Thread: Space shuttle

What is everyones opion on the space shuttle program? I think it should be go on untill the Orion project is done.

Well, so much for cheap LEO-flights and keeping up a "shuttle". With two catastrophic events during - what?- 70 flights this is just a waste of money. Little was left from the original program. It's neither cheap nor safe so scrap this piece of junk and get over it.

But what im concerned with is that if we drop it then we'll have to pay Russia to send supplies to the ISS. That would be costly. Not to mention stupid by trusteding an old enemy with millions of dollars of supplies.

I think it's time to really get serious about redesigning the space shuttle...maybe make it into a hybrid?

Originally Posted by ilikeick

But what im concerned with is that if we drop it then we'll have to pay Russia to send supplies to the ISS. That would be costly. Not to mention stupid by trusteding an old enemy with millions of dollars of supplies.

I wouldn't mind if we just ditched the ISS and space stations in general until there is an actual reason for having one. What is the point of the ISS? There is zero science being done on it, and it isn't at all useful as a staging platform for more advanced space missions. Let the stupid thing re-enter and burn up, and use the money that is saved to fund more useful space projects.

Originally Posted by zizzy34

I think it's time to really get serious about redesigning the space shuttle...maybe make it into a hybrid?

I think the whole "reusable space plane" thing is a dead end, at least with our current technology. We would be much better off to focus on building very inexpensive disposable rockets.

By what will the shuttle program be replaced?

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

By what will the shuttle program be replaced?

Cheap, disposable rockets.

Will they carry personal to the space station? And was that a good idea long term?
The shuttle program already replaced rockets centuries ago. Why was riding rockets
taken back into account? Will rockets take us to moon, mars and beyond?

Originally Posted by ilikeick

But what im concerned with is that if we drop it then we'll have to pay Russia to send supplies to the ISS. That would be costly. Not to mention stupid by trusteding an old enemy with millions of dollars of supplies.

Not nearly as costly as using complicated, outdated and unsafe NASA technology. And just in case you didn't notice: NASA already pays Russia to get payload to and fro the ISS. Oh, and FYI: the US has a trade volume of several dozen of Billion Dollars with the Russians already. You should get a grip on life unlike George Dubbya. The times of unilateralism and cold war are long over. And about old "enemies"....just take a look at how much dough the Chinese already have invested in US economy. If they pulled all that money out of there US would be practically bankrupt. Do you know how much cheap gods the US already imports from China?

The shuttles were a politcially motivated, economically constrained, engineeringly deficient, short sighted, delusional distortion of a once noble dream.
While a certain fatality rate is to be expected in a dangerous and experimental frontier arena, the shuttle deaths have been related to incompetence, complacency, political malfeasance and plain cowardice (on the part of NASA managers).
That said, the shuttle program represents the height of good sense, excellent technology and astute politics, when compared with the ludicrously overpriced, underfunded, misdirected, disorganised, goal lacking farce that is called the ISS.

You will not be surprised to learn I have voted against continuing the shuttle program.

(Bring back the Saturn V)

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

(Bring back the Saturn V)

can't - they even destroyed the plans to make one

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

(Bring back the Saturn V)

can't - they even destroyed the plans to make one

The plans, the parts lists and even the tool dies. Perhaps we could dig up Werhner von Braun and try resuscitating him.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

The plans, the parts lists and even the tool dies. Perhaps we could dig up Werhner von Braun and try resuscitating him.

why did they do that?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

(Bring back the Saturn V)

can't - they even destroyed the plans to make one

The plans, the parts lists and even the tool dies. Perhaps we could dig up Werhner von Braun and try resuscitating him.

Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr (translated --> Baron ) von Braun was his Name, although, his first name 'Wernher' was odd. Actually the name is 'Werner', though not in his case. He was not a friend of the shuttle program and wanted to stick with rockets. I saw the story on TV. If his ghost still was haunting around?

Originally Posted by wallaby

why did they do that?

I have never been entirely clear. It was seen as obsolete technology that would be replaced by the wonders of the shuttle or other system. There are also major cost issues in maintaining records of old, no longer current, systems. I suspect, at the end, it was a simple cost cutting exercise.

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

The shuttle program already replaced rockets centuries ago.

It replaced them, yes - but it wasn't a good replacement. It ended up costing more and being less safe. Sometimes when you have gone in the wrong direction, "progres" means going backward.

And why do you think rockets symbolize progress, while the shuttles don't. Apart from expenses let's say.
Later technologies are clearly cost a tad more.

let's say they slightly underestimated the costs and time involved in keeping the shuttle flightworthy + they found that cutting corners costs lives in the end

Unless ofcourse, the nanotube space elevator actually becomes a reality.
Multi-stage rockets with a re-entry CM were cheaper, but you couldnt really carry much of a payload + the CM's they used in the 60's & 70's could only carry 3 guys.

Although it might be a nice idea to have say a multi-stage rocket launched from houston with personnel, and say the ESA launch supplies/payloads, then have NASA's CM dock with ESA's payload container, then dock the whole thing with the ISS.

As far as im aware the soviets came up with a similar idea of the shuttle, and from what ive read, it was far easier to operate, far cheaper and far more relaible and could carry bigger payloads. What happened to it though, im not sure.

