/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7146452]

Why did nasa create this piece of shit?

>unreliable
>costs more to maintain and reuse than just building an expendable spaceship every time
>tricky as fuck to land
>huge cargo capacity but it's not like you need to bring shit back from space anyway, any regular spacecraft could ferry just as much shit up if not more

could someone explain?

[Anonymous No.7146463]

Because it's cool.

[Anonymous No.7146481]

>>7146463
The funny thing is, that's probably a correct answer. That, and a great overestimation of the amount of stuff to bring to space and back.

[Anonymous No.7146484]

>>7146452
>could someone explain?
Simple politics.
If we used SaturnV's or similar for launches, we'd need the political support of the government over and over. Each fresh President and batch of Congressmen would need to justify the cost of each launch.
Instead, they just kept inheriting the Shuttle, and didn't need to stick their necks out for space missions.

[Anonymous No.7146497]

Hope of achieving full re-usability and cheapen spaceflight.

Didn't work but had to keep its districts happy so it kept going forever/

[Anonymous No.7146542]

>>7146497
Hey, SpaceX has announced upgrades to Falcon 9, that are supposed to boost performance by 30%:
http://spacenews.com/spacex-aims-to-debut-new-version-of-falcon-9-this-summer/

They've previously mentioned "sandbagging" on the Falcon Heavy numbers.

It looks more and more likely that by the time it flies, the Falcon Heavy is going to outperform the initial version of SLS, at least to LEO.

[Anonymous No.7146574]

>>7146542
The article says they are using a more dangerous fuel and cheating on the engine certification.

[Anonymous No.7146577]

>>7146574
No it doesn't. Quote the bits where you think it says that.

[Anonymous No.7146583]

>>7146542
So they're saying the engine is going to be 30% more powerful. That is, 30% more thrust, this doesn't translate to more dV right? Except for maybe reduced gravity losses because of shorter time to orbit. But even then, won't additional drag offset this?

[Anonymous No.7146601]

>>7146583
One thing they're doing is increasing the propellant density with sub-chilling, so they've got more mass of propellant in the same tanks. Normally, the kerosene would be at ambient temperature, and the oxygen would be at its boiling point, but I think they're going for slush oxygen and a more energetic, thinner petroleum blend chilled until it's a similar viscosity to RP-1 (maybe closer to diesel than to kerosene).

I think they're likely also doing a stretch of the upper stage.

Higher thrust out of the same engines lets you lift more propellant. You just have to add capacity for it one way or another. That's why the upgrades to Merlin to increase its thrust have been such a big deal.

[Anonymous No.7146612]

>>7146577
> with a modified fuel mix...will be about 30 percent more powerful
Implies higher energy density - more explosive mix - more dangerous.

> Shotwell said the company stopped full qualification of the Merlin 1D engine’s capabilities to keep the first Falcon 9 v1.1 flights on schedule.
Stopped certification at least temporarily.

[Anonymous No.7146616]

>>7146452
It's supposed to be a CIA-spy-satellite launcher disguised as a research lab. Most of it's capabilities like "takeoff and land in the same orbit" and "land and takeoff in the same day" don't mean much at all for exploring space, but are important capabilities if you think you might need to militarize space. The CIA's only goal was to militarize space.

[Anonymous No.7146630]

>>7146616
>"takeoff and land in the same orbit" and "land and takeoff in the same day"

a*pretty much any spaceship can do these, or am I mistaken?

[Anonymous No.7146634]

>>7146612
>Implies higher energy density - more explosive mix - more dangerous.
Make oxygen and kerosene more cold - they shrink down to less volume - they have higher density and the same energy - they have higher energy density - not more dangerous - just colder.

>Stopped certification at least temporarily.
She means they stopped certifying higher and higher performance of the Merlin 1D when they decided it was good enough, and settled for using less than its full capabilities.

They were in a rush to get Falcon 9 1.1 flying, so they only certified it up to about 70% of its real performance potential, and they designed the rocket for that. But now they've had more than another year of testing, and they're ready to upgrade Falcon 9 1.1 to take advantage of the Merlin 1D's full performance.

The beauty of using propellant densification and pushing the engines harder is that they're not significantly increasing the empty mass. If you're familiar with the rocket equation, this is a big deal. Falcon 9 1.1, with its high thrust-to-weight engines, state-of-the-art materials, and dense propellant, already has great full:depleted mass ratios, and they're about to get considerably better.

[Anonymous No.7146645]

>>7146630
I'm not sure what he's talking about, but I remember that the military had partial control over the project and influenced the decision to make it a brick with delta wings instead of having a lifting body. Something about the ability to achieve polar orbit (like how you want your spy satellites).

[Anonymous No.7146647]

>>7146630
The space shuttle was supposed to be able to launch to a polar orbit, match orbits with a satellite and pick it up, and then land with the satellite in its cargo bay, back on a landing strip near the launchpad, all in one trip around the Earth, taking about half an hour.

Remember that the Earth turns. A polar orbit means that the Earth is going to rotate about 1/24th before you're back. So you've got to be able to glide a long way to get back to the landing strip near the launch site.

That's why it has such big wings on it.

Of course, trying to meet these kinds of crazy requirements on the first try at a reusable launch vehicle was madness. It couldn't do this, and trying to do it helped make it expensive and unreliable.

[Anonymous No.7146650]

>>7146630
manned this is harder than you might think, a suborbital flight could do this easily but positioning something for return when placed successfully in orbit is a bit trickier. Usually it takes about 10 hours to get an object in a proper orbit and about the same to get it out.

[Anonymous No.7146654]

>>7146616
Did CIA ever do anything that didn't turn out incredibly toxic?

>Bin Laden
>Iran revolution
>Saddam Hussein
Terrific track record, that.

[Anonymous No.7146663]

>>7146647
Thanks, very well explained.

[Anonymous No.7146665]

>>7146654
It really wasn't the CIA, but the DOD, that demanded these capabilities.

[Anonymous No.7146680]

>>7146654

well, the thing with the CIA (and all intelligence agencies) is that the public only hears about what they're up to when it blows up in their face. If an operation goes well, it means no one will ever hear about it, except for high profile special cases like Bin Laden where revealing what went down is basically the point.

If the CIA was truly as incompetent as its public track record would lead one to believe, I somehow doubt that the US would be in as dominant a position as it is today.

[Anonymous No.7146685]

>>7146634
> they have higher energy density
Exactly.
> just colder
More possibility of cold burns to the fuel handling personnel, so more dangerous.

> so they only certified it up to about 70% of its real performance potential, and they designed the rocket for that

> Shotwell said the company stopped full qualification of the Merlin 1D engine’s capabilities to keep the first Falcon 9 v1.1 flights on schedule
> Shotwell said the new-version Falcon 9 will not force the company to begin a lengthy new process of certifying the vehicle
The article is somewhat confusing then.

[Anonymous No.7146697]

>>7146685

You implied that the fuel would be more dangerous because it would be more explosive. Pretending that you were actually talking about SpaceX personnel getting cold burns is dishonest.

Also, cold burns are easily and consistently preventable with proper safety procedures. I see no reason not to take the non-risk of having colder fuel in order to obtain a substantial performance increase.

[Anonymous No.7146698]

>>7146685
>The article is somewhat confusing then.
I don't doubt it, if you're not familiar with SpaceX's history and situation. The article isn't very well written for people who aren't.

> Shotwell said the company stopped full qualification of the Merlin 1D engine’s capabilities to keep the first Falcon 9 v1.1 flights on schedule
>stopped full qualification of ... capabilities
>[only certified partial capabilities]

>to keep the first Falcon 9 v1.1 flights on schedule
The first Falcon 9 v1.1 flights started about a year and a half ago.

And "to keep ... on schedule" is euphemistic. They were, and are, far behind schedule. The decision to switch from Falcon 9 1.0 to Falcon 9 1.1 added years of delay to their launch schedule.

> Shotwell said the new-version Falcon 9 will not force the company to begin a lengthy new process of certifying the vehicle
She's talking here about the Air Force certification process, which is largely a paperwork exercise.

>> they have higher energy density
>Exactly.
>> just colder
>More possibility of cold burns to the fuel handling personnel, so more dangerous.
You have to be kidding me with this shit.

