7 ms·

The thing that impresses me the most about the shuttle is that it was designed in the mid 60's, built in the 70's/80's, and flew 100+ missions to space over ~30

by tdicola 12y ago

The thing that impresses me the most about the shuttle is that it was designed in the mid 60's, built in the 70's/80's, and flew 100+ missions to space over ~30 years. I have a car that was built in the mid-80's and barely trust driving it a few thousand miles a year without it breaking down. I can't imagine what it took to keep the shuttles flying to space for so long without more major accidents.

otoolep 12y ago
Well, your car cost a few thousand dollars. The shuttle cost a lot more. :-) I don't think it's a fair comparison.
dlhavema 12y ago
i'm guessing these shuttles got routine maintenance (your car probably did too.. ) but also heavy inspections before and after every trip. We can make things last, it just takes a lot of effort and/or generally a lot of money..
- Sharlin 12y ago
  The shuttles required months of maintenance work after each trip, including stripping out and completely disassembling the main engines, plus painstaking inspection and potential replacement of each and every heat shield tile.
FigBug 12y ago
There were six shuttles and had 25, 28, 10, 39, 33 & 0 missions each for a total of 135 missions and killed 14 astronauts. Not that impressive a record for something that was originally intended to do 55 launches a year. Something I find more impressive is the B52 Bomber, first flew in 1952, finished production in 1962, expected to be in service until 2040. Will be in service for almost 100 years. If like an aircraft, you were doing 1 hour of maintenance for every 10 - 20 hours driving, I'm sure your car would be more reliable.
- idlewords 12y ago
  For military aircraft, there are far more hours of maintenance than flying time. It's a factor of 10-20 in the other direction.
  - AaronIG 12y ago
    Indeed. I originally enlisted in the Navy as an Aviation Structural Mechanic (AM), and my first command was an F-14 squadron where I was assigned to airframes. On average, we scheduled 40 man hours for each flight hour (sometimes as high as 60). The F/A-18's that eventually replaced the Tomcats took about half that, but for most aircraft you're looking at 10 MMH/FH, at least, for mx alone. That said, not all aircraft are created equal, and not all those Tomcats required all 40 scheduled man hours. Maintenance manning, at least in the Navy, is largely determined by man hours. So it isn't uncommon for commands to log as many hours as they can to keep billets, and possibly get a few additional ones. Billets are taken away if you show you can operate at fewer man hours.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    I actually looked up the B-52 schedule and from what I could tell its maintenance and duty schedules aren't too out of line from recommended maintenance for a privately owned automobile: https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/PfZckXeBqP7 https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/PfZc... The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress was introduced in 1952. Its mission is presently projected through 2044.[1] That's a ninety-two year mission. There were 744 built, unit costs range from $9.28 million (1962) to $53.4 million (1988). The most recent new production was 1963, over a half century ago. Effectively the planes are rebuilt periodically, though some original components may remain (I'm not fully up on my B-52 maintenance procedures and schedules). "Flyaway cost": $9.29m, in 1955 dollars, $82.53 in 2014 dollars) Present maintenance costs: $10,406/hr. That is equivalent to the purchase price of the aircraft every 8,000 flight hours. AAA publishes a "cost of ownership" report for automobiles which assumes 15,000 miles of travel and an average of $0.05/mi maintenance, or $750/year.[2] This suggests that a B-52 level of maintenance is at least twice the going cost of automobile maintenance. But not hugely out of line given relative capital costs. GlobalSecurity.org claims B-52 total service life being 32,500 - 37,500 flying hours.[3] Over the 92 year life of the program, that corresponds to a duty cycle of roughly 4.6%, vs. 5.7% for the automobile referenced above. It also gives us an annual maintenance cost per B-52 of $4.2 million -- or 5% of the total purchase cost. Over the 92 year life of the aircraft, that's equivalent to purchasing 4.7 new planes. (Taken from a longer response to an allegation about failure to incorporate demand-side depreciation in GDP, largely deconstructed, demolished, and dismissed here.) Also, incidentally, I dropped you an email concerning your "Internet with a Human Face" blog posting, seen that by chance? ______________________________ Notes: 1. http://www.gizmag.com/b52-upgrade/20098/ http://www.gizmag.com/b52-upgrade/20098/ 2. http://www.colorado.aaa.com/auto/fuel-guide/driving-costs-for-vehicle-types/ http://www.colorado.aaa.com/auto/fuel-guide/driving-costs-fo... 3. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm
dredmorbius 12y ago
Cars have annual production runs in the tens to hundreds of millions. There were six shuttles built (one a replacement). Keeping production facilities upon and staffed to create one or two craft per decade was impractical. Similar arguments apply to military aircraft: the last B-52 was completed in the mid 1960s. Dies and machining for the SR-71 Blackbird were destroyed after the initial production run was completed. Aotomobile production and economics simply don't apply.
- gress 12y ago
  Why on earth were the dies and machining destroyed? That just seems like a wrong decision.
  - sanoli 12y ago
    I thought about it, and I'm still waiting for someone to answer this. Good question.
    - thmorton 12y ago
      To prevent them from falling into the wrong hands and another nation building an SR-71: > In 1968, a presidential order required that all molds and tools used to build the SR-71 be destroyed so that the plane could never be built by anyone again. This also meant that spare parts could not be made, so if there were any major problems, planes in storage would have to be cannibalized. http://www.strategic-air-command.com/aircraft/reconnaissance/sr71_blackbird.htm http://www.strategic-air-command.com/aircraft/reconnaissance... > 8. How many SR-71's were built? 50 Blackbird airframes of various designations. The dies or molds were destroyed as directed by then Secretary of Defense McNamara to prevent any other nation from building the aircraft. http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srqt~1.htm http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srqt~1.htm
  - imchillyb 12y ago
    At the time, it was a top-secret government project. That plane was the best spy resource our government had. We did not want the plane, nor its designs falling into the hands of others.

by tdicola 12y ago

otoolep 12y ago

Well, your car cost a few thousand dollars. The shuttle cost a lot more. :-) I don't think it's a fair comparison.

dlhavema 12y ago

i'm guessing these shuttles got routine maintenance (your car probably did too.. ) but also heavy inspections before and after every trip. We can make things last, it just takes a lot of effort and/or generally a lot of money..

