Period Spacecraft

[AMc]

33 hours 12 minute and 12 seconds to know that you pressed the right button

Starting up our boiler after it's been switched off for the summer is a bit like that.

But you can actually get to your boiler to fix it, the call out charges to Voyager are prohibitive and I suspect if anyone gets there they'll recommend fixing it with a new one

I read an interesting book recently all about the Apollo missions and it was interesting to note that Nixon successfully curtailed the planned missions in what read to me as pure political spite - the original inspiration having been supplied by the Democrats and JFK in particular.

I was also saddened to discover that one of the reasons that the shuttle boosters were made in sections (leading to the explosion of Challenger) was to allow them to ship them interstate, spreading the construction across several constituencies to secure the necessary govt. funding.

If you spot "Apollo 17 - the untold story" on the TV listings, it's also worth a watch.
http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/pjvj5/apollo-17-the-untold-story-of-the-last-men-on-the-moon

 

[Flyfisher]

Very good. I've known a few people in my time who would make talking to worms seem like a stimulating diversion.

 

[Penners]

the call out charges to Voyager are prohibitive and I suspect if anyone gets there they'll recommend fixing it with a new one.

:lol: :lol: So nothing new there, then!

the reasons that the shuttle boosters were made in sections (leading to the explosion of Challenger) was to allow them to ship them interstate, spreading the construction across several constituencies to secure the necessary govt. funding.

Yes, I saw that story some years ago. With the gift of hindsight it's tempting to be critical of the decision, but then NASA had to get a sufficient number of senators to approve the budget for the whole Shuttle project to become a reality, so the decision was politically unavoidable. It was, of course, the engineering of the solid rocket booster sectional assembly that let the mission down - a failure of sealant rings, if I remember correctly. And I'm afraid that cutting edge human engineering has always, and will always, be subject to imperfect design and construction.

 

[Penners]

Very good. I've known a few people in my time who would make talking to worms seem like a stimulating diversion.

As in life, so on PPUK! :wink:

 

[Flyfisher]

Uh-oh.
I've just realised my 'worms' comment could be miscontrued as referring to PPUKs very own esteemed worms. I must hasten to add that this was not in my mind at the time and I was only referring to the annelidian type of worms. So easy to drop a clanger in cyberspace.

 

[Penners]

I thought you were paying him a compliment!

 

[Flyfisher]

Oh dear. What's that old saying about holes and digging?

 

[AMc]

It was, of course, the engineering of the solid rocket booster sectional assembly that let the mission down - a failure of sealant rings, if I remember correctly. And I'm afraid that cutting edge human engineering has always, and will always, be subject to imperfect design and construction.

There was an argument made at the time that the launch proceeded against technical advice as the weather conditions on the pad had mean the defective O rings had been too cold for too long and were likely to fracture on launch.

IIRC (and I probably don't) the launch was "strongly encouraged" by the political powers that be so that the shuttle would be in orbit when an announcement was made about the future of the space program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

It seems to me that there was an intrinsic issue with the design as result of a political compromise which in turn was aggravated by a further political decision. I don't think it would be fair to lay all the blame at any one organisation but it seems to me that making the boosters sectional so you could make them in another state was a stupid thing to do.

I watched another interesting programme recently about Airbus - I always thought that building the wings in Britain then using a special plane to fly them to France for assembly was a stupid idea but at least they didn't make them in short lengths so they could give jobs to truckers & the cross channel ferries

 

[Penners]

Airbus - I always thought that building the wings in Britain then using a special plane to fly them to France

I agree. Just shove 'em off the top of the White Cliffs and let them make their own way to Toulouse.

 

[Flyfisher]

There was an argument made at the time that the launch proceeded against technical advice as the weather conditions on the pad had mean the defective O rings had been too cold for too long and were likely to fracture on launch.

IIRC (and I probably don't) the launch was "strongly encouraged" by the political powers that be so that the shuttle would be in orbit when an announcement was made about the future of the space program.

Indeed. Not so much an engineering failure, more an organisational failure. Anything can be made to fail by using it outside of its design limits.

 

[worms]

I was only referring to the annelidian type of worms...

That's OK then. These Annelids are real bores, Nematodes have much more charisma! Who needs a spacecraft when you can do this!

 

[Penners]

Well, after considerable thought I've come to the conclusion that, given a choice between risking my life in a spacecraft or secreting extracellular enzymes to break down herbivore dung and recycle its nutrients... I'll opt for the former.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

building the wings in Britain then using a special plane to fly them to France for assembly

The Beluga flies about 500-1000 ft over my house on Hope Mountain on it's final approach/takeoff run in to Airbus at Hawarden a couple of miles away. It really is an awe-inspiring sight. I rush outside whenever I hear it to look up at it - I've been doing this for 6 years now, and suppose I will still do it in another 6.

Here it is taking off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTemIpVFl1k

 

[worms]

What happened to the plan by Airship Industries to transport the Airbus wings within the envelope of a modern airship?

 

[wobs]

It was, of course, the engineering of the solid rocket booster sectional assembly that let the mission down - a failure of sealant rings, if I remember correctly. And I'm afraid that cutting edge human engineering has always, and will always, be subject to imperfect design and construction.

There was an argument made at the time that the launch proceeded against technical advice as the weather conditions on the pad had mean the defective O rings had been too cold for too long and were likely to fracture on launch.

IIRC (and I probably don't) the launch was "strongly encouraged" by the political powers that be so that the shuttle would be in orbit when an announcement was made about the future of the space program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

It seems to me that there was an intrinsic issue with the design as result of a political compromise which in turn was aggravated by a further political decision. I don't think it would be fair to lay all the blame at any one organisation but it seems to me that making the boosters sectional so you could make them in another state was a stupid thing to do.

Same reason the aerospace industry builds parts in different parts of the world: To spread the jobs. There are so many high skilled jobs involved, that they have to.

As has been said, Challenger was a political/management issue that went against the advice of engineers. This was in part due to the human factor of getting away with past launches, and believing they could again. Its a bit like when someone takes a risk driving a car, and doesn't realise how lucky they are to get home.

Similarly, with the Columbia disaster, it broke up due to damage sustained on launch, but management were warned that it may have been damaged before they attempted re-entry. They could have authorised a space walk to inspect the outside, but it would have been time comsuming etc. Their reasoning was that because no one could prove there was damage, they wouldn't act. This atitude is inexcusable.

In both distasters, it was found that launches were considered routine, but with the most complex machines we have ever made, and launches ranging in the 10s to just over 100, they were experimental.

Both shuttle remains are buried at Cape Canaveral.

I watched another interesting programme recently about Airbus - I always thought that building the wings in Britain then using a special plane to fly them to France for assembly was a stupid idea but at least they didn't make them in short lengths so they could give jobs to truckers & the cross channel ferries

The complexity of the Airbus project was such, that they had a large board with a master drawing, and notes and project management notes on it, that people worked from and managed. It was so big that someone wrote a few paragraphs from The Hobbit on it and it was at least two weeks before someone noticed. These projects are fascinating though, and shows what we can acheive when we set our minds to it.

It was certainly incredible to see the last piece of the ISS being made at KSC. I just hope its not a last great project.

 

[LadyArowana]

building the wings in Britain then using a special plane to fly them to France for assembly

Why don't they just build more of those but with seats and windows and use them to move people instead? Or are the wings for them made in some other place and moved about in yet another sort of plane? It seems unnecessarily complicated to me :lol: