STSprog-fut_v_c_o_TPMBK (108-KSC-74PC-297)
“Artist concept space shuttle orbiter processing facility refurbishment.”
Note the profoundly over-simplified refurbishment process anticipated. Way off. Wow.
From/per SP-407, “Space Shuttle”, at:
history.nasa.gov/SP-407/part1.htm
“GROUND TURN AROUND
The Space Shuttle Orbiter is designed for a 2-week ground turnaround, from landing to relaunch. About 160 hours of actual work will be required
As soon as the Orbiter returns from space, it must undergo safing before payloads can be removed and maintenance and refurbishment begun. Safing operations include draining and purging of the propellant feedlines and removal of explosive actuators.
Next, the payload-bay support equipment must be inspected and serviced. New payloads will be installed. The thermal protection system, landing gear system, main and auxiliary propulsion systems, power units, flight instrumentation, and communications systems must also be inspected and, if necessary, repaired.
These functions will take approximately two-thirds of the total processing time before relaunch. From there, the Orbiter will be towed to the assembly building, where it will be lifted to vertical and mated to the solid rocket boosters and external tank, already in place on the mobile launcher platform
The integrated Space Shuttle will then be moved to the launch pad for another trip into space.”
Finally, associated with a more properly colored subsequent version of this work linked to below.
I wholeheartedly concur with the OPED Commentary expressed:
“Back in the SPF ( Shuttle Processing Facility) the orbiter is refurbished and made ready for the next of what was promised to be up to a hundred missions. It never came close to delivering either the cost reductions or the longevity that it was claimed to provide.
OPED Commentary:
In the form in which it was built, I believe the Space Shuttle was a fine technology demonstrator, but a poor choice to meet our national requirements in space. In short, it has been the ruin of the US manned space program and lost a large portion of our satellite launch business to foreign launchers.
Would the STS have been more successful if the original, fully reusable, system had been chosen? I doubt that it could have been any worse.
We ended up with an International Space Station that we don't even own and which we have no means of reaching without buying space on obsolete Russian spacecraft. The day of the large, earth orbiting, space station had come and gone, before the first ISS modules were ever launched.
We should have continued our exploration and colonization of the moon, instead of building any shuttle or space station, at all.
The road to Mars still leads through the moon, as it always has.”
STSprog-fut_v_c_o_TPMBK (108-KSC-74PC-297)
“Artist concept space shuttle orbiter processing facility refurbishment.”
Note the profoundly over-simplified refurbishment process anticipated. Way off. Wow.
From/per SP-407, “Space Shuttle”, at:
history.nasa.gov/SP-407/part1.htm
“GROUND TURN AROUND
The Space Shuttle Orbiter is designed for a 2-week ground turnaround, from landing to relaunch. About 160 hours of actual work will be required
As soon as the Orbiter returns from space, it must undergo safing before payloads can be removed and maintenance and refurbishment begun. Safing operations include draining and purging of the propellant feedlines and removal of explosive actuators.
Next, the payload-bay support equipment must be inspected and serviced. New payloads will be installed. The thermal protection system, landing gear system, main and auxiliary propulsion systems, power units, flight instrumentation, and communications systems must also be inspected and, if necessary, repaired.
These functions will take approximately two-thirds of the total processing time before relaunch. From there, the Orbiter will be towed to the assembly building, where it will be lifted to vertical and mated to the solid rocket boosters and external tank, already in place on the mobile launcher platform
The integrated Space Shuttle will then be moved to the launch pad for another trip into space.”
Finally, associated with a more properly colored subsequent version of this work linked to below.
I wholeheartedly concur with the OPED Commentary expressed:
“Back in the SPF ( Shuttle Processing Facility) the orbiter is refurbished and made ready for the next of what was promised to be up to a hundred missions. It never came close to delivering either the cost reductions or the longevity that it was claimed to provide.
OPED Commentary:
In the form in which it was built, I believe the Space Shuttle was a fine technology demonstrator, but a poor choice to meet our national requirements in space. In short, it has been the ruin of the US manned space program and lost a large portion of our satellite launch business to foreign launchers.
Would the STS have been more successful if the original, fully reusable, system had been chosen? I doubt that it could have been any worse.
We ended up with an International Space Station that we don't even own and which we have no means of reaching without buying space on obsolete Russian spacecraft. The day of the large, earth orbiting, space station had come and gone, before the first ISS modules were ever launched.
We should have continued our exploration and colonization of the moon, instead of building any shuttle or space station, at all.
The road to Mars still leads through the moon, as it always has.”