|
|
|
|
|
Posted by northerntechie on March 13, 2008, 1:57 pm
Please log in for more thread options
I know this may sound like a really stupid question to be posting on
sci.space.shuttle but my searches reveal little discussion in this
area.
Who will have access to owning the hardware and associated IP of the
shuttle orbiter system after it is retired?
Of course the logical answer is the 'taxpayers of the United States'.
But I am sure that the process of chopping up the orbiter into 200 odd
million pieces (is that the total number of taxpayers in the US?) and
sending them out in the mail is beyond imagination. "Here is a piece
of history and a reminder of your contribution."
If defies engineering principles to retire the orbiter completely. Of
course, it can be argued that if one were shown the actual figures of
the economic advantage of retiring the shuttle vs. the Constellation
concept, it is obvious that the Constellation(Orion) concept holds
quicker results over the short term - which one cannot argue against.
But I have seen project estimation and accounting systems before that
totally ignore the unquantifiable in the system, mainly that of vision
and intangible results.
Kris Kraft recently said it best recently at a MIT lecture (and I am
paraphrasing here), NASA is taking the two components from shuttle
system, the solid rocket boosters and the external tank, and applying
that technology to the CEV concept, ignoring the one system that
hasn't had a critical failure, the orbiter.
If I could draw a analogy to a biological system - the notion of
vestigial organs and features. One should ask why animals contain
such strange phenomenon in their genetic makeup. I believe one answer
is related to system energy conservation. It takes a great deal of
energy over many generations for attributes and survival features to
appear in the genetic stream of a species. Sometimes these features
become obsolete, but the species maintains them anyway. Why? The
energy requirement to develop the feature through natural process is
large, and for some inexplicable reason (I am sure the science isn't
completely written on this yet) the species will hold the organ or
feature 'in reserve' for possible reuse.
The shuttle is a vestigial organ, it needs to exist to reduce the
energy requirements on the space society as a whole for the long
term. Besides, I believe most design data of the shuttle is not in
electronic form, a couple more generations and paper only data will be
inaccessible to the digital driven populace.
An organic concept for a high-tech problem.
Keep the shuttle going, change the hydraulics to electric, redo the
control processors, de-rate the SSMEs and look at a radical booster-
external tank configuration. Could a private group of companies do
this?
I now await for posting redirection to the sci.space.shuttle.obituary
group (If it doesn't exist, I am sure some one will create it.)
Todd Saharchuk, AScT.
|
|
Posted by Brian Gaff on March 13, 2008, 2:42 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Well, I bet the Chinese could do it cheaper....
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
show/hide quoted text
>I know this may sound like a really stupid question to be posting on
> sci.space.shuttle but my searches reveal little discussion in this
> area.
> Who will have access to owning the hardware and associated IP of the
> shuttle orbiter system after it is retired?
> Of course the logical answer is the 'taxpayers of the United States'.
> But I am sure that the process of chopping up the orbiter into 200 odd
> million pieces (is that the total number of taxpayers in the US?) and
> sending them out in the mail is beyond imagination. "Here is a piece
> of history and a reminder of your contribution."
> If defies engineering principles to retire the orbiter completely. Of
> course, it can be argued that if one were shown the actual figures of
> the economic advantage of retiring the shuttle vs. the Constellation
> concept, it is obvious that the Constellation(Orion) concept holds
> quicker results over the short term - which one cannot argue against.
> But I have seen project estimation and accounting systems before that
> totally ignore the unquantifiable in the system, mainly that of vision
> and intangible results.
> Kris Kraft recently said it best recently at a MIT lecture (and I am
> paraphrasing here), NASA is taking the two components from shuttle
> system, the solid rocket boosters and the external tank, and applying
> that technology to the CEV concept, ignoring the one system that
> hasn't had a critical failure, the orbiter.
> If I could draw a analogy to a biological system - the notion of
> vestigial organs and features. One should ask why animals contain
> such strange phenomenon in their genetic makeup. I believe one answer
> is related to system energy conservation. It takes a great deal of
> energy over many generations for attributes and survival features to
> appear in the genetic stream of a species. Sometimes these features
> become obsolete, but the species maintains them anyway. Why? The
> energy requirement to develop the feature through natural process is
> large, and for some inexplicable reason (I am sure the science isn't
> completely written on this yet) the species will hold the organ or
> feature 'in reserve' for possible reuse.