The whole idea behind the shuttle was to have a re-usable space vehicle. But lets be honest; if every single nut and bolt has to be checked over once it has come back; its hardly re-usable !!...........might aswell just build another one !!!

After all, id be really pissed if after driving to work and back that i had to spend my entire evening stripping my car down, seeing if everything was okay and then put it back together again !! :?

I think id rather walk.

A reusable space craft could in my opinion only EVER remain usable if it did just that; stayed in space. Trying to make something re-usable that has to go through the sheer hell of rentry is futile. They'd be better off leaving it in orbit and refuelling it up there so it could take us to the moon and beyond, but DO NOT use it for atmospheric entry !

I see miost of you are against it but why did 80% say to kepp it? And also has technolgy and medicine come out of the program.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

A reusable space craft could in my opinion only EVER remain usable if it did just that; stayed in space. Trying to make something re-usable that has to go through the sheer hell of rentry is futile. They'd be better off leaving it in orbit and refuelling it up there so it could take us to the moon and beyond, but DO NOT use it for atmospheric entry !

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't that sound a bit like you need a docking station for your non-re-entry crafts, i.e. a space station ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by leohopkins

A reusable space craft could in my opinion only EVER remain usable if it did just that; stayed in space. Trying to make something re-usable that has to go through the sheer hell of rentry is futile. They'd be better off leaving it in orbit and refuelling it up there so it could take us to the moon and beyond, but DO NOT use it for atmospheric entry !

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't that sound a bit like you need a docking station for your non-re-entry crafts, i.e. a space station ?

Er...yes, and we have one. (the ISS) - and your point is ?

i thought earlier on someone implied that the ISS was a waste of space (excuse the pun)

Originally Posted by marnixR

i thought earlier on someone implied that the ISS was a waste of space (excuse the pun)

That was me. And it was more than an implication - it was a down and dirty, full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes, irrevocable condemnation of the beast. :wink:
But leo may not have shared that point of view. Also, if the ISS were being used a rendezvous facility, rather than a faux research centre, my opinion of it would change.

I read about the Orion and Ares I yesterday. You guys are sure the vehicle was not intended to be a rescue
capsule docked to the IS, while Ares I'es are being basically radio beacons securing radio transmissions
of the journeys to moon mars and beyond?.

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

And why do you think rockets symbolize progress, while the shuttles don't. Apart from expenses let's say.
Later technologies are clearly cost a tad more.

How do you define "progress"? The shuttle was more "high tech" and it looked cooler, but it also cost more and was less safe. All the added technology actually made it worse.

Originally Posted by marnixR

i thought earlier on someone implied that the ISS was a waste of space (excuse the pun)

I said that as well. And it is - because NASA insisted on building it with the stupid space shuttle that can't carry up much mass and costs a furtune to lanuch. The ISS has an internal volume of 425 cubic meters. It took seven separate shuttle missions to get the pieces up there. Compare that to the U.S. Skylab space station, which had an internal volume of 361 cubic meters and was launched in one piece with a single Saturn-V rocket launch.

All the added technology actually made it worse.

The phrases "They don't make 'em like they used to" and "Don't try and fix something that's not broken" come to mind. We always moan about the lack of funding for space research, but when you look at things from this angle, their reluctance make more sense. Maybe a management shake-up is needed?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Maybe a management shake-up is needed?

I think the problem goes deeper than this. There have been several management shakeups at NASA over the years. None seem to achieve anything more than a superficial improvement.
I have always been puzzled by the contrast between the character/success etc of the manned space program compared with the unmanned program. Setting aside the odd problem with some of the Mars probes (that have afflicted the USSR, the Japanese and ESA also) the unmanned program has been a series of spectacular successes filled with first rate science and amazing discoveries.

Edited to correct a plethora of typographical errors. Thanks to Steve Miller for drawing my attention to them.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

How do you define "progress"? The shuttle was more "high tech" and it looked cooler, but it also cost more and was less safe. All the added technology actually made it worse.

I got the notion that everybody thinks that the shuttle is high-tech......NOT.
This thing is still using ye olden 80086-intel chips (for those born after 1985...... Intel used the 086, 286, 386[my first computer had one of these] and the 486es before they came up with the more flashier names like Pentium etc.) and the booohooo soooooo high-tech ceramic tiles for heat protection. Those are essentially nothing more than bathroom tiling made from a more refractory material. Never got them to stick O.K.
And the whole concept is in my oppinion a sick joke. 90% of the thrust is provided by oversized firecrackers. Light them up and you can not stop them until they're burned out. Or explode. See back in 1986. Whoooohoooo.

The Russians use the same old rockets and gradually improved them over time since the 1960ies. Hmmmmmm, I wonder why the Russians, Europeans and Chinese use the One-Shot-Rockets? MIght this be the more viable concept??

it would appear that plans are on the cards again to use standard rockets to put people into space :

No major hurdles to upgrade Atlas V rockets for people

Well, i can say that orbital elevator project NASA is planning isn't going to work at all,

I mean for christ sake, the thing the elevator goes on is as thin as PAPER.

I wonder if any of them took into consideration orbital debris -___-