|
They also didn't have the advanced metallurgy we had, so they couldn't make anything anywhere near the size of the F-1.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
In retrospect it seems silly to think that they could have beat the US to a manned moon landing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:iirc the main push to launch when they did was that Reagan wanted to be able to talk to an astronaut in space during the upcoming State of the Union address Didn't Feynman say that that was a rumor that they could find no verification of? Don't have the book at hand right now so I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
I've never seen that claim in any of the reports and accounts I've read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
I've never heard of that either  Considering Regan did live calls with Astronauts before that and not sure why he'd want to do it specifically during the SOTU?I actually have a couple of good friends of mine, very highly educated academics, and genuinely otherwise intelligent, that totally blindsided me a couple years back that they were moon hoax believers. Stanley Kubrik, sound-stage, whole 9 yards. I immediately ridiculed them (as is what I do when I see pure stupidity like that in the flesh) and the wife tried to defender herself with her knowledge of photography (shadows, stars, etc) which I said were all as expected due to the uneven terrain and wicked light conditions. The final thing I said was "look, I'm not going to argue about this for hours but think of this: The Soviet government at the time would have absolutely loved to show the world they didn't go, and they had the ability to monitor everything, including spies and intercepting heir transmissions, and even they admit it happened, and for christs sakes, we have rocks" which made them  They also watched some sort of special debunking the hoax and now they believe it. Or so they say. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
It is pointless to argue with (most of) these folks. They didn't reason themselves into that corner, you're not going to reason them out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:
I can't find any sources on which trans-oceanic abort sites were active for STS-1, but shouldn't NASA have had their pick of at least two landing sites in the Azores, France, Spain, or England?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Shuttle had the disadvantage that the right-stuff era guys were holding the reins now and they wanted to make sure pilots would always be needed on board. Famously the landing gear couldn't be lowered except by physically pulling a lever in the cockpit, Buran was able to do it electronically. Which in the post-Columbia era led to this thing being needed:  The RCO IFM cable (Remote Control Orbiter In-Flight Maintenance) enabled remote control of the landing gear, drag chute, and a few other things relevant to landing which were not normally connected to the right parts of the system. This allowed for an attempt at recovering a damaged orbiter if the situation had come up.  Lots more info here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070019347.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:Hey, it has happened many times and it was fine! This is an answer I've heard many times in military aviation. It's one of the excuses currently being tossed around as OBOGS keeps trying to poison pilots across multiple platforms and every US service using this type of life support equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Which in the post-Columbia era led to this thing being needed: Load software? I bet its bit banging with two wires, one needing to come from each end of the orbiter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:I can't find any sources on which trans-oceanic abort sites were active for STS-1, but shouldn't NASA have had their pick of at least two landing sites in the Azores, France, Spain, or England? It appears there were contingency sites in Spain, Japan, and Hawai‘i. See page 33.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:It's surprising more people didn't die in the shuttle era. It was a big colossal gently caress up. The quest for a reusable spacecraft that ended up being massively more expensive than they ever imagined and barely reusable. The shuttle kind of fell into a weird gap where some parts of it (relatively lightweight, reusable, throttleable engines, the fly-by-wire system and computers) were pushing the limits of technology when it was designed, but other parts (using solid fuel boosters and discarding the external tank) weren't really that advanced (or were a step back), so the end result was a huge compromise between the original "giant reusable booster launches reusable orbiter" concept and what could be done cheaply and reliably to keep the costs from getting even more out of control. When the Shuttle program was originally started, the idea was that there could be around 20 launches a year, and each orbiter would be in service for about 10-15 years before it was replaced with something newer. Once the development costs started going through the roof and it became clear that the launch rate would be substantially lower (and funding for a Shuttle replacement never really happened), NASA was forced to extend the life of the orbiters to somewhere around double what was originally intended, so managed a pretty decent record when all of that is taken into account. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:On STS-1 (maiden Shuttle flight), there was no launch pressure wave re-direction mechanism. The wave reflected off the launch tower and flame trench and came back toward the bottom of the orbiter. It bent the actuation hydraulics for the body flap (see pic). This was not known until Young and Crippen were flying the final phase of re-entry when they kept wondering why the commanded body flap angle was an indicated 21-22 degrees instead of the planned 15-16 degrees. It had been bent that far and Young later commented that had it been known during launch, he would have aborted the mission right then and there. Wait was he seriously saying he would've tried the RTLS abort mode? (That being the one available immediately after launch, which returns to the Cape - RTLS = "Return To Launch Site".) Because, if so, holy moly. I need not cite anything but Young's own colorful opinions about RTLS: "RTLS requires continuous miracles interspersed with acts of God to be successful." Concerning early plans to use STS-1 to test RTLS: "Let’s not practice Russian roulette, because you may have a loaded gun there." I have to think he was more likely referring to a different abort option; RTLS is the only fully loving insane one. The rest are still not a good day, but don't require the insane course reversal and powered burn back towards the launch site.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
RTLS was dicey enough with flawlessly functioning controls. One would have to be insane to attempt it with a bent flap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:When the Shuttle program was originally started, the idea was that there could be around 20 launches a year, and each orbiter would be in service for about 10-15 years before it was replaced with something newer. Once the development costs started going through the roof and it became clear that the launch rate would be substantially lower (and funding for a Shuttle replacement never really happened), NASA was forced to extend the life of the orbiters to somewhere around double what was originally intended, so managed a pretty decent record when all of that is taken into account. I believe the statistic Feynman quotes is that the engineers estimated the whole shuttle system had a 1-in-100 chance of total vehicle loss on any given launch. We had 135 launches and two total losses. Not a bad estimate, as it turned out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
Yeah that passage in his book is chilling. NASA intended that the chance of losing a shuttle was 1 in 100,000 on any given mission, but it was actually a thousand times more likely than that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Wait was he seriously saying he would've tried the RTLS abort mode? (That being the one available immediately after launch, which returns to the Cape - RTLS = "Return To Launch Site".) Because, if so, holy moly. I need not cite anything but Young's own colorful opinions about RTLS: Young realized that the abort options open to him were garbage and he's still quoted as saying that about the STS-1 launch in "Into the Black". I haven't had a chance to read "Forever Young" yet - maybe it's confirmed there. Into the Black struck me as well researched, though. I do not remember if he mentioned which abort option he would have taken, only that he would have aborted. I think he was getting quite a bit too outspoken for NASA brass during that time, so he only fly STS-9 after that one. John was a cool cat. He got to fly Gemini 3 and 10, Apollo 10 and 16, and STS-1 and STS-9. He was the only astronaut to fly three different generations of space craft. And always with the pipe and the turtle neck. He was also the longest-serving astronaut (1962-2004), despite his last flight being in 1983. The Space Shuttle suffered from multiple personality disorder thanks to Air Force mission requirements. They specified that the Shuttle must be able to launch into polar orbits (from Vandenberg) and return after a single orbit. This required tremendous cross-soar capability (~1,000 miles I think?) to compensate for the Earth's rotation under it and still be able to return to the intended landing site. That is the only reason the Shuttle's wings were as large as they were. Take a look at earlier lifting body designs or even the modern Boeing XB-37. Those wings are tiny. The first polar orbit flight out of Vandenberg was to be the flight following STS-51L (Challenger's last flight) and John was to command it. That obviously didn't work out, so that capability never got used and the Air Force got on with their own plans. They were probably still salty about the Manned Orbiting Laboratory not working out. TotalLossBrain fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 08:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
DJ Commie posted:Load software? I bet its bit banging with two wires, one needing to come from each end of the orbiter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Buddy have you read what goes into orbiter flight software. Those people are monks. Hah the first few years the onboard computers' memory was too small to contain all flight ops programs at the same time. So at each flight phase you'd have to load the appropriate program.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 08:59
|
|
|