> The shuttle is a vestigial organ, it needs to exist to reduce the
> energy requirements on the space society as a whole for the long
> term. Besides, I believe most design data of the shuttle is not in
> electronic form, a couple more generations and paper only data will be
> inaccessible to the digital driven populace.
> An organic concept for a high-tech problem.
> Keep the shuttle going, change the hydraulics to electric, redo the
> control processors, de-rate the SSMEs and look at a radical booster-
> external tank configuration. Could a private group of companies do
> this?
> I now await for posting redirection to the sci.space.shuttle.obituary
> group (If it doesn't exist, I am sure some one will create it.)
> Todd Saharchuk, AScT.
>
|
|
Posted by Craig Fink on March 13, 2008, 9:07 pm
Please log in for more thread options Brian Gaff wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> Well, I bet the Chinese ...
You might be right :-/
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com
|
|
Posted by bob haller safety advocate on March 14, 2008, 12:20 am
Please log in for more thread options nasa auctioned off some interesting hardware after apollo ended.
theres a apollo capsule at a dairy queen near oil city pa. the owner
is a strange fellow, apparently concerned the government might want it
back. although he bought it at a auction.
theres wiring inside that capsule, i felt the wires thru a hole. would
love to borrow a scope and take a quick look in the winter when the DQ
is closed.
it appears to be one of the few capsules not in a museum. it bugs me
it sits out in the weather all these years
|
|
Posted by John on March 14, 2008, 7:54 am
Please log in for more thread options show/hide quoted text
> Well, I bet the Chinese could do it cheaper....
> Brian
> --
> Brian Gaff - bria...@blueyonder.co.uk
> Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name may be lost.
> Blind user, so no pictures please!"northerntechie" <todd.saharc...@gmail.c=
om> wrote in message
> >I know this may sound like a really stupid question to be posting on
> > sci.space.shuttle but my searches reveal little discussion in this
> > area.
> > Who will have access to owning the hardware and associated IP of the
> > shuttle orbiter system after it is retired?
> > Of course the logical answer is the 'taxpayers of the United States'.
> > But I am sure that the process of chopping up the orbiter into 200 odd
> > million pieces (is that the total number of taxpayers in the US?) and
> > sending them out in the mail is beyond imagination. =A0"Here is a piece
> > of history and a reminder of your contribution."
> > If defies engineering principles to retire the orbiter completely. =A0Of=
show/hide quoted text
> > course, it can be argued that if one were shown the actual figures of
> > the economic advantage of retiring the shuttle vs. the Constellation
> > concept, it is obvious that the Constellation(Orion) concept holds
> > quicker results over the short term - which one cannot argue against.
> > But I have seen project estimation and accounting systems before that
> > totally ignore the unquantifiable in the system, mainly that of vision
> > and intangible results.
> > Kris Kraft recently said it best recently at a MIT lecture (and I am
> > paraphrasing here), NASA is taking the two components from shuttle
> > system, the solid rocket boosters and the external tank, and applying
> > that technology to the CEV concept, ignoring the one system that
> > hasn't had a critical failure, the orbiter.
> > If I could draw a analogy to a biological system - the notion of
> > vestigial organs and features. =A0One should ask why animals contain
> > such strange phenomenon in their genetic makeup. =A0I believe one answer=
show/hide quoted text
> > is related to system energy conservation. =A0It takes a great deal of
> > energy over many generations for attributes and survival features to
> > appear in the genetic stream of a species. =A0Sometimes these features
> > become obsolete, but the species maintains them anyway. =A0Why? The
> > energy requirement to develop the feature through natural process is
> > large, and for some inexplicable reason (I am sure the science isn't
> > completely written on this yet) the species will hold the organ or
> > feature 'in reserve' for possible reuse.
> > The shuttle is a vestigial organ, it needs to exist to reduce the
> > energy requirements on the space society as a whole for the long
> > term. =A0Besides, I believe most design data of the shuttle is not in
> > electronic form, a couple more generations and paper only data will be
> > inaccessible to the digital driven populace.
> > An organic concept for a high-tech problem.
> > Keep the shuttle going, change the hydraulics to electric, redo the
> > control processors, de-rate the SSMEs and look at a radical booster-
> > external tank configuration. =A0Could a private group of companies do
> > this?
> > I now await for posting redirection to the sci.space.shuttle.obituary
> > group (If it doesn't exist, I am sure some one will create it.)
> > Todd Saharchuk, AScT.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Brian . . .
You may be right, but doing anything complicated is always harder the
first time.
v/r
John
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | SSME troubles, 15 flights now Max bfore shuttle retirement | February 18, 2006, 12:42 pm |
| Re: SSME troubles, 15 flights now Max bfore shuttle retirement | February 18, 2006, 2:59 pm |
| Re: SSME troubles, 15 flights now Max bfore shuttle retirement | February 18, 2006, 3:49 pm |
| Pictures Please - Space Shuttle - Space Shuttle Discovery - Space Shuttle Launch Picture | September 26, 2007, 11:52 am |
| Shuttle Carrier Aircraft Delivers Space Shuttle Endeavour to the Kennedy Space Center | December 12, 2008, 3:22 pm |
| NASA KSC DIRECTOR ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT | May 1, 2006, 10:33 am |
| NASA brings engineer out of retirement to help find sensor glitch | July 20, 2005, 9:50 am |
| Space Shuttle Folly of Our AgeThe space shuttle. | June 16, 2005, 2:22 pm |
| Re: Space Shuttle Folly of Our AgeThe space shuttle. | June 18, 2005, 8:30 pm |
| Re: will our space shuttle discovery and our international space station be safe from the space trash that the US and other counries earlier left up there? | September 3, 2009, 8:01 am |
|
|
|
XML Sitemap
> sci.space.shuttle but my searches reveal little discussion in this
> area.
> Who will have access to owning the hardware and associated IP of the
> shuttle orbiter system after it is retired?
> Of course the logical answer is the 'taxpayers of the United States'.
> But I am sure that the process of chopping up the orbiter into 200 odd
> million pieces (is that the total number of taxpayers in the US?) and
> sending them out in the mail is beyond imagination. "Here is a piece
> of history and a reminder of your contribution."
> If defies engineering principles to retire the orbiter completely. Of
> course, it can be argued that if one were shown the actual figures of
> the economic advantage of retiring the shuttle vs. the Constellation
> concept, it is obvious that the Constellation(Orion) concept holds
> quicker results over the short term - which one cannot argue against.
> But I have seen project estimation and accounting systems before that
> totally ignore the unquantifiable in the system, mainly that of vision
> and intangible results.
> Kris Kraft recently said it best recently at a MIT lecture (and I am
> paraphrasing here), NASA is taking the two components from shuttle
> system, the solid rocket boosters and the external tank, and applying
> that technology to the CEV concept, ignoring the one system that
> hasn't had a critical failure, the orbiter.
> If I could draw a analogy to a biological system - the notion of
> vestigial organs and features. One should ask why animals contain
> such strange phenomenon in their genetic makeup. I believe one answer
> is related to system energy conservation. It takes a great deal of
> energy over many generations for attributes and survival features to
> appear in the genetic stream of a species. Sometimes these features
> become obsolete, but the species maintains them anyway. Why? The
> energy requirement to develop the feature through natural process is
> large, and for some inexplicable reason (I am sure the science isn't
> completely written on this yet) the species will hold the organ or
> feature 'in reserve' for possible reuse.
> The shuttle is a vestigial organ, it needs to exist to reduce the
> energy requirements on the space society as a whole for the long
> term. Besides, I believe most design data of the shuttle is not in
> electronic form, a couple more generations and paper only data will be
> inaccessible to the digital driven populace.
> An organic concept for a high-tech problem.
> Keep the shuttle going, change the hydraulics to electric, redo the
> control processors, de-rate the SSMEs and look at a radical booster-
> external tank configuration. Could a private group of companies do
> this?
> I now await for posting redirection to the sci.space.shuttle.obituary
> group (If it doesn't exist, I am sure some one will create it.)
> Todd Saharchuk, AScT.
>