Was the space shuttle a good idea?

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

Now that they are talking about retiring the shuttle fleet by the end of the decade; I want to pose this question?

Was the space shuttle a good idea that was ahead of it's time?

or

Should they have built upon the success of Apollo/Saturn V?

[kucharek]

It was a good idea but a horse realized by a comitee.
The Air Force wanted a big shuttle, not NASA. Maybe they would have built a small shuttle and an unmanned modular heavy lifter. Would have made more sense. Maybe they will do it now - 30 years too late.

Harald

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

The thing that gets me is that they want to return to the Apollo type of design because of it's versatility...shoulda stuck with what worked. I would like to see them continue to use 'elements' of the shuttle- ie. the external tank, srb's, etc...

[ToSeek]

The shuttle was supposed to provide cheap, reliable, safe, quick-turnaround access to space. It is a failure on all counts.

I will agree that it's an amazing achievement, but touting its technological sophistication seems like the husband justifying the Ferrari to his wife when what they really needed was a pickup truck. Unfortunately, the engineering to create a "pickup truck to the stars" doesn't seem to exist yet.

[kucharek]

If I understand correctly, NASA wanted a pickup truck. But the Air Force wanted a truck, with some Ferrari capabilities...

Harald

[fingolfen]

Now that they are talking about retiring the shuttle fleet by the end of the decade; I want to pose this question?

Was the space shuttle a good idea that was ahead of it's time?

or

Should they have built upon the success of Apollo/Saturn V?

I think the shuttle was an awesome idea, and in the 80's it did very well. The problem is it's completely out-moded today, and funding has not been available to improve upon it or replace it.

[daver]

The shuttle was a questionable idea to begin with, and may have done more to damage NASA's credibility than any other program.

Ronald Reagan's science advisor, George Keyworth, said "While all government agencies lie part of the time, NASA is the only one I know of that does so routinely."

I see the shuttle as an incredible technical achievement, but a very questionable one. The shuttle failed to deliver on a number of fronts--given any luck, its failures may prove more valuable than its successes (the failings of the various shuttle follow-ons make me pretty pessimistic about this, though).

On the other hand, the reality of the situation is that without the shuttle, US manned space flight may very well have ended with Apollo/Soyuz (or maybe not. The politicians wouldn't have liked to leave the Soviet Union as the world's only space power).

[beck0311]

The thing that gets me is that they want to return to the Apollo type of design because of it's versatility...shoulda stuck with what worked. I would like to see them continue to use 'elements' of the shuttle- ie. the external tank, srb's, etc...

I am not sure why you would want to keep the SRBs. The whole reason that the shuttle program went with them was because of the low development cost. The shuttle management team knew that they would result in higher operating costs, but Congress required development costs to stay below $5.5 billion. The result was relatively low development cost, but higher operating costs than promised. Plus there is the obvoius problem that once you light a solid rocket motor there is no turning it off.

One huge problem with the shuttle is the position of the orbiter on the shuttle stack. It is WAY too vulnerable sitting where it is. If it were designed in such a way that it were above the rest of the components the wing could never be damaged by foam falling off of another component.

The Air Force wanted a big shuttle, not NASA. Maybe they would have built a small shuttle and an unmanned modular heavy lifter. Would have made more sense. Maybe they will do it now - 30 years too late.

According to the Report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, NASA decided to go to attempt to justify the cost of the shuttle by saying that it would be capable of putting all government and private sector payloads in orbit. The USAF had a requirement that the shuttle would have to be able to take off from and land on the West Coast after only one polar orbit. This requirement essentially cause the wings on the Orbiter to grow drastically since it was going to need to travel 1,100 miles east once it reentered the atmosphere, due to the rotation of the Earth. An unmanned modular heavy lifter and a smaller shuttle would certainly made more sense, especially since the Shuttle never even came close to being the only satellite delivery system. The government stopped NASA from placing private satellites, and the fact that the Shuttle was never able to maintain the launch schedule necessary to launch all of the government satellites (especially from 86-89).

Anyway, I didn't vote since I don't really feel that either choice represents my view.

[Archer17]

You have a PM BBP

[snowcelt]

should have carried on with the X-1/ X-15 and on program. If there was a simple progression there would have been success.

[Glom]

One thing you have to admire about the Mir program is the concept of the right tool for the right job. You have the space station for all the research and development. You have the Soyuz for transferring crew. You have the Progress for transferring supplies. You have the Proton for delivering large payloads to the station. The Space Shuttle tries to do all these things in one. While it does it, it does it rather expensively.

