Internet Documentary "The Space Shuttle"

[FADEC]

PS

Space Shuttle:

- Thermal Protection System
- Flight Control System
- Landing Gear
- Auxiliary Power Units
- Main Propulsion System
- Orbital Maneuvering System
- Reaction Control System
- Electrical Power System
- Life Support System
- General Purpose Computers
- Multifunction Electronic Display Subsystem
- Digital Auto Pilot
- Caution and Warning System
- Rotational and Translational Hand Controlers
- TACAN/GPS/MLS
- Air Data Probes
- KU Band Antenna
- Payload Bay Radiators
- Remote Manipulator System
- Orbiter Boom Sensor System
- Payload Assist Module
- Closed Circuit Television System
- Orbiter Docking System
- Airlock
- and I certinaly missed something...

Requirement to operate a Shuttle: preferably being a fighter pilot /+ being an aerospace engineer. And I guess at least 9+ month of very intense training which includes thousands of hours. Same for becoming a payload specialist, except being a fighter pilot.

Maintenance and preparation: always by thousands of people

_________

Now a car:

- 4 wheels
- an engine
- a battery
- one control wheel
- a gear box + coupling + accelerator pedal and brake pedal
- maybe an air condition
- indication for speed, rpm, temp and fuel qty and a few warning lamps
- maybe a navigation system
- maybe electrically driven window regulators and seat heaters

oh, and of course a radio + loudspeaker :lol:

Requirement to drive a car: ~20 hours theory and ~10 hours training

Maintenance: from time to time the driver should check the oil level and wheel pressure etc.

_________


Or to make it short: any "idiot" can drive any car. But can any idot operate a Shuttle?...

 

[Ark]

SSME. Cost, $50 000 000+. Chamber pressure at 100% thrust: 18.94 MPa.

Operational environment;

And...

AK-47. Cost, ~$400. Maximum chamber pressure: 355.00 MPa

Operational environment;

Yup.

Hahaha, that's actually a pretty interesting comparison. The Shuttle has to function flawlessly across a wide range of operating temperatures and conditions, or the operators die. The AK-47 has to function flawlessly across a wide range of operating temperatures and conditions, or the operator dies.

The Shuttle gets completely taken apart and fixed by an army of people between used. The AK-47 has to function the same despite often having no chance for maintenance beyond getting sprayed with a hose and wiped off once in a while.

The Shuttle operates in space, a completely sterile environment with no outside contaminants. The AK-47 is constantly exposed to contaminants, and has been engineered to continue functioning even with significant amounts of foreign material clogging up the works.

Actually, I amend my first statement. The Shuttle can fail partially in a number of areas, yet still have a chance of bringing the operators home alive. The AK-47 really only has one function that can fail, and if that happens the operator has a 0% chance of getting home alive.

Now: Which is the better piece of engineering, and which is better at it's job? :lol:

Shuttle: Flew 356 people into space.

AK-47: Killed more people than any one weapons system in history.

 

[n72.75]

Before this thread had six posts, someone should have started a new thread...

:facepalm:

 

[Unstung]

Anyways, I made time to watch that documentary and saw it recently. I liked it; the documentary covered the major events of the shuttle program well with a good progression of time. I found it a bit difficult to follow Shatner's narration a few times, the way he says some things is a bit odd. Compared to what I've seen from the Columbia documentary posted here, it's not overly dramatic.

 

[cljohnston]

I found it a bit difficult to follow Shatner's narration a few times, the way he says some things is a bit odd.

Yeah, he seemed a bit snarky when he explained certain things, like "rollover", but I thought it was hilarious how he spoke of Star Trek as if he wasn't all that familiar with it. :lol:

 

[Ghostrider]

The AK-47 really only has one function that can fail, and if that happens the operator has a 0% chance of getting home alive.

The AK-47, like any gas-operated automatic firearm, has a number of functions that can fail:

- misfire
- feed failure
- ejection failure
- cycle failure

Those are related to different components of the weapon and even of the ammunition, and each one is dealt with in a different way. Anyone who has gone through firearms training knows that.

If the function you're referring to is simple firing, then for the operator to get killed you must be in a close combat situation without cover. You can actually survive a weapons malfunction in combat situation, less so if it's a self-defence close-quarter thing. Otherwise, the other "function" that can fail is the integrity of its firing chamber which can be compromised by damage, bad maintenance, barrel obstruction or sabotage: catastrophic firing chamber failures (which means: blows up in your face) are rare but they can happen if the operator fails to observe basic discipline.