[Anonymous No.7146700]

They were so fixated on getting their "thing", which was a new mega program for work and prestige and all the generous fanciful claims they bought into, they didn't give sufficient critical examination of the concept or alternatives.

Later, a cult formed around it.

[Anonymous No.7146720]

NASA is a jobs program, so they built the spacecraft that created and maintained the most jobs.

I thought everyone knew this?

[Anonymous No.7146774]

>>7146697
> I see no reason not to take the non-risk of having colder fuel in order to obtain a substantial performance increase
If the cold winds up being "only slightly" more dangerous, the personnel risk would be only slightly less non-risky.

[Anonymous No.7146783]

>>7146774
You're already dealing with liquid oxygen. It's not going to be more dangerous just because it's a little colder. The main danger of liquid oxygen is not the cold, but the fact that it makes explosive mixtures with anything combustable if you spill it. That hazard isn't going to be increased.

And the subcooled kerosene isn't going to be dangerously cold. If anything it will be safer because it'll be even less likely to ignite if spilled (kerosene is already a pretty safe thing to spill, as fuels go, due to its low volatility).

[Anonymous No.7146804]

The same reason why the Bradley "fighting vehicle" is a pile of shit. Politics.

Everyone wanted to include their desired functionality and made it ineffective at whatever it did.

This is why "design by community" is a horrible idea.

[Anonymous No.7146808]

I'm surprised that no one has accused NASA of building this thing to make the USSR at the time bankrupt by trying to imitate it and fail miserably?

[Anonymous No.7146815]

>>7146808
I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the motivation.

America loves expensive weapons. If they can make their poorer enemies throw money at trying to copy them, they're drawing them into a fight they can't win.

[Anonymous No.7146827]

>>7146783
>And the subcooled kerosene isn't going to be dangerously cold

How cold will this kerosene be ?

[Anonymous No.7146829]

>>7146827
Not as cold as the liquid oxygen.

[Anonymous No.7146834]

>>7146829
Will it be colder than an ice cube of water ?

[Anonymous No.7146836]

>>7146452

The original design was a rush job, and they continued to expand on it. It was cheaper to keep that design rather than do a complete overhaul, especially with the politicians of the time demanding immediate results.

It was basically a mechanically, "lava-flow," reinforced by politics.

[Anonymous No.7146882]

>>7146834
...at 0 degrees F

[Anonymous No.7146909]

>>7146685
Lol you're backtracking so hard nigger

[Anonymous No.7146939]

How close was the Soviet Buran shuttle to a manned flight?

[Anonymous No.7146942]

>>7146939
Already there pretty much since it did an unmanned flight just fine

[Anonymous No.7146954]

>>7146939
It was 100% automated on its first space flight. All you needed was to stick people on board, and you'd have the first manned soviet space orbiter.

[Anonymous No.7146999]

>>7146909
you should Lol in a SpaceX thread

[Anonymous No.7147029]

>>7146680
Polio is back in Pakistan thanks to that 'successful' operation you are referring to. Great job.

[Anonymous No.7147122]

>>7146452
The original shuttle was intended to be smaller and was supposed to be a component of a larger space infrastructure project that encompassed space stations and interplanetary spaceships for Mars and Lunar exploration.
When the project was nixed they wanted to keep the shuttle and the space station part but the shuttle needed to do dozens of flights per year to be cost effective and the only way to secure funding and enough flight missions was by getting the Air Force into the boat. Air Force demanded larger cargo capacity to be able to launch and retrieve their satellites. In the end they still couldn't get enough flights to make it economically feasible, the larger shuttle contributed to technical problems and larger costs and the solid boosters were not as reusable as intended.

[Anonymous No.7147141]

>>7147029
You expect me to give a shit about shitskin goat fuckers who want to blow up my house with bombs, rape my women into sex slaves, and hate every aspect of my culture?

Fuck them and fuck you. Get out of /sci/ and never return. r9k is more your speed.

[Anonymous No.7147149]

It's a giant cock - it's literally America wanting to buttfuck space and the galaxy

[Anonymous No.7148089]

>>7146939
Safer. Replaced SRB's with normal chemical rockets that can be turned off in an emergency.