Sharlin 12y ago
The shuttles required months of maintenance work after each trip, including stripping out and completely disassembling the main engines, plus painstaking inspection and potential replacement of each and every heat shield tile.

FigBug 12y ago

There were six shuttles and had 25, 28, 10, 39, 33 & 0 missions each for a total of 135 missions and killed 14 astronauts. Not that impressive a record for something that was originally intended to do 55 launches a year. Something I find more impressive is the B52 Bomber, first flew in 1952, finished production in 1962, expected to be in service until 2040. Will be in service for almost 100 years. If like an aircraft, you were doing 1 hour of maintenance for every 10 - 20 hours driving, I'm sure your car would be more reliable.

idlewords 12y ago
For military aircraft, there are far more hours of maintenance than flying time. It's a factor of 10-20 in the other direction.
- AaronIG 12y ago
  Indeed. I originally enlisted in the Navy as an Aviation Structural Mechanic (AM), and my first command was an F-14 squadron where I was assigned to airframes. On average, we scheduled 40 man hours for each flight hour (sometimes as high as 60). The F/A-18's that eventually replaced the Tomcats took about half that, but for most aircraft you're looking at 10 MMH/FH, at least, for mx alone. That said, not all aircraft are created equal, and not all those Tomcats required all 40 scheduled man hours. Maintenance manning, at least in the Navy, is largely determined by man hours. So it isn't uncommon for commands to log as many hours as they can to keep billets, and possibly get a few additional ones. Billets are taken away if you show you can operate at fewer man hours.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  I actually looked up the B-52 schedule and from what I could tell its maintenance and duty schedules aren't too out of line from recommended maintenance for a privately owned automobile: https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/PfZckXeBqP7 https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/PfZc... The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress was introduced in 1952. Its mission is presently projected through 2044.[1] That's a ninety-two year mission. There were 744 built, unit costs range from $9.28 million (1962) to $53.4 million (1988). The most recent new production was 1963, over a half century ago. Effectively the planes are rebuilt periodically, though some original components may remain (I'm not fully up on my B-52 maintenance procedures and schedules). "Flyaway cost": $9.29m, in 1955 dollars, $82.53 in 2014 dollars) Present maintenance costs: $10,406/hr. That is equivalent to the purchase price of the aircraft every 8,000 flight hours. AAA publishes a "cost of ownership" report for automobiles which assumes 15,000 miles of travel and an average of $0.05/mi maintenance, or $750/year.[2] This suggests that a B-52 level of maintenance is at least twice the going cost of automobile maintenance. But not hugely out of line given relative capital costs. GlobalSecurity.org claims B-52 total service life being 32,500 - 37,500 flying hours.[3] Over the 92 year life of the program, that corresponds to a duty cycle of roughly 4.6%, vs. 5.7% for the automobile referenced above. It also gives us an annual maintenance cost per B-52 of $4.2 million -- or 5% of the total purchase cost. Over the 92 year life of the aircraft, that's equivalent to purchasing 4.7 new planes. (Taken from a longer response to an allegation about failure to incorporate demand-side depreciation in GDP, largely deconstructed, demolished, and dismissed here.) Also, incidentally, I dropped you an email concerning your "Internet with a Human Face" blog posting, seen that by chance? ______________________________ Notes: 1. http://www.gizmag.com/b52-upgrade/20098/ http://www.gizmag.com/b52-upgrade/20098/ 2. http://www.colorado.aaa.com/auto/fuel-guide/driving-costs-for-vehicle-types/ http://www.colorado.aaa.com/auto/fuel-guide/driving-costs-fo... 3. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm

dredmorbius 12y ago

Cars have annual production runs in the tens to hundreds of millions. There were six shuttles built (one a replacement). Keeping production facilities upon and staffed to create one or two craft per decade was impractical. Similar arguments apply to military aircraft: the last B-52 was completed in the mid 1960s. Dies and machining for the SR-71 Blackbird were destroyed after the initial production run was completed. Aotomobile production and economics simply don't apply.

gress 12y ago
Why on earth were the dies and machining destroyed? That just seems like a wrong decision.
- sanoli 12y ago
  I thought about it, and I'm still waiting for someone to answer this. Good question.
  - thmorton 12y ago
    To prevent them from falling into the wrong hands and another nation building an SR-71: > In 1968, a presidential order required that all molds and tools used to build the SR-71 be destroyed so that the plane could never be built by anyone again. This also meant that spare parts could not be made, so if there were any major problems, planes in storage would have to be cannibalized. http://www.strategic-air-command.com/aircraft/reconnaissance/sr71_blackbird.htm http://www.strategic-air-command.com/aircraft/reconnaissance... > 8. How many SR-71's were built? 50 Blackbird airframes of various designations. The dies or molds were destroyed as directed by then Secretary of Defense McNamara to prevent any other nation from building the aircraft. http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srqt~1.htm http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srqt~1.htm
- imchillyb 12y ago
  At the time, it was a top-secret government project. That plane was the best spy resource our government had. We did not want the plane, nor its designs falling into the hands of others.