AK-47: Killed more people than any one weapons system in history.

That honour (if it can be called that) surely goes to bows and arrows, a weapon system that has been used constantly for millennia except by people who were too stubborn (like ancient Greek soldiers) and paid for that dearly.

 

[Urwumpe]

What is more advanced, complex and capable:

A:

B:

The number of circuit breakers, switches and buttons visible tell you little about the actual complexity that you don't see.

Still doubting it?

What about this:

A:

B:

And FADEC: I bet I know the Space Shuttle subsystems and their functions a bit better than you do, and from a perspective that you have yet to see. (Or did you already bother reading the Operational Data Handbook?) Maybe you should next time not prove that you can copy and paste an (incomplete) list from a www source, but just ask "Are you kidding?" in my case. Would be less harmful for electrons.

A car maybe has no OMS, a Space Shuttle no entertainment system. A car has no RCS, a Space Shuttle no intelligent head lights. The Space Shuttle has four radiators, a Bugatti Veyron needs ten (An old car already has at least three, modern cars are around six). The Space Shuttle has a speed brake, many cars have variable spoilers and the Veyron also a spoiler that doubles as air brake. The Space Shuttle has an airlock, the car at least one clutch. And don't even bother counting the HUD. Many cars are also already getting this technology already. A Space shuttle has a star tracker that can identify single points of light, some modern cars already identify traffic signs, can automatically park, have collision warning systems, can automatically brake (some cars have 5 times more radar systems as a Space Shuttle).

Also, the components you listed by their sheer number there, are often already seeing their function as tiny parts in a car component. The Shuttle uses complex mechanic rate gyroscopes, because the alternatives had not been good enough in 1970, when it was designed, the Shuttle gyroscopes are only slightly improved versions of the Apollo equivalents. Almost all cars today use MEMS, that fit on a single chip and which are usually directly integrated in a strap-down inertial navigation unit. The Shuttle still uses stable platforms for INS, because the computing power of the AP-101 has never been high enough to perform the math that is done inside a car INS today. And modern MEMS based INS are even more accurate as the mechanic shuttle INS, the Shuttle used a primitive form of IMU that was better proven in flight (based on Gemini experience), and added automatic calibration to the basic design as solid state electronics had been around. (The IMU of the Minuteman ICBM is for example a few orders of magnitude more accurate as the Shuttle IMU - but also way more expensive.)

The only difference between a space craft and a car is: In a spacecraft, you care for the various subsystems and acronyms, especially if you are just a fanboy. In a car, you just turn the key and annoy a mechanic, if turning the key is not enough. And if you annoy your mechanic too often, you buy a different car and sell the old lemon. You don't brag with your friends how many channels your supercharger precooler has. Only very few people even buy a CAN bus adapter for their notebooks and hack into the many computer networks of their car.

 

[T.Neo]

The AK-47, like any gas-operated automatic firearm, has a number of functions that can fail:

- misfire
- feed failure
- ejection failure
- cycle failure

Those are related to different components of the weapon and even of the ammunition, and each one is dealt with in a different way. Anyone who has gone through firearms training knows that.

If the function you're referring to is simple firing, then for the operator to get killed you must be in a close combat situation without cover. You can actually survive a weapons malfunction in combat situation, less so if it's a self-defence close-quarter thing. Otherwise, the other "function" that can fail is the integrity of its firing chamber which can be compromised by damage, bad maintenance, barrel obstruction or sabotage: catastrophic firing chamber failures (which means: blows up in your face) are rare but they can happen if the operator fails to observe basic discipline.

Exactly. And it should be noted though, that while a gun has many different parts that can fail, most of them are absolutely crucial and will lead to a failure of the entire system to operate.

Now a shuttle, has several computers- if one crashes, or shuts down, it can still operate. It has several main engines- if it loses one or two (depending on what time it is in the ascent), it can still operate. It has two OMS engines, and (to my knowledge) if one of those fails, the vehicle can still operate. It can also still operate if some RCS thrusters fail, for example.

Sure, the function of a gun is maybe more simple, but you just can't build that sort of redundancy into a gun. You can't build an assault rifle with three barrels and three bolts, with three ejectors each, and three trigger mechanisms, and three gas pistons, etc.