[Anonymous No.7148124]

>>7148089
I get what you're saying, but solid-fueled rockets are normal chemical rockets. You mean they used liquid-fueled rockets. Whether these are safer is debatable.

The thing about Buran is that it's even more senseless than the shuttle. The shuttle was at least intended to be a cost-effective reusable, with its recoverable SRBs and the main engines returning for reuse attached to the orbiter. When they started it, they didn't know that it would turn out so badly.

With Buran, the Soviets looked at how the shuttle would turn out, and they said, "Let's aim for that outcome. That's something we want." So Buran didn't even have potential to be cheaper than conventional rockets. It was just a payload for conventional expendable rockets.

Buran was the crudest sort of uncomprehending mimicry.

[Anonymous No.7148146]

>>7146452
Its the best they can manage with their budget.A nuclear rocket would be better but it would turn anything underneath the exhaust into a wasteland.

[Anonymous No.7148151]

>>7147141
>You expect me to shit up a thread with muh house, muh wimmen, and muh culture?
Yes, and you did not disappoint, you inbred redneck hillbilly jackanape Yank.

[Anonymous No.7148192]

[Violent Simians Guy No.7148775]

>>7146720
>NASA is a jobs program, so they built the spacecraft that created and maintained the most jobs.
>I thought everyone knew this?

Yeah, they do know it, but the Cheetos-eating neckbeards don't want it mentioned in public forums.

Humans do things almost solely for ECONOMIC reasons. After that, they do things for SEXUAL reasons. Only after those two primary drivers have been satisfied, do Humans start doing things for IDEOLOGICAL reasons. Sure, you can find Humans who don't act that way, but MOST do.

[Anonymous No.7149018]

>>7146452
OK Op think about it like this, if you were an astronaught, would you really feel safe on a rocket that was "expendable" ? If they never needed to bring the rocket back or use it again, they just tossed it into the ocean or whatever when it was done, surely it would be made less safe than a vehicle meant to be re-used that would have to endure many flyings.

I'm pretty sure that the expense was worth it in creating a safe rocket ship like the Space Shuttle, its just middle-management and an unfortunate cascade of bad decisionmaking by old tenured engineers who really shouldn't be working at NASA anymore that lead to it becoming notorious as a Crew Killer. Protip: you learn in the first year of materials sceinces, what happens to rubber seals in cold weather.

[Anonymous No.7149854]

>>7148124
poor Buran ;_;

[Anonymous No.7150050]

The shuttle worked, it just wasn't as cheap as they hoped. Safety record is also among the best in the world for a vehicle. Despite losing two of the five over 135 launches.

[Anonymous No.7150055]

>>7146452
It was the first and only legitimate "space ship"

Could they have flown a lunar mission with the shuttle?

[Anonymous No.7150058]

>>7150055
yes. she cold have carried the fuel and a lander in the cargo bay.

Hell they could have probably landed the shuttle on the moon.

[Anonymous No.7150065]

>>7146616
Didn't the space shuttle have something to do with STI aka "Star Wars"?

[Anonymous No.7150082]

>>7150050
>The shuttle worked, it just wasn't as cheap as they hoped.
The shuttle's purpose was to lower the cost of orbital launch through efficient reusability, but it cost more than other launch options. It didn't work. Not being cheaper than expendable rockets was not fulfilling its purpose.

Furthermore, it didn't just fall short of cost goals, it fell short on capability goals. They built a whole infrastructure for shutle launches and landings in California, which were never used, because the shuttle turned out to not be capable of carrying its intended payload to polar orbit.

Since the guys who sold the shuttle convinced everyone that it would provide further savings in payload costs by allowing designers to be less mass sensitive, resulting in a generation of overweight satellites intended to launch on the shuttle (which never could), the failure of the shuttle to do its job required rush upgrades of the Titan series of rockets, which was of course very expensive and resulted in a number of delays and launch failures.

>Safety record is also among the best in the world for a vehicle.
Oh, that's a howler. By what standard? Miles travelled? The shuttle isn't point-to-point transportation.

