No More Space Shuttle = ?? for ISS?
- Thread starter stueyross
- Start date
Now that we've established that the Space Shuttle is not a model of modern engineering there's a couple of other things that need to be cleared up.
The Shuttle was a compromised design from the very beginning. Nixon slashed the budget so it had to be built on the cheap, which had major repercussions. Just a few examples:
The Shuttle was built entirely out of off-the-shelf technology of that time. No (or extremely little) new technology was developed for the Shuttle. It was outdated the moment it was built. Why? Lack of money. It was never this experimental vehicle. The only experiment was whether this hobbled together, existing technology would work out. It didn't.
The design was inherently flawed. For instance, the crew compartment was placed in the middle of the stack, next to huge external fuel tank that towers over it. Why, when this was pointed out *at the time* that this is dangerous? It was cheaper than alternative designs.
The SRBs can't be switched off yet they're there right next to the Shuttle itself. Again, compromised design with inherent flaws due to a shortage of money.
There was no crew escape system built in. Lack of money.
I could go on and on, but the thing was built with technology that was outdated in the 70s using a design with inherent flaws where the engineers, *back then in the design review phase*, were pointing out the dangers.
Beyond the danger, there's the cost issue. The cost of getting a pound to orbit using the Space Shuttle is more expensive with the than non-reusable capsules. The cost of the complexity outweighs any benefits of reusing it. Someone in this thread pointed out that it was more recyclable and that the thing has to be practically rebuilt after each launch, totally correct. The enormous costs alone, without regard to the safety issues, should be enough to doom the Shuttle. The money over the decades would've been more wisely spent on R&D and unmanned space probes.
Some in this thread have asked why stick to this costly POS for so long. The aerospace industry has a very loud voice and manned missions (especially money pits like the Shuttle than need to be rebuild between missions) are the projects that keep the most aerospace people employed.
Sorry about the extended rant. This is something that has bugged me for several decades now!
Mr Awe
The Shuttle was a compromised design from the very beginning. Nixon slashed the budget so it had to be built on the cheap, which had major repercussions. Just a few examples:
The Shuttle was built entirely out of off-the-shelf technology of that time. No (or extremely little) new technology was developed for the Shuttle. It was outdated the moment it was built. Why? Lack of money. It was never this experimental vehicle. The only experiment was whether this hobbled together, existing technology would work out. It didn't.
The design was inherently flawed. For instance, the crew compartment was placed in the middle of the stack, next to huge external fuel tank that towers over it. Why, when this was pointed out *at the time* that this is dangerous? It was cheaper than alternative designs.
The SRBs can't be switched off yet they're there right next to the Shuttle itself. Again, compromised design with inherent flaws due to a shortage of money.
There was no crew escape system built in. Lack of money.
I could go on and on, but the thing was built with technology that was outdated in the 70s using a design with inherent flaws where the engineers, *back then in the design review phase*, were pointing out the dangers.
Beyond the danger, there's the cost issue. The cost of getting a pound to orbit using the Space Shuttle is more expensive with the than non-reusable capsules. The cost of the complexity outweighs any benefits of reusing it. Someone in this thread pointed out that it was more recyclable and that the thing has to be practically rebuilt after each launch, totally correct. The enormous costs alone, without regard to the safety issues, should be enough to doom the Shuttle. The money over the decades would've been more wisely spent on R&D and unmanned space probes.
Some in this thread have asked why stick to this costly POS for so long. The aerospace industry has a very loud voice and manned missions (especially money pits like the Shuttle than need to be rebuild between missions) are the projects that keep the most aerospace people employed.
Sorry about the extended rant. This is something that has bugged me for several decades now!
Mr Awe
Before people go off praising Ares I they might want to read up on some of the problems with it as well. The Orion capsule has been repeatedly stripped of capability to get the weight reduced owing to Ares not being up to the original spec. Ares has a vibration issue that has warranted installation of shock absorbers on Orion to keep the astronauts from being shaken to death. Ares I and Ares V were lauded for reusing shuttle technology in key areas to keep costs down. In reality, with each design review less and less is being reused and repurposed.
Heck, even NASA's own engineers are pushing to dump Ares for a better design they came up with called Jupiter, but with the political juggernaut of Ares already underway we will most likely get stuck with another underperforming, over engineered boondoggle.