The only solution is to make a gun seriously rugged and durable and simple, so that in normal operation, you get practically no (component) failures, and in adverse conditions, the system can withstand a lot of abuse. The AK-47 is a particularly famous example of that design ideology.

STS was, I imagine, not particularly vulnerable from a general aerospace perspective, but it did have its vulnerabilities- such as the fragile TPS.

In the end, you can't really compare STS with a gun, or a cellphone, or a car, or whatever. And STS was really special, in the sense that it was the only vehicle of its time that had the capabilities that it did (save for Buran, which only flew once, unmanned), and that no modern vehicle does, of course.

But you can compare STS subsystems with other systems. You can compare the computers to modern computers, for example. Or the engines to other engines. While the vehicle itself is rather special, it isn't pushing the boundaries of what is possible (today), though some of the stuff inside it might be pretty special, to varying degrees.



Just for fun, let's do a little, silly, pointless comparison between the SSMEs, and other... stuff;

A single SSME produces maybe 5 whole gigawatts, and masses 3 177 kilograms. That is a power-by-mass of ~1574 kW/kg.

Now let's take an AK-47. We will take the kinetic energy of the projectile, and divide it by the time it takes to accelerate to muzzle velocity in the given barrel length (I know it isn't nearly as simple, but I'll do it anyway). Going by a mass of 4.3 kilograms, the AK is maybe 415 kW/kg. Which is, granted, not as much as the SSME- but still a lot (likely a lot more than the powerplants of cars, aircraft, or the systems inside municipal electric plants). It should be noted, however, that (in semi-auto mode) this is a fleeting moment, while the operation of an SSME is continuous.

Let's look at other guns. The Minigun has a rate of fire of between 2000 and 6000 RPM, and a muzzle energy of over 3500 joules. This means it is putting out roughly 21 megajoules per minute, or 355 kilowatts. The Minigun masses maybe 30 kilograms, which gives it a figure of 11.8 kW/kg, not nearly that of an SSME. Of course, if going by the divide-kinetic-energy-by-time-in-barrel number, it would likely be higher, but not quite as high as a small arm, using the same round but being lighter (but also having a lower rate of fire).

Let's look at aircraft cannons- these have to be light, but are also very powerful. The GSH-301 has a mass of only 46 kilograms, but a rate of fire of 1500-1800 RPM. It has a muzzle velocity of 860 m/s, and its 30mm projectiles mass a whole 0.4 kilograms each. Going by the first method, it has a figure of 922 kW/kg- not far from that of the SSME. Going by the second method, it puts out 148 kilowatts, which gives a figure of only 3 kW/kg- not nearly as much as the SSME. And of course, that is pulsed, while the SSME fires continuously.

But there are still differences. For example a gun has all sorts of parts reciprocating inside it- being accelerated up to and down from speeds of several m/s, within a fraction of a second. A gun has to move physical, distinct cartridges- a rocket engine 'just' needs to move fluids. And the chamber pressure on a gun is also far higher, for example.

While a gun might not nearly have the heating problems a rocket engine does, it also doesn't have a high mass-flow of cryogenic coolant at its disposal.

And when comparing to other rocket engines: The RS-68 is around 1030 kW/kg, the F-1 1040 kW/kg, the RL10B-2 900 kW/kg, and the AJ-10-118K only ~530 kW/kg.

I guess you can't really compare the two. You might be able to compare certain aspects, but not the entire system- because, obviously, a gun and a rocket are two different things, built very differently, to do different jobs. Some are more 'intense', others not so much. Rocket motors are built to cope with exotic propellants. The GSh-301 practically needs its barrel thrown away after firing all the rounds mounted in the aircraft.

So I guess, STS has pretty impressive engines, mediocre landing gear, life support, and radiators, and severely outdated computers. But even if something isn't that complex, or isn't even that intensive, engineering-wise, it can still be pretty expensive.

If you want to build a 100x100x100 meter solid aluminium cube, the cost would likely be far higher than the material cost of the aluminium alone, because you have to do all sorts of other stuff to it, to turn it into that sculpture.

How many people build space vehicles? More than those who build exotic structures. But less than those who build weapons systems...

