Blue Plastic O-Rings


Jamie123
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Vort said:

Yes, they were supposed to be reusable and thus save the US gov't a ton of money. The opposite occurred; each shuttle launch cost about half a billion dollars in today's money, far more expensive than simply launching an Atlas rocket to take something into space.

To be honest, the shuttles were marvels of technology and engineering. But they were pushing the boundaries of engineering know-how. For example, the main shuttle rocket engine was one of the most efficient rocket engines ever made to that time, but it cost a fortune to develop and construct it. The shuttle itself was very difficult to bring back down from orbit safely; a huge amount of effort and money was expended to figure out how to make the ceramic tiles stick to the shuttle or how to protect them from falling debris (mostly ice that formed on the cryogenic external fuel tank) during takeoff. The fact that they never really figured that one out was made clear when the Columbia was ripped apart on reentry because some tiles were damaged and missing due to takeoff debris strikes. The entire system was so vastly complicated that no single person could possibly understand it all, and it was exceedingly difficult for various teams to communicate effectively about every item that arose. This is important because when you're talking about manned rocket launches, even a minor-seeming issue or small complication can lead to vehicle failure and the death of the astronauts.

There was also the inevitable political machinations. For example, the infamous o-rings that failed in Challenger (Discovery did not fail, and was retired at the end of the space shuttle program) were used because the enormous solid-fuel booster rockets strapped onto each side of the shuttle's external tank could not be manufactured and then shipped across the country in one piece. So they were made in two pieces (by Morton Thiokol in Brigham City, Utah) and stacked together, with an o-ring to seal the joint and provide limited articulation.

Back in the early 1970s, it was clear that Apollo was not going to be an ongoing program. NASA was trying to figure out how to move forward with rocket usage. Many possible plans were proposed: a heavy-lift rocket to put large loads (like a space telescope) into low earth orbit; a smaller, less expensive launch vehicle to put satellites into higher orbits and launch planetary probes throughout the solar system; a program to put men into space on a long-term orbital platform; a program to use a few Apollo-style rockets to establish a moonbase and keep astronauts there on a rotating basis; and so forth.

The various proponents for each of these fought for his or her own idea, for obvious reasons. The moonbase people didn't think an orbital research platform would be either useful enough or sustainable. The heavy launch people worried that a lightweight satellite-launching rocket could not put important platforms into orbit. And so on. What was needed was a leader, someone to take the reins and make the tough decisions. In reality, any of the individual proposals would have been useful and cost-efficient. Even the people who championed this or that idea admitted that anything was much better than nothing.

But leaders of that caliber just were not to be found at NASA. Instead, politics as usual played out, and the thing was decided by committee. Unsurprisingly, the committee chose the stupidest possible idea: Instead of choosing just one of the ideas, they would build a platform that would allow all the ideas to happen! Everyone wins! What could possibly go wrong?

Anyway, I'm older than most of this list's participants, and I'm sure that few share my views on the matter (and those who do likely skew toward my age). For children of the 1970s and 1980s, the space shuttle represents the very pinnacle of technological sophistication. I don't see it that way; as many '50s and '60s babies, I remember the Apollo moon landings and look at them as one of the transcendently amazing things the human race has ever accomplished. And you have to admit, Apollo was waaaaaay cooler than the space shuttle. Just in looks alone, Apollo was a magnificent machine the size of a skyscraper that went to the moon, while the space shuttle was an ugly moth squatting on an ungainly triple-rocket-looking thing.

I grew up in the 90’s so I missed out on the space race. PThanks for the explanation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LDSGator said:

 

Thanks for the info guys. I’m the farthest thing from a physicist/engineer/math/science guy so no, I didn’t know the details. I do remember watching it live though. It’s one of my first memories of a major event. 

The saddest part of the challenger disaster is that most of the astronauts survived the initial blast. It was the impact with the water that killed them. In the post investigation they found that there were switches and controls that were activated after the blast. Meaning that the astronauts were still trying to operate the vehicle on its way to the ground. Very sad day for the space program and they will never be forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I grew up in the 90’s so I missed out on the space race. PThanks for the explanation. 

imagine if they had gone the other route of the sea dragon. A reusable rocket that could have lifted the entire International Space Station in one launch for about the same cost as a shuttle launch.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

The saddest part of the challenger disaster is that most of the astronauts survived the initial blast. It was the impact with the water that killed them. In the post investigation they found that there were switches and controls that were activated after the blast. Meaning that the astronauts were still trying to operate the vehicle on its way to the ground. Very sad day for the space program and they will never be forgotten.

