276°
Posted 20 hours ago

Revell 04736 Space Shuttle Discovery & Booster Rockets 1:144 Scale Unbuilt/Unpainted Plastic Model Kit, Multi-color, 59.5 x 36.4 x 6.5 centimetres

£21.495£42.99Clearance
ZTS2023's avatar
Shared by
ZTS2023
Joined in 2023
82
63

About this deal

Before the Apollo 11 Moon landing in 1969, NASA began studies of Space Shuttle designs as early as October 1968. The early studies were denoted "Phase A", and in June 1970, "Phase B", which were more detailed and specific. The primary intended use of the Space Shuttle was supporting the future space station, ferrying a minimum crew of four and about 20,000 pounds (9,100kg) of cargo, and being able to be rapidly turned around for future flights. One reason was economic. According to George Rodney, NASA’s associate administrator of safety, reliability, maintain­ability and quality assurance, it is not hard to get time and cycle data, “but it’s expensive and a big bookkeeping problem.” As for actually making the wheels, I cut out a template of a diameter of 2cm and using that drew around 36 of them (9 for each wheel). Initially, the orbiter was to carry its own liquid propellant. However, studies showed carrying the propellant in an external tank allowed a larger payload bay in an otherwise much smaller craft. It also meant throwing away the tank after each launch, but this was a relatively small portion of operating costs.

A Space Shuttle : 12 Steps - Instructables A Space Shuttle : 12 Steps - Instructables

Let’s face it, space is a risky business,” commented former Apollo safety officer Cohen. “I always considered every launch a barely controlled explosion.” Aldridge, Edward. C. "Pete" Jr. (c. 1989). Assured Access: 'The Bureaucratic Space War' (PDF) (Technical report). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 28, 2022 . Retrieved September 17, 2012. During the mid-1960s the United States Air Force had both of its major piloted space projects, X-20 Dyna-Soar and Manned Orbiting Laboratory, canceled. This demonstrated its need to cooperate with NASA to place military astronauts in orbit. In turn, by serving Air Force needs, the Shuttle became a truly national system, carrying all military as well as civilian payloads. [3]The Space Shuttle program used the HAL/S programming language. [10] The first microprocessor used was the 8088 and later the 80386. The Space Shuttle orbiter avionics computer was the IBM AP-101. In 1969, United States Vice President Spiro Agnew chaired the National Aeronautics and Space Council, which discussed post- Apollo options for human space activities. [1] The recommendations of the Council would heavily influence the decisions of the administration. The Council considered four major options: Editor’s Note: Today is the 30 th anniversary of the loss of the space shuttle Challenger, which was destroyed 73 seconds in its flight, killing all onboard. To mark the anniversary, IEEE Spectrum is republishing this seminal article which first appeared in June 1989 as part of a special report on risk. The article has been widely cited in both histories of the space program and in analyses of engineering risk management. In lieu of using probability numbers, the NSTS [National Space Transportation System] relies on engineering judgment using rigid and well-documented design, configuration, safety, reliability, and quality assurance controls,” the Johnson authors continued. This outlook determined the data NASA managers required engineers to collect. For example, no “lapsed-time indicators” were kept on shuttle components, subsystems, and systems, although “a fairly accurate estimate of time and/or cycles could be derived,” the Johnson authors added. All of this was taking place in the midst of other NASA teams proposing a wide variety of post-Apollo missions, a number of which would cost as much as Apollo or more [ citation needed]. As each of these projects fought for funding, the NASA budget was at the same time being severely constrained. Three were eventually presented to Vice President Agnew in 1969. The shuttle project rose to the top, largely due to tireless campaigning by its supporters [ citation needed]. By 1970 the shuttle had been selected as the one major project for the short-term post-Apollo time frame.