[Anonymous No.7150083]

>>7148192
whats the name of this thing?

[Anonymous No.7150091]

>>7148151
sick burn bro

[Anonymous No.7150164]

>>7150055
No.

[Anonymous No.7150339]

>>7146542
SpaceX, seems very similar to the STS ideal of full reusability in quite a few ways.

>Huge promises, full reusability, regular, cheap flights et cetera
>Currently, some progress, somewhat promising
>Great hype
>potentially not too much as far as long term guaranteed support,
>No accidents, yet

I wonder what will happen when a SpaceX rocket blows to pieces, or when political support for private spaceflight lessens.

[Anonymous No.7150942]

>>7150339
>when political support for private spaceflight lessens.

As long as governments need satellites, SpaceX will be profitable, unless something goes horribly wrong with their launches.

[Anonymous No.7152293]

To deploy nukes if needed, and secret shit in space.

[Anonymous No.7152342]

>>7146452
It seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Anonymous No.7152965]

>>7146939
They could have done a manned flight on the next mission.

However, actually implementing it gave them the answer to their primary question: why the fuck was America flying this expensive piece of shit? The answer: NASA was bonkers, reusing the Shuttle was burning money instead of saving money, by design. So the USSR shelved the project and went back to their workhorse Proton and Soyuz.

The only practical thing to come out of Buran were the side boosters. It became the Zenit launcher (used by Sea Launch) and its engines spawned the RD-180 (sold to the US for the Atlas V) an the RD-191 used on Russia's new hotness Angara.

[Anonymous No.7152969]

>>7148089
>dat beautiful Dream Chaser
>never to become reality
are you trying to make me sad?

[Anonymous No.7152975]

>>7148192
North Korea, what the fuck are you doing?! You're not supposed to let grade schoolers design your rockets!

[Anonymous No.7152983]

>>7149018
>a safe rocket ship like the Space Shuttle
Really? Need I remind you of the death count?

Shuttle: 14
Soyuz: 4

[Anonymous No.7152997]

>>7152983
all of them were in extraordinary circumstances that aren't related to normal use or could have been prevented with proper maintenance.

[Anonymous No.7153009]

>>7152997
Traveling to fucking space is an extraordinary circumstance

[Anonymous No.7153015]

>>7152983
>Shuttle: 2 crews
>Soyuz: 2 crews
It's not less safe just because it carried more passengers per flight.

It's also not less safe just because it flew more flights:
>Shuttle: 135 missions, crew loss on missions 25 and 113
>Soyuz: 123 missions, crew loss on missions 1 and 10
113 missions is a good run, but the shuttle went 87 missions without a crew loss, and then had one.

[Anonymous No.7153065]

>>7146452
> yfw nasa was responsible for both disasters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crn1sAZfsp0

[Anonymous No.7154049]

>>7153065
Quite frankly I don't listen to a word these retards have to say
All they care about is "MUH EBIL GUBERMENT MUH LIBERTARIANISM MUH BULLSHIT"
Honestly fuck those guys and fuck libertarians.

[Anonymous No.7154052]

>>7154049
Man, you say that now, but some day you're going to want to borrow a book.

[Anonymous No.7154060]

>>7153015

The last fatalities for the Soyuz program were in 1971 while the last fatalities for the Shuttle program were in 2003.

[Anonymous No.7154070]

>>7154052
Why would I need a book to tell me how retarded libertardians are when they make fools out of themselves on a daily basis?

[Anonymous No.7154091]

>>7154060
A lower flight rate does not make it safer.

The shuttle flew more launches than Soyuz has, even though Soyuz is older and the shuttle has now been retired for years, and they've both had the same number of crew loss events.

At the 112th shuttle mission, they had 17 years and 87 safe launches in a row. Then, one time, it didn't all work right, they lost a crew, and they cancelled the program.

Track record is no guarantee. Soyuz has fairly frequent anomalies. Any launch could be a crew loss.

[Anonymous No.7154298]

>>7146497
>landing at a cattle ranch
'Murika!