[Argos]

The shuttle was important at its time. It can be seen as a major expression of the conquering spirit of the mankind (and the Americans in particular). I´ll never forget the joy I felt seeing Columbia taking off for the first time. It seemed to me that a bright future in space were just a step ahead.

[Launch window]

it looks like the Shuttle is coming back soon. The fact is that NASA still doesn't know whether spacewalking astronauts could fix the kind of damage that doomed Columbia and its seven-member crew is something everyone should wonder about. However Buzz Aldrin has pointed out to the dangers of the shuttle and importance of planning ahead and maybe using the ISS as a safe-home if an incident were to arise. What most people would like to see are real safety changes to address the problems raised by the Colubia investigation board and hopefully the manned space flights will continue to be a great benefit and everyone will stay safe.

[Nicolas]

I believe the SaturnV concept (just the launcher) was rather advanced due to its power, but went on the line of previous launchers. It was very well executed though. The shuttle concept was extremely advanced, but the execution was bad: it did not meet the goal of cheap space access, which cancelled out the dependend goals of satellite repair and return, and due to the high cost it was used on less missions and hence its versatility was less used; moreover it should have been completely reusable, shorter turnaround times and costs, and more safety (crew recovery in some sort of integrated capsule as was one of the proposals)

I would say that from a pure technical point of view the shuttle was way ahead of its time and very renewing (reusable space vehicle...) but from an economical and safety point of view they score too low. If you look at the costs/profit lines from more advanced designs (that were possible back then given enough funds), it becomes quite clear the shuttle's design was not developped far enough to meet its goals. Too bad.

I think they shouldn't have kept following the line of Saturn. You can continue that path, but on the same time we should look for different approaches. After all, the part from a SaturnV that ain't fuel still is an awful amount of hightech to burn up after 1 time used... As a complete alternative, there wasn't put enough effort (money) in the shuttle. As a tryout, it is very expensive however. Continuing from X....X15 projects would have been an option, and there should have been multiple reusable designs for small crew+payload, small unmanned, large crew+payload, large manned. Maybe in a further stage even small and/or large crew-only vehicles too. But the space shuttle concept wanted to combine cheap space access and missions that would be using a mine dump truck to go to the supermarket...

[AGN Fuel]

You guys are being too hard on the shuttle. I've watched the movies - the shuttle can fly to the sun (Flying High 2), it has the manoeuverability of a jet fighter (Armageddon, where it also showed it's adaptability by docking with Mir and landing on an asteroid), it can be manned by a crew of teenagers with matching IQs (Space Camp), it can be heavily armed and used in dogfights (Moonraker) and it can land in the LA Drainage Canals (The Core).

I mean, what more can you ask out of a spacecraft? Geez! :roll: :wink:

[Moose]

The original concept of the Shuttle was a good one to pursue, although not to the exclusion of heavy-lift capability provided by the Saturn V.

Others have said it: good concept, bad execution.

[zebo-the-fat]

I understand the comments regarding the shuttle, but what would you replace it with given where we are now, (not where we should be now!)

[kucharek]

...and it can land in the LA Drainage Canals (The Core).

Or on a highway near LA (Max Q).

But what else would you expect from something with wheels than going to LA? :-)

Harald

[Moose]

I understand the comments regarding the shuttle, but what would you replace it with given where we are now, (not where we should be now!)

Reinvent the wheel. We can't go back to Apollo era hardware, but we can and should recreate it.

[Nicolas]

Continuing the classic rockets (Atlas, Ariane...) is OK by me, but I feel that for manned vehicles (which normaly return...) reusable craft are a more logical solution on the long term if the vision of future is one of fast, cheap and numerous manned activity in space. If you go 10 times to the moon, Apollo is nice. If you go weekly for the next 15 years, you might work on something reusable.

[Kesh]

The shuttle was a great idea marred by bueracracy, politics and budgetary constraints.

[Launch window]

A Rant on the Shuttle

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23045

:-?

[pzkpfw]

I seem to recall recently reading that modern motors have less than half the moving parts of Saturn-style motors. True?

Does that mean it's still too "expensive" to burn up a Saturn V style booster?

-----

Digging back further in my head, I remember as a child reading about plans for the shuttle. The book showed the external tank parachuting down and being re-used the same way the boosters are.

I presume that idea was abandoned for some reason - but could it be done now with a new heavy lifter?

How about the motors at the bottom of the stage being separately parachutable/recoverable - and just the "tank" being abandoned?

(e.g. each stage of the rocket being it's own mini-stack of motors+tank)

Cheers,

[Jpax2003]

Was the shuttle a good idea? Well, maybe it helped bankrupt the Russians in the cold war. I think it is important to have a reusable passenger vehicle, but making it do cargo work turns it into a jack-of-all-trades and a master-of-none.

