use for the system. This launch vehicle is an interplanetary transport. The SLS is modeled much like the Saturn-V, the F-1 rockets were used by the Saturn-V yet the SLS is going to use the RS-25 rockets. The RS-25 is the same engines that the space shuttle used. Even though I would have liked NASA to develop new technologies, The Space shuttle was a step forward in a new generation of Space travel. I am hoping that the SLS using the Orion capsule would get us to Mars in a quick yet efficient fashion like how the Space Shuttle was supposed to do.
The Space shuttle program now ended has left a legacy that could be put to shame or glory. Though whats next? You may have noticed if you have the familiarity of the Mercury and Gemini programs, No one was sad that they ended! They all turned to the C-1 (Saturn-V) and the Apollo programs and forgot about them! ( of course not literally) We learned from those two programs about accumulated them into one overarching one called Apollo. The Space Shuttle is almost as popular as the Apollo missions came to a close in 2011. Though there was no new and improved rocket/program that was up next. There was just an empty launch pad. No accumulative mission waiting to launch. I think people weren't sad due to the shuttle missions ending, they were sad due to the lack of missions to follow up on. Yet still, we are still using technologies from the '80s to power the SLS. Though thanks to Elon Musk and the SpaceX team we might be saved from the impending doom of the space agency. The F-9 rocket produced by SpaceX is essentially what the Space shuttle was supposed to do, cut the amount spent on space by 30%. SpaceX succeeded in their goal. Though NASA is still the leader in the sky's currently and I hope it stays that way.
Though it may seem to hate the shuttle, I tend to like what it did in space. One of the most famous projects being the International Space Station. This gave us the opportunity to practically live in space, Though after the Shuttle program ended we have been hitching a ride with the Russians in the infamous Soyuz rocket. That is using technologies from the '60s and still has a 100% efficiency rate and a 0% fatality rate. (aren't we glad they aren't using their N-1 rocket...) Also, the release of the Hubble Space Telescope has helped us answer any questions about our solar system and beyond. The shuttle was made for the best of intentions and gave a lot of popularity to NASA, Due to the fact that the Shuttle is the most iconic vehicle in their fleet.
Overall it's all based on an opinion I like to take a neutral stance on the topic yet the shuttle had its flaws. The program did end up ending the lives of 14 people on both the Challenger launch anomaly and Columbia re-entry. I do enjoy that NASA was able to use the shuttle to build the ISS and able to be a stepping stone for the much more powerful Space Launch System. The current age of space is an exciting one due to the fact that we have plans to land on another planet, not just the moon. Mars is what NASA has been working toward its whole existence and I hope I'm alive to see it happen. If you like this little post don't forget to Subscribe to get my blog post in your inbox! Leave a comment down below for what you would like to see next time! Thanks for Reading and See you'll next time on The All Encompassing Space Blog.
Hello! It seems you have stumbled your way into my little lonely corner of the internet. I am Jaime Cross and I am a space nerd. I am overall pretty much a nerd yet, I tend to classify myself as a so-called "Space Nerd". Living on the west coast of North America I seem to find myself engulfed in a society where people think Outer Space is just another boring thing in science class. So it's hard finding others to vent all the cool ideas and thoughts I have on the subject. Therefore I created The All Encompassing Space Blog. So throughout this so-called "blog", I will be expressing my feelings on literally everything Space. From Astrophysics to Space History, Astronautical Engineering etc. Enjoy!
NASA being the leading space agency ever since July 24, 1969, I have fallen in love with everything they have done. Of course, everyone loves the Apollo program and such, fewer knowing about the Mercury and Gemini missions. Then little to no one knowing about SkyLab and the little stories such as Apollo 12 getting struck by lightning twice. I love it all. Some of you might have noticed that one vital string of missions has been left out. Yes, It's the Space Shuttle. The space shuttle out of all missions is my least favorite for multiple reasons, but first a little back story.
After Apollo 18 - 20 were scrubbed due to the dreaded budget cuts, (After SkyLab) Nixon wanted to make going to space easier for everyone, by making it routine. He spoke to NASA and explained what he wanted. Thus the space shuttle was born. (Side note: I have the utmost respect for the Astronauts that went up on the space shuttles). The space shuttle program spawned six orbiters. First being the Enterprise which didn't go to space due to the fact that it was only built to test the gliding systems for the orbiter. Then came Columbia the first shuttle to ever fly into space its mission was to just test the overall performance of the Orbiter itself.