[Anonymous No.7154323]

>>7149018
>OK Op think about it like this, if you were an astronaught, would you really feel safe on a rocket that was "expendable" ? If they never needed to bring the rocket back or use it again, they just tossed it into the ocean or whatever when it was done, surely it would be made less safe than a vehicle meant to be re-used that would have to endure many flyings.

Lots of things that sound workable in theory turn out to be unworkable in practice. Like a reusable spacecraft.

>'m pretty sure that the expense was worth it in creating a safe rocket ship like the Space Shuttle, its just middle-management and an unfortunate cascade of bad decisionmaking by old tenured engineers who really shouldn't be working at NASA anymore that lead to it becoming notorious as a Crew Killer.

They tried and they failed. Twice.

[Anonymous No.7154326]

>>7148146
>Its the best they can manage with their budget.

If they had just stuck to refinements of the proven Saturn technology, we could have had our moon base by now.

[Anonymous No.7154329]

Because in order to progress you need to make a few mistakes

I welcome trying different things, you learn more from failure than you do from success, I think it's good they tried something other than rockets for spaceflight, and I think we learned a lot more than if we had continued using rockets during that period

[Anonymous No.7154842]

>>7149854

The people in government who insisted it was built were fucking moronic jizz racks who couldn't tell their ass from a hole in the ground.

>>7148089

This was the original Soviet design for a space plane.

The major problem with the space shuttle was that it was so fucking expensive that they could not be mass produced, which translates to the system not being revised. When you're making a product in the tens or hundreds, you get to revise plans make improvements.

Buran was 'outdated' the day it was made; the concept, not the hardware; which was fucking excellent, tbh.

And they got the job don really quick, too bad people in charge insisted on copying the Shuttle.

[Anonymous No.7154853]

So you could ask retard

[Anonymous No.7154908]

>>7148089
>>7154842
Can't open webm's on iOS. What am I looking at?

[Anonymous No.7155115]

>>7153009
LOL

[Anonymous No.7155230]

>>7154323
>Lots of things that sound workable in theory turn out to be unworkable in practice. Like a reusable spacecraft.
We have only had two attempts at that (if by "spacecraft" you mean ). The space shuttle program and the Falcon rocket program.

The space shuttle flew, it just wasn't wasn't cost-effective. But it was the very first try anyone had made at a reusable orbital launch system, and it went over a hundred flights with only two failures. That's remarkable for a new technology.

The space shuttle program was run with a reusability mandate, with a top-down, must-work-first-time development approach. The ongoing Falcon program, on the other hand, has started from expendability, with a cost-competitiveness mandate, and a bottom-up incremental development approach.

Falcon 1 was intended to have a reusable first stage, but they abandoned it after only a few launches, in favor of a larger and more profitable launch vehicle. Falcon 9 1.0 was also intended to have a reusable first stage, and was abandoned after a few flights, in favor of a vehicle that was not only larger and more profitable, but supported a far superior mode of first-stage recovery to the originally-planned parachute splashdown.

Falcon 1 had several launch failures in a row, and then Falcon 9 has had a near-perfect launch record (there was a performance-reducing anomaly on one flight, but it would still have been possible to complete every mission objective, if NASA had not required that the secondary payload be dumped to minimize risk to the ISS), but every recovery attempt has failed.

However, they've demonstrated every necessary step to recover the first stage, and are just taking a few tries putting them together and making them reliable. This is bottom-up, incremental, failure-tolerant development, like the Wright Brothers did. They designed a business plan where recovery failures were acceptable, so they can learn and adapt from failures instead of throwing money at problems.

[Anonymous No.7155251]

>>7155230
>We have only had two attempts at that (if by "spacecraft" you mean )
>(if by "spacecraft" you mean orbital launch systems)
Sorry, didn't finish this.

There have been more suborbital reusable spacecraft, notably the X-15 and SpaceShipOne. Also, Buran, Dragon, and the X-37 have been reusable orbital spacecraft which are payloads of orbital launch systems.

Anyway, long story short: there's no reason to think that reusable orbital launch systems are unworkable. To draw that conclusion from the space shuttle would be like concluding that heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible because of the failure of Samuel Langley's failed development program for the US government, when his failure was soon to be followed by the Wright Brothers' success.