Challenger Disaster: A Case of Subjective Engineering The Challenger Disaster: A Case of Subjective Engineering

a b c d Heppenheimer, T. A. (1998). The Space Shuttle Decision. NASA. Archived from the original on November 7, 2019 . Retrieved July 12, 2017. As an example of how the “mindset” in the agency is now changing in favor of “a willingness to explore other things,” Buchbinder cited the new risk management program, the workshops it has been holding to train engineers and others in quantitative risk assessment techniques, and a new management instruction policy that requires NASA to “provide disciplined and documented management of risks throughout program life cycles.” NASA’s “management methodology” for collection of data and determination of risk was laid out in NASA’s 1985 safety analysis for Galileo. The Johnson space center authors explained: “Early in the program it was decided not to use reliability (or probability) numbers in the design of the Shuttle” because the magnitude of testing required to statistically verify the numerical predictions “is not considered practical.” Furthermore, they noted, “experience has shown that with the safety, reliability, and quality assurance requirements imposed on manned space­flight contractors, standard failure rate data are pessimistic.” A failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) was the heart of NASA’s effort to ensure reliability, the NRC report noted. An FMEA, carried out by the contractor building each shuttle element or subsystem, was performed on all flight hardware and on ground support equipment that interfaced with flight hard ware. Its chief purpose was to i dentify hardware critical to the performance and safety of the mission. Other outcomes: redesign of booster joint and other shuttle subsystems that also had a high level of risk or unanticipated failures; reassessment of critical items.After that, print out a few of the diagrams to reference. I also prefer having a physical model on hand to refer to so I broke out an old paper model from the local science museum. Additionally, it is nice to have a color picture on hand. I added the wheels for a purely demonstrational purpose, not intending for them to be able to support the weight of the model.

Space Modeling HobbySpace - Space Modeling

The probabilities originated in a series of quantitative risk assessments NASA was required to conduct by the Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP), in anticipation of the launch of the Galileo spacecraft on its voyage to Jupiter, originally scheduled for the early 1980s. Galileo was powered by a plutonium-­fueled radioisotope thermoelectric generator, and Presidential Directive/NSC-25 ruled that either the U.S. President or the director of the office of science and technology policy must examine the safety of any launch of nuclear material before approving it. The INSRP (which consisted of representatives of NASA as the launching agency, the Department of Energy, which manages nuclear devices, and the Department of Defense, whose Air Force manages range safety at launch) was charged with ascertaining the quantitative risks of a catastrophic launch dispersing the radioactive poison into the atmosphere. There were a number of studies because the upper stage for boosting Galileo into interplanetary space was reconfigured several times.

By the early 1980s many figures were being quoted for the overall risk to the shuttle, with estimates of a catastrophic failure ranging from less than 1 chance in 100 to 1 chance in 100 000. “The higher figures [1 in 100] come from working engineers, and the very low figures [1 in 100 000] from management,” wrote physicist Richard P. Feynman in his appendix “Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle” to the 1986 Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. One reason NASA has so strongly resisted probabilistic risk analysis may be the fact that “PRA runs against all traditions of engineering, where you handle reliability by safety factors,” said Elisabeth Paté-Cornell, associate professor in the department of industrial engineering and engineering management at Stanford University in California, who is now studying organizational factors and risk assessment in NASA. In addition, with NASA’s strong pride in design, PRA may be “perceived as an insult to their capabilities, that the system they ’ve designed is not 100 percent perfect and absolutely safe,” she added. Thus, the character of an organization influences the reliability and failure of the systems it builds because its structure, policy, and culture determine the priorities, incentives, and communication paths for the engineers and managers doing the work, she said. As another incentive for the military to use the shuttle, Congress reportedly told DoD that it would not pay for any satellites not designed to fit into the shuttle cargo bay. [6] Although NRO did not redesign existing satellites for the shuttle, the vehicle retained the ability to retrieve large cargos such as the KH-9 HEXAGON from orbit for refurbishment, and the agency studied resupplying the satellite in space. [7] Two designs emerged as front-runners. One was designed by engineers at the Manned Spaceflight Center, and championed especially by George Mueller. This was a two-stage system with delta-winged spacecraft, and generally complex. An attempt to re-simplify was made in the form of the DC-3, designed by Maxime Faget, who had designed the Mercury capsule among other vehicles. Numerous offerings from a variety of commercial companies were also offered but generally fell by the wayside as each NASA lab pushed for its own version. Being a busy student, I made this at home at night times and weekends after completing homework. This project taught me many skills that I was able to incorporate into my other activities from school such as Science Olympiad and Robotics. In addition, I was able to demo the model at an exhibit to generate publicity about the importance of recycling.

Asda Great Deal

Free UK shipping. 15 day free returns.
Community Updates
*So you can easily identify outgoing links on our site, we've marked them with an "*" symbol. Links on our site are monetised, but this never affects which deals get posted. Find more info in our FAQs and About Us page.
New Comment