One out of the two Space Shuttle failures were due to the SBR's or more commonly known as the Solid booster rocket. They were not able to withstand the low temperatures that the Cape would sometimes take. There was an original design where the solid boosters were excluded. This would have prevented the challenger O-ring Failure. Yet due to the Air force wanting bigger satellites in the sky, NASA had to remodel its shuttle design to what it is today with the inclusion of a bigger payload compartment and the SBR's.
 |
| Original Space Shuttle Design |
NASA predicted before the program that there would be a vehicle failure 1 in every 100 flights. This was incorrect. The shuttle missions went for 30 years, flying 135 flights. As we all know, there were two tragedies that occurred in those 30 years. This puts the failure rate at 1 in 68 flights. Making NASA's predictions way off the mark. This makes the Space shuttle the most dangerous spacecraft ever to be made for manned space flight. (though this is only due to the lack of nations putting people into space. It's only been the US, Russia, and China.) There is no one to blame in this matter, they tried their best to make a spacecraft that was able to handle the harshness of space yet they had to suffer the consequences of flawed use of the Solid Booster Rockets.
Though the SBR's are not to take all the blame in this matter. The infamous orange fuel tank strapped to the bottom of the Orbiter was to blame for the Columbia incident. The Orange fuel tank carries Liquid hydrogen and Liquid oxidizer which needed to be isolated in the fuel tank in order for it to propel fuel into the RS-25 engines. This meant that the tank needs to be contained with foam. The foam that was said to be harmless. During the launch at approximately T+ 81s, a piece of insolent foam broke off the side of the Liquid fuel tank and at a rapid pace ripped into the left wing of Space Shuttle Columbia on STS-107 (Jan 16, 2003). This mishap was not found until the day after when flight controllers were reviewing the launch. Originally NASA didn't worry about it. Would you? Your initial thought is that "It's foam, what harm can it cause?". Try foam flying down toward the wing at 545 mph. This ripped through the heat shield in the left-wing and eventually killed the crew on re-entry. The Orbiter was a delicate vehicle. After use, you could poke one of the heat shields with no force at all and still break apart the shield.
Now NASA has developed something called the Space Launch System. The SLS is sadly derived from the Shuttle, and I say this because I would have hoped they would have developed new technologies to use for the system. This launch vehicle is an interplanetary transport. The SLS is modeled much like the Saturn-V, the F-1 rockets were used by the Saturn-V yet the SLS is going to use the RS-25 rockets. The RS-25 is the same engines that the space shuttle used. Even though I would have liked NASA to develop new technologies, The Space shuttle was a step forward in a new generation of Space travel. I am hoping that the SLS using the Orion capsule would get us to Mars in a quick yet efficient fashion like how the Space Shuttle was supposed to do.
The Space shuttle program now ended has left a legacy that could be put to shame or glory. Though whats next? You may have noticed if you have the familiarity of the Mercury and Gemini programs, No one was sad that they ended! They all turned to the C-1 (Saturn-V) and the Apollo programs and forgot about them! ( of course not literally) We learned from those two programs about accumulated them into one overarching one called Apollo. The Space Shuttle is almost as popular as the Apollo missions came to a close in 2011. Though there was no new and improved rocket/program that was up next. There was just an empty launch pad. No accumulative mission waiting to launch. I think people weren't sad due to the shuttle missions ending, they were sad due to the lack of missions to follow up on. Yet still, we are still using technologies from the '80s to power the SLS. Though thanks to Elon Musk and the SpaceX team we might be saved from the impending doom of the space agency. The F-9 rocket produced by SpaceX is essentially what the Space shuttle was supposed to do, cut the amount spent on space by 30%. SpaceX succeeded in their goal. Though NASA is still the leader in the sky's currently and I hope it stays that way.
Though it may seem to hate the shuttle, I tend to like what it did in space. One of the most famous projects being the International Space Station. This gave us the opportunity to practically live in space, Though after the Shuttle program ended we have been hitching a ride with the Russians in the infamous Soyuz rocket. That is using technologies from the '60s and still has a 100% efficiency rate and a 0% fatality rate. (aren't we glad they aren't using their N-1 rocket...) Also, the release of the Hubble Space Telescope has helped us answer any questions about our solar system and beyond. The shuttle was made for the best of intentions and gave a lot of popularity to NASA, Due to the fact that the Shuttle is the most iconic vehicle in their fleet.
Overall it's all based on an opinion I like to take a neutral stance on the topic yet the shuttle had its flaws. The program did end up ending the lives of 14 people on both the Challenger launch anomaly and Columbia re-entry. I do enjoy that NASA was able to use the shuttle to build the ISS and able to be a stepping stone for the much more powerful Space Launch System. The current age of space is an exciting one due to the fact that we have plans to land on another planet, not just the moon. Mars is what NASA has been working toward its whole existence and I hope I'm alive to see it happen. If you like this little post don't forget to Subscribe to get my blog post in your inbox! Leave a comment down below for what you would like to see next time! Thanks for Reading and See you'll next time on The All Encompassing Space Blog.
 |
| Space Shuttle Atlantis |
Credit to NASA
Karl Tate, SPACE.com Infographics Artist. "Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster Explained (Infographic)." Space.com. Space.com, n.d. Web. 21 June 2017
Comments
Post a Comment