lawrocket 3 #1 August 22, 2003 I just read that the Brazilian Rocket Exploded at it's base. It was supposed to be launched in a few days. Anyone notice that it seems like there is more and more difficulty (and expense) getting people and equipment safely to and from space than there was 30 or 40 years ago? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #2 August 22, 2003 QuoteI just read that the Brazilian Rocket Exploded at it's base. It was supposed to be launched in a few days. Anyone notice that it seems like there is more and more difficulty (and expense) getting people and equipment safely to and from space than there was 30 or 40 years ago? Ever notice that we are getting people and equipment more often than we were 30 or 40 years ago? I think some forget that the Mercury program was not going so well in the beginning as the rockets kept blowing up. Were they the Restones or Atlases that kept blowing up?Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #3 August 22, 2003 >Anyone notice that it seems like there is more and more difficulty > (and expense) getting people and equipment safely to and from > space than there was 30 or 40 years ago? No, actually. There was a period of time, just before Mercury, where the saying of the day was "all our rockets blow up." Nowadays launchers are cheaper (Ariane for example) in terms of adjusted cost per pound delivered to orbit. It's dropped from $18K a pound in 1990 to $12K a pound in 2000, for example. And the Shuttle program actually has a pretty good safety record compared to most of our other programs. We're seeing more deaths because there are more people staying in space for longer and flying more often; even a much safer system will see more total deaths under those conditions. We've flown 112 missions so far and lost 2. That's an average of one failure every 56 flights. That means that during Apollo (11 missions total) you could have a vehicle that was half as safe as the Shuttle and still not expect to see even one failure resulting in death. (I am ignoring the Apollo 1 deaths since they did not happen during the flight itself.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #4 August 22, 2003 And don't forget Apollo 13 when Tom Hanks.....eh hem....I mean Lovel and crew made it back after an explosion on board. That they didn't die is a testament to the meeting of the minds on the ground. Just like Hubbel's flawed mirror, a problem with one of the oxygen tanks was made long before the launch.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #5 August 22, 2003 >And don't forget Apollo 13 . . . Well, both vehicles have had problems. The Shuttle's had engines fail during ascent, fuel cells fail on orbit etc but handled the problems. If they have a problem they can handle, that's indicative of redundant design, contingency planning and crew skill sufficient to deal with the problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aero04 0 #6 August 22, 2003 I wouldn't say it more difficult. Look at NASA, they are trying to do more and more, such as keeping the shuttles flying, space station construction, mars missions, a replacement for the shuttle before they canned it, and they are doing this with less and less money. You can only stretch a dollar so far. This catch phrase they are using, faster, better, cheaper, (I think that's it, I don't remember) may not be the way to go. This won't change until space travel becomes more of a priority than it is now. Maybe then the annual budget for NASA will get a boost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 August 22, 2003 I think it was "Our rockets always blow up and our boys always screw up." But then they seemed to fix the problem, for the most part. I'm just wondering if the complexity of the equipment has anything to do with it. I would think that, just like with anything nowadays, the complexity of the equipment is astronomically higher than it was in the 60s. Though far more precise when working, the chances for failure are greater. I'm not too educated in this field. I was just thinking that perhaps it's an example of, "We can do it better now. Now let's do more." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #8 August 22, 2003 >I would think that, just like with anything nowadays, the complexity >of the equipment is astronomically higher than it was in the 60s. Well, the shuttle _was_ designed in the 60's and 70's, but it's been incrementally upgraded, so a lot its systems have more advanced technology. Wendy knows a lot about when a given system's been upgraded. >Though far more precise when working, the chances for failure are > greater. That doesn't neccessarily follow. A triply redundant solid state gyro for attitude stabilization, for example, is a lot more reliable than a single mechanical gyro. Wires can be more robust than control cables or hydraulics. A fly-by-wire A340 airliner is a lot more reliable than a DC-3 in terms of passenger-miles flown. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #9 August 22, 2003 Billvon, once again you've educated me. Thank you. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #10 August 23, 2003 No dude, I'd have to disagree on that. We are just going to space a lot more often than we used to due to ISS and etc. The Brazilian Space Program is impressive but not all that advanced yet. I feel for them, but setbacks at this stage in the game are to be expected. Anybody hear what type of fuel they were using? LOX? Hypergols? MMH? Solids? Just wondering. I hope all those injured are OK. I'm pretty opinionated on the space program and its currents status so I'm not going to get started. Beers to all, Vinny the Anvil Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crapflinger2000 1 #11 August 23, 2003 I've heard it said that the Space Shuttle is the most complicated thing man has ever built... comment? __________________________________________________ What would Vic Mackey do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crapflinger2000 1 #12 August 23, 2003 Reason it exploded is detailed here: http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=625622;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread __________________________________________________ What would Vic Mackey do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #13 August 23, 2003 How come I miss all the kewl threads 15 minutes after I get laid off?! "The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #14 August 23, 2003 I've actually never seen mechanical gyros on a launch vehicle or satellite. I participated in a three year program to upgrade one launch vehicle from 60s technology to 80s technology (this, of course was the mid 90s Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #15 August 23, 2003 I doubt it is the most complicated thing ever (although it's really complicated). However, the system required to get its complicatedness ready for each flight, with: - different hardwired payloads, tested, rehearsed, and incorporated into the CPU's I/O profiles, - the incorporation and testing of mission-specific software - all of the inspecting and rework that's done mission to mission, - all of the safety steps that are built in to where if a problem is found, you normally - training on the part of the crew, mission control, and payload personnel for every unrealistic and realistic scenario they can come up with - the studying of procedures to make sure that they are accurate for this mission - preparing the equipment, crew, etc. - preparing the flight profile -- consumables, ascent angle, times, abort sites, timing - weather analysis - all of whatever it is that happens at KSC (I'm in Houston, so it's kind of mysterious, but that's where the vehicle itself is, so it's a lot) And don't forget these things have to follow a specific timeline, because the vehicle has to be at a pinnacle of readiness on mission day. Or, if the weather's bad or there's a late hardware problem, the next day. Or the day after that, etc. Then there's the 24-hour monitoring, recording, and analysis of the data. Each support area (and there are a lot) has to be able to answer questions correctly the first time. Our requirement is to answer them within 24 hours. There are a little over 1/2 million lines of primary software, designed and modified over the last 30 years. It's custom-designed for the shuttle, and takes hardware idiosyncracies into account. I'm constantly astounded at how things mesh. It's a massive human engineering effort to go along with the physical engineering. Nowhere close to perfect, and ponderous. But I'd trust my program's software on any airplane I flew on. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #16 August 23, 2003 QuoteI've heard it said that the Space Shuttle is the most complicated thing man has ever built... Comment: Income tax is WAY more complicated.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #17 August 23, 2003 While the announcement on the space agency website pretty much mirrors the Reuters story, my brother (who works in Brazil with military aviation) said that 16 people were probably killed at the pad. There's a short statement there lamenting the deaths, but no initial cause yet. One of its 4 main engines blew up during a simulation. Nothing else Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #18 August 23, 2003 >I've actually never seen mechanical gyros on a launch vehicle or satellite. I'm pretty sure the Mercury program had all mechanical gyros. Heck, the Mercury program used a manual backup attitude control system - mechanical in that you'd push the stick, the stick would push on a rod, and the rod would open up a valve and allow peroxide into a thruster. Of course those were converted military ballistic missiles, so there was a lot of leftover (50's) technology. The Apollo missions used mechanical gyros for their attitude indicators at least. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #19 August 23, 2003 In spanish the coverage has been more extensive... for now.Clicky Speaks of 19 people dead, and 20 critically injured. The brazilian air force is the one in charge apparently. I will post the translation but have no time right now..."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #20 August 23, 2003 Oh sure - they've been used before in space, but it's been a while. I think you would have to know somebody that's been in the business for a long time to recall their use. Kind of like an old-timer in the airline industry recalling commercial flights on piston-driven prop aircraft.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #21 August 23, 2003 This catch phrase they are using, faster, better, cheaper ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... reminds me of sign in a parachute loft operated by a grumpy old master rigger: "You can have speed, quality or low price. Pick any two." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