What to replace the shuttle with? Well, we should aim for more specialization in the craft we use. If we create or aim to create a space infrasructure it will be more cost effective to have several types of craft instead of one massively complex do-it-all. I would remove the HyLox engines from the orbiter and put them on the tank. I would put in a small high Isp rocket on the orbiter for retro-firing and a small internal turbine for atmospheric use and not rely on gliding returns. I would put the orbiter on top of the stack. I might investigate the possibility of using a a mass produced simple geometry disposable thermal tile shroud for re-entry instead of the costly mounted tile mosaic. I might design the rocket stack to be modular in order to use it as a heavy lift vehicle too. I might make the orbiter smaller too and loft orbiting labs for astronauts to use instead of carrying one up each time they launch. Imagine a rocket tipped with a gulfstream for passengers, and tipped with a semi-tractor trailer for cargo.

[Launch window]

After 2 and a half years of work its...

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=23266

Grounded again !

[publiusr]

I think Energiya Buran was a great idea.


What could have been if it was our STS:

"Well--we had some more foam pass under Columbia."

Well, that's okay we'll just keep the orbiter grounded. Besides--Energiya is going to launch three-to-five 100 ton payloads over the next year. One to the advance Mars base--one to space station Freedom for auto dock--and one heavy interplanetary probe to circumnavigate the solar system. Those will be in shrouds that don't have to survive re-entry.

"Yeah--and by the time we finish those flights--we should have the problem fixed. I sure am glad we put the hydrogen engines under the ET--so we didn't have to ground all of STS just to watch over the orbiters."

"How'd that last unmanned Energia flight go?"

"Perfect! We released the 80 ton X-43 with hydrogen fuel and active cooling. Some foam hit that--but not much due to its heads up--and it was all metal so no damage--the borazon chisel nose sliced right through it. We released it in the vacuum of space--and X-43 stayed hypersonic for two solid hours with its internal fuel supply--enough for a good test before parachuting back. Next month the orbiter ferry will release a full scale X-44 with landing gear for low-speed tests before releasing it from another Energiya."

"With all this full sized testing we might have a good shuttle replacement--and only use STS for 100 ton heavy cargo missions--flying hypersonics back and forth from the big stations."

"We'll keep orbiter around for awhile yet. We had one 100 ton pod have its automation system go bad two years ago--so shuttle with its two arms pulled the two 100 ton segments together. Then it returned 20 tons of meds as cargo. Pharmaceutical companies are really forking money over to private space companies now that bulk production has been proved and spearheaded. Oh, our new 100 ton orbital radar just gave us the map for all the minefields in Asia--and GPS positions of all mines."

" That ground penetrating radar really works--but don't ask me how Saddam vanished in a bolt from above--that's classified. It beats a costly war. "

"And how's that Solar Foci scope we launched in 1985?"

It has already achieved 500 AU with its nuclear drive. We already have super-resolution pictures of 47 Ursae Majoris. You can clearly see the small frozen lakes on the moon of its Gas Giant in these images, with a thin band of green at the equator."

That's my NASA.

And what Heavy Lift does for you.

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

You guys are being too hard on the shuttle. I've watched the movies - the shuttle can fly to the sun (Flying High 2), it has the manoeuverability of a jet fighter (Armageddon, where it also showed it's adaptability by docking with Mir and landing on an asteroid), it can be manned by a crew of teenagers with matching IQs (Space Camp), it can be heavily armed and used in dogfights (Moonraker) and it can land in the LA Drainage Canals (The Core).

I mean, what more can you ask out of a spacecraft? Geez! :roll: :wink:


Schedule pressure propels NASA
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060326/NEWS02/603260312/1007
Foam danger is unresolved, but agency moves ahead with launch plans
BY JOHN KELLY
and TODD HALVORSON

[Launch window]

more bad news

Destination Space (http://cfn13.com/StoryHeadline.aspx?id=14387)

More trouble in NASA's return to flight plans as space shuttle Discovery is again damaged in an accident at the Kennedy Space Center.

The space agency says workers were repositioning a lamp near the nose of the shuttle's external fuel tank when it fell, causing it to ding the foam insulation.

NASA says that foam will have to be replaced but that the damage was minor.

The accident follows a rash of problems this month that resulted in damage to all three space shuttles, and the death of one subcontractor

[jkmccrann]

I think it's provided incredibly useful information in relation to pointing out just how tough space travel really is.

We live we learn.