For some good conversations on the space program, try the forums at www.nasaspaceflight.com. Alot of space industry employees post there and give some good information.
Heck, even NASA's own engineers are pushing to dump Ares for a better design they came up with called Jupiter, but with the political juggernaut of Ares already underway we will most likely get stuck with another underperforming, over engineered boondoggle.
For some good conversations on the space program, try the forums at www.nasaspaceflight.com. Alot of space industry employees post there and give some good information.
When Nixon put the kabosh on the Apollo program, cancelling the last three missions, he also stripped NASA's funding down to bare bones. The fact they managed to have a shuttle program at ALL was a miracle. Likewise, Reagan's idea of a space program was the Star Wars debacle.
I found that the shuttle program was remarkable despite the four Republican administrations who didn't give a crap about space exploration.
--Ted
I found that the shuttle program was remarkable despite the four Republican administrations who didn't give a crap about space exploration.
--Ted
Darn it! I haven't followed this as closely I should. Too busy. Thanks for the information. I should've known better than get my hopes up. NASA seems to mess up all the manned stuff, at least since Skylab.
I guess I see it a bit differently. Sure, I agree a big portion of the blame may lay with the Republican administrations cutting the budget. However, NASA gets a ton of blame too. Instead of trying force in a reusable craft that their own engineers had problems with. They should've focused on improving the space system that they had in an effort to reduce the costs. Design a simple, cheap, reliable, flexible but non-reusable capsule design that builds on improving Apollo. Instead, that's what we're doing now, 35 freaking years later with Ares! It was bad decision making on NASA's part for sure that set us back by decades.
Mr Awe
^^ But did they have a choice, or were they directed to continue with the Shuttle? Not that I disagree about NASA having become a bureaucratic nightmare.
If they can launch in 2011, that will indeed be fantastic.
Thanks-- that looks like a great and informative site.
What I meant to intend was that we can only really judge the comparative safety if the shuttles had flown as many missions as the Soyuz.
I think we're all agreed the Shuttle never worked out like it was meant to (ie cheap regular launches).
Still the fact that it hasn't worked, and we don't have something more advanced\versatile\reusable in the works, feels like the end result of lack of initiative and will to push forward. So we're forced back to apollo tech or whatever as the pragmatic choice.
Still the fact that it hasn't worked, and we don't have something more advanced\versatile\reusable in the works, feels like the end result of lack of initiative and will to push forward. So we're forced back to apollo tech or whatever as the pragmatic choice.
Sorry i meant that as short for "as was meant to" like in the previous sentence.
Not when you factor in the longstanding fact that it costs more to get a pound to orbit on the shuttle than the alternatives. That's not working.
Not when you consider the lives lost and the recent risk assessment of a catastropic Shuttle Failure at 1 in 75. That's not working.
Mr Awe
If we're talking about protocols, I'd have to nominate the P2P protocol -- such a different way of looking at it.
I think you're being a bit melodramatic. If it were such a failure it would have been abandoned long ago.
^^ It should've been!! And there's the problem. I understand making it as a prototype. Sometimes you don't know until you try. And, I understand that. But, they should've abandoned it long ago.
It became obvious that it was not going to even approach its design goals (100 flights per year, cheaper access to space). Once that became obvious, preferably with a prototype, they should've moved on to something else. What happened instead is that NASA beaurcracy got entrenched instead.
Mr Awe
It became obvious that it was not going to even approach its design goals (100 flights per year, cheaper access to space). Once that became obvious, preferably with a prototype, they should've moved on to something else. What happened instead is that NASA beaurcracy got entrenched instead.
Mr Awe
Bureaucracy often doesn't work that way.
I agree on the Hubble telescope; it's a wonderful beastie.
But when you weigh everything up, the space program (and all it's facets) could've been something so much better then it is today. And we could've get so much more out of it then we've got today. I think it just didn't live up to it's potential, and that's a shame, if you ask me.
But when you weigh everything up, the space program (and all it's facets) could've been something so much better then it is today. And we could've get so much more out of it then we've got today. I think it just didn't live up to it's potential, and that's a shame, if you ask me.
The Hubble is wonderful. But, your thinking is flawed. The Hubble doesn't justify the Space Shuttle. Instead, it highlights NASA's poor decision making.