 

[Ghostrider]

You know, I'd like to shoot down that AK-47 myth once and for all...
The AK-47 is not more reliable than other weapons of the same class. It's not even as rugged. It's just designed to be built without any fancy materials and mass-produced at low cost with little infrastructure. If you can make car parts, you can make an AK-47. It's also built with very generous tolerances, which incidentally also make it inaccurate.

The myth of the AK reliability comes from early experience with the M16 prototypes in Vietnam: the early M16s were prone to lots of jamming due to inaccurate instructions passed to the troops, ammunition fouling up the mechanism (it's a direct impingement mechanism, not piston-driven) and generally suffering from many problems that plague early systems. Compared to them, the AKs looked almost faultless.

However, this is not the case. From the M16A1 onward the problem has been solved and the current iteration of the weapon is as reliable as any AK if not more, and way more accurate to boot. Any modern assault rifle beats the 47 hands down in terms of reliability, ruggedness and accuracy (which has never been the AK's forte) - even the Enfield SA80 once HK got their hands on it.

The AK has this legend around it because it's present in almost all armed conflicts in the world since it's been built, but that's it. The Valmet RK62 which is based on it is way better and since it fires the same cartridge has been found in many theatres of war where the AK was also present - and been mistaken for it.

 

[Urwumpe]

It is likely that the ships that discovered the new world, had been made of the same wood and nails, that build ships that never left its home waters.

 

[T.Neo]

You know, I'd like to shoot down that AK-47 myth once and for all...
The AK-47 is not more reliable than other weapons of the same class. It's not even as rugged. It's just designed to be built without any fancy materials and mass-produced at low cost with little infrastructure. If you can make car parts, you can make an AK-47. It's also built with very generous tolerances, which incidentally also make it inaccurate.

Well, yes. But I mean, if you compare it to a rifle like the M-16, which has a lot of aluminium parts, or thin or small or intricate parts, it's bound to be more rugged. Maybe not by much, but the traits are there. Loose tolerances for example don't only affect ease of manufacturing- they can make the weapon more tolerant to dust or debris intrusion.

The myth of the AK reliability comes from early experience with the M16 prototypes in Vietnam: the early M16s were prone to lots of jamming due to inaccurate instructions passed to the troops, ammunition fouling up the mechanism (it's a direct impingement mechanism, not piston-driven) and generally suffering from many problems that plague early systems. Compared to them, the AKs looked almost faultless.

I don't exactly think that helped things much...

However, this is not the case. From the M16A1 onward the problem has been solved and the current iteration of the weapon is as reliable as any AK if not more, and way more accurate to boot. Any modern assault rifle beats the 47 hands down in terms of reliability, ruggedness and accuracy (which has never been the AK's forte) - even the Enfield SA80 once HK got their hands on it.

Yeah... I don't believe the SA80. As long as you don't get your teeth knocked out by the cocking handle... :shifty:

I think you oversell accuracy. I have a feeling that that in a combat situation, few rounds are truely aimed. And full-auto destroys accuracy as well, of course.

The AK has this legend around it because it's present in almost all armed conflicts in the world since it's been built, but that's it. The Valmet RK62 which is based on it is way better and since it fires the same cartridge has been found in many theatres of war where the AK was also present - and been mistaken for it.

How do you define 'way better'?

Also, the RK62 is an example of the success of the AK lineage... internally it is very similar to the AK (as far as I can see), and is a basis of the Galil, which is the basis for the R4, the standard issue rifle of the SANDF. It's a long story, obviously (the R4 wasn't the only thing that came from the relationship between SA and Israel- our old jet fighters and ICBMs were essentially Israeli designs as well), but it shows when a weapon of a (arguable, SA was a paraiah state) western ally adopts what is essentially a modified eastern-block design.

I never look too closely at guns, nor is my knowledge of guns particularly good, but I think I've seen more AK-47s being carried by insurgents, pirates and rebels, than RK62s. I may be wrong.

EDIT:

And if you compare any modern gun to a space shuttle, it is probably going to be more rugged... which is the general point I'm trying to make.

 

[Ghostrider]

Well, yes. But I mean, if you compare it to a rifle like the M-16, which has a lot of aluminium parts, or thin or small or intricate parts, it's bound to be more rugged. Maybe not by much, but the traits are there. Loose tolerances for example don't only affect ease of manufacturing- they can make the weapon more tolerant to dust or debris intrusion.

The parts of an M16 or any comparable weapon are not "thin" by any means nor are they "intricate". Firearms are inherently robust and simple - they need to be. If you want to see an intricate weapon, check out the AN-94, but its parts are still something you can play around with in your hands without fear of breaking or losing them.
Loose tolerances may have made weapons more tolerant 60 years ago, when portable automatic weapons were still kind of a novelty (they were experimented with even before WW1 but were overcomplicated and prone to unordinate amounts of fail), but it's not an issue now. Check out how army-issued weapons are tested before adoption and you'll see.

I don't exactly think that helped things much...

The M16A4 is a long way from its 'Nam older brother, but if you're still not comfortable with it, the HK416 will make your day: it replaces the direct impingement system with a short-stroke piston.

Yeah... I don't believe the SA80. As long as you don't get your teeth knocked out by the cocking handle... :shifty:

Not to mention the handguards that melted if they came in contact with bug repellent spray. Big trouble since UK camo sticks contain bug repellent.

I think you oversell accuracy. I have a feeling that that in a combat situation, few rounds are truely aimed. And full-auto destroys accuracy as well, of course.

Depends on the range, but if you fire for effect you better aim. If your enemy is at 10+ meter range, single shots count. There's a reason full-automatic fire was eliminated from the M16 series starting with the A2, and replaced with the 3-round burst which is good in close combat.

How do you define 'way better'?

As "I can actually have some good shot placement at 300m with one".

Also, the RK62 is an example of the success of the AK lineage... internally it is very similar to the AK (as far as I can see), and is a basis of the Galil, which is the basis for the R4, the standard issue rifle of the SANDF.

Of course, any gas-operated long-stroke assault rifle is going to resemble the AK-47 and the older Stg44. But that's like saying any computer is a computer or that a SRB and a bottle rocket are the same: specs and manufacture count a lot.

Now, I'm no AK hater (fanboyism is already too much in the computer world, and we don't need to export it into the gun world which by the way has lots in common with the former) and I would use one with no problems if I had to or if someone would lend me one, but I would simply choose another weapon over it.

And I have a feeling we've shot the thread into a direction it's not meant to take...

 

[T.Neo]

Not to mention the handguards that melted if they came in contact with bug repellent spray. Big trouble since UK camo sticks contain bug repellent.

:facepalm:

And I have a feeling we've shot the thread into a direction it's not meant to take...

Yeah, something tells me that this thread is heavily offtopic. Not sure what it is, though... :uhh:

 

[Cras]

Anyways, I made time to watch that documentary and saw it recently. I liked it; the documentary covered the major events of the shuttle program well with a good progression of time. I found it a bit difficult to follow Shatner's narration a few times, the way he says some things is a bit odd. Compared to what I've seen from the Columbia documentary posted here, it's not overly dramatic.

It certainly covered a lot of ground, but like much with NASA TV, they like Star Trek a bit too much and they let it bleed into alot of their content. Shattner does not exactly have what I would call an ideal narrator's voice, and he tried to talk a bit deeper in tone and quieter to try and do the best he can, but as a result, some of the audio becomes hard to hear.

There is another Shuttle Doc that NASA put out that also I thought was very entertaining.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=99763501

 

[FADEC]

I bet I know the Space Shuttle subsystems and their functions a bit better than you do, and from a perspective that you
have yet to see. (Or did you already bother reading the Operational Data Handbook?) Maybe you should next time not prove that you can copy and paste an (incomplete) list from a www source, but just ask "Are you kidding?" in my case. Would be less harmful for electrons.

You know very little about me and what I know or don't know. I could go into details of, for example, the GN&C or DPS hardware and software of the orbiter right now to show that I did not quote from "a www source" as you claim. But why? I'm too old for such pubertal games. And I didn't claim that my list is complete. I clearly said that I probably missed something.

The reason why I did not use abbreviations by the way is that we certainly have people here who don't know their meanings, and because I don't need to appear as an especially smart guy, other than you obviously.

But all this is irrelevant because a car is not as complex as a Shuttle anyway. And I think you actually know this very well. You are just looking for a hot discussion (or to show that you think you are very smart). But I refuse to become your victim :hello:

You have to show why a Shuttle is not more complex than a car. But you will fail anyway. There is no chance.

 

[tblaxland]

Staff note: I think we have established that a consensus will not be established on the relative complexity of <insert modern complex machine, eg, motor vehicles, LHC, etc> and the STS Orbiter. On with the discussion of the documentary...