Shuttle safely landed

[MrCynical]

Soyz rockets are twice as old (if not more).... work like a clock.

The basic design is that old (though they have been upgraded over the years), but the rockets themselves are not. The physical structure of the shuttle orbiters is 20 years old though, and some age related deterioration is inevitable. It also makes it harder to upgrade components than the Soyuz rockets.

 

[El_Machinae]

Never mind that they cut them into pieces, to ship them, eh?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Things that big are built in pieces, doesnt matter.

 

[MrCynical]

Things that big are built in pieces, doesnt matter.

It doesn't change the fact that a lot of the "pieces" of the shuttle are of considerable age, which components of the Soyuz are not. Since they aren't going to replace all the shuttle systems at one time any upgrade will have to work with physicaly older systems.

Never mind that they cut them into pieces, to ship them

What? I have to admit that

eh?

is my response to this. I can find no record anywhere of the shuttles having been significantly dismantled for transportation purposes, unless you mean at their original construction, which is irrelevant to my point.

 

[El_Machinae]

Things that big are built in pieces, doesnt matter.

To save money, they built the shuttles far from the launching station, and then found out that they couldn't ship them. So, they cut them apart and shipped them.

Once NASA accepted the plan for a solid rocket booster it attempted to cut costs further. It rejected a bid for the construction of a one-piece solid rocket booster that would have eliminated the need for O-rings. It instead accepted Morton-Thiokol’s less costly plan for an SRB built in segments. Political horse trading also played a role. One reason that Thiokol’s bid was ultimately accepted was the fact that the chairman of the Senate committee overseeing NASA’s budget came from Utah, the home base of Thiokol.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/chal-m06.shtml&e=15206

 

[MrCynical]

To save money, they built the shuttles far from the launching station, and then found out that they couldn't ship them. So, they cut them apart and shipped them.

This hasn't been done recently though? The shuttles are transported piggy-backed on a 747 when necessary. I'm not denying the shuttle can be dismantled, but that doesn't make any difference to the age of the components.

Not quite sure of the relevance of the quote. Just seems to highlight the shuttle is built in pieces, which I know full well. For an analogy; your computer is built in pieces, and can be reduced to those component parts once again. However if you want to insert a particular new upgrade, it's probably going to be easier when constructing a new computer, than when upgrading an old computer.

The link doesn't work by the way.

 

[El_Machinae]

Crap - that's weird that it doesn't work.

Anyway, I'm not really arguing at all. This is just more of an FYI; the shuttle didn't need to be built so that the O-rings were a problem, politics just forced it to be built that way.

 

[MrCynical]

Anyway, I'm not really arguing at all. This is just more of an FYI; the shuttle didn't need to be built so that the O-rings were a problem, politics just forced it to be built that way.

Yeah, it's a shame when they push cheapness to the expense of everything else. It's got to have cost them more in the long run though, to say nothing of getting the crew of Challenger killed.