It’s sad-but it’s also horrifying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

My engineering statistics/economics professor made a statement about that.  He pointed out that the percentage from an engineering perspective makes the shuttle design an engineering success.  But it is considered a failure because lives were lost.

 

Similarly:  the Titanic’s sister ship Olympic (built alongside the Titanic) survived into the mid-1930s and in terms of fuel efficiency, safety, continuing structural soundness, and profitability, bested every other steamship on the Atlantic.

But all anyone remembers is that the Titanic was the result of flawed design and slipshod construction, because she sank. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Similarly:  the Titanic’s sister ship Olympic (built alongside the Titanic) survived into the mid-1930s and in terms of fuel efficiency, safety, continuing structural soundness, and profitability, bested every other steamship on the Atlantic.

But all anyone remembers is that the Titanic was the result of flawed design and slipshod construction, because she sank. 

Titanic would not have sunk if not for the damage created by the weeks long coal fire it was trying to hide from the public. Part of the reason it was racing for New York, to prevent a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Titanic would not have sunk if not for the damage created by the weeks long coal fire it was trying to hide from the public. Part of the reason it was racing for New York, to prevent a disaster.

Not sure about that. The coal fire had little to do with it sinking, and it wasn’t racing to New York. 
 

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-it-such-a-big-deal-that-Titanic-make-it-to-NYC-fast-in-record-time-when-the-ship-was-already-famous-and-making-headlines-as-the-largest-and-most-luxurious-ship-of-that-time-Why-not-worry-about-arriving?top_ans=238082441

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Similarly:  the Titanic’s sister ship Olympic (built alongside the Titanic) survived into the mid-1930s and in terms of fuel efficiency, safety, continuing structural soundness, and profitability, bested every other steamship on the Atlantic.

But all anyone remembers is that the Titanic was the result of flawed design and slipshod construction, because she sank. 

Yes.  No one considers that the ship sank because a captain wanted to follow a schedule more than following a safety protocol.   I hadn't heard of the coal fire thing.  But it looks like that was yet another safety protocol that was ignored.

The public needs to understand that the engineering design takes into account proper usage of the designed item.  For instance, a building isn't designed to handle a car ramming into it.  A car isn't designed to take a building falling on it.

And if a meteor makes it to ground level, kiss your modern conveniences good bye.  We don't design for these things.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes.  No one considers that the ship sank because a captain wanted to follow a schedule more than following a safety protocol.   I hadn't heard of the coal fire thing.  But it looks like that was yet another safety protocol that was ignored.

 

Just because I’m a Titanic nerd second only to @LDSGator, I’m going to point out that the coal fire was extinguished nearly a full day before the Titanic hit the iceberg and was not a factor either in its speed or sinking.  Spontaneous combustion of bunkered coal was, while not exactly common, frequent enough that specific procedures had been developed to control and eradicate smoldering bunker fires; and they worked in the Titanic’s case.

The community of Titanic researchers is a really weird place (think of a bunch of male baby boomers acting like teenaged girls, and you’ll *begin* to understand the dynamic), and there’s one in particular who just wants to watch the (Titanic) world burn and so has been going to mass-market media pushing this coal-fire theory for about a decade now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just because I’m a Titanic nerd second only to @LDSGator, I’m going to point out that the coal fire was extinguished nearly a full day before the Titanic hit the iceberg and was not a factor either in its speed or sinking.  Spontaneous combustion of bunkered coal was, while not exactly common, frequent enough that specific procedures had been developed to control and eradicate smoldering bunker fires; and they worked in the Titanic’s case.

The community of Titanic researchers is a really weird place (think of a bunch of male baby boomers acting like teenaged girls, and you’ll *begin* to understand the dynamic), and there’s one in particular who just wants to watch the (Titanic) world burn and so has been going to mass-market media pushing this coal-fire theory for about a decade now.

I can only compete in the D&D zone:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Actually, on the contrary, you are one of the few people who has read more than I have about the Titanic. I hate admitting this due to my massive and fragile ego, but you know way, way way more about her than I ever will. 

And in return, I concede that you are *slightly* younger than me—younger at heart, at least, if not in calendar age. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share