By any of those metrics the safest form of transportation is a NASA flight to the moon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
Midjack posted:By any of those metrics the safest form of transportation is a NASA flight to the moon. So long as you avoid ground testing or flying to the contractor pre-flight. Don't pull a Basset.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
Midjack posted:By any of those metrics the safest form of transportation is a NASA flight to the moon. Small sample size. Edit: Also, one could argue that if your car blew up in the driveway the first time your wife tried to go for a drive in it, you might not consider it safe, even if you subsequently made several transcontinental trips in it with only one minor gas tank fire en-route. Disgruntled Bovine fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:Small sample size. Exactly!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:Small sample size. So a Ford Pinto?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:RTLS was dicey enough with flawlessly functioning controls. Can't find the quote but iirc RTLS wasn't expected to actually ever succeed. Also iirc: Young's intended abort was leveling off and punching out. The orbiter had ejector seats installed for the first few flights. They removed them after crews of more than 2 (or 4?) started going up, possibly in the name of fairness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
scandoslav posted:Can't find the quote but iirc RTLS wasn't expected to actually ever succeed. It was nice knowing you fellas. Welp, I have to get going now. Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:Also, one could argue that if your car blew up in the driveway the first time your wife tried to go for a drive in it, you might not consider it safe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Buddy have you read what goes into orbiter flight software. Those people are monks. This is a 22 year old article or so, and software development has come a loooong way, but yeah this is what it took to create that software. https://fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff Imagine if the orbiter was running Windows NT... The US Navy tried it, want to guess at the result?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Disgruntled Bovine posted:Small sample size. They weren’t trying to go for a drive in it. Apollo 1 was like the custom car builder called you over to test out the fit of the seats and the car fell off the lift and into a pit filled with oily rags.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Apollo 1 was like the custom car builder called you over to test out the fit of the seats and the car fell off the lift and into a pit filled with oily rags.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Apollo-nia Corleone? This was an excellent joke and I'm concerned it may have been missed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Wait till them kids in the Vostoks see these piiiiiiiiiiipes... I understood that reference. One of my favorite of his skits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Apollo-nia Corleone? InitialDave posted:Wait till them kids in the Vostoks see these piiiiiiiiiiipes... Both these are excellent jokes from the same era.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Wait till them kids in the Vostoks see these piiiiiiiiiiipes... That's thread title poo poo there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:That's thread title poo poo there. This thread is well overdue for a title update too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
The Soviets didn't expose the moon hoax in exchange for us not releasing tapes of the lost cosmonauts. The Door Frame posted:Speaking of brain failures, we're on page 914, my favorite Porsche I briefly fell in love with a 914 for sale near me. I eventually realized I could only afford it because it had all the usual problems, even fire damage. Who could've known plastic fuel lines would be a mechanical failure? I still think they're cool cars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
What am I looking at? Is that all that's left after the fire damage?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 09:58
|
|
|
Is that part on a mattress? Did somebody have sex with it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
It's amazing see how people all of a sudden like the 914. I guess the 912 and 911 being idiotically expensive made the 'cheap Porsche' an attractive option. I wish I'd just gotten an NA miata instead of that stupid car, but my parents talked me into it. I can't imagine the 10 years since I've sold it has made the parts any cheaper, which were already becoming a problem to get before anyone cared about them. I'm fairly certain the above picture is the center tunnel of the car where the fuel lines, clutch cable, throttle cable, and shifter linkage go through. Been a long time since I've seen that stuff. Germans are notorious for overestimating every material that isn't metal. To anyone considering one: if it's been converted to carbs, run the gently caress away. If there's rot in the rocker panels, run the gently caress away, those are load bearing. e: the part on the right would be part of the front wall of the engine bay, at the bottom. BloodBag fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Jul 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 10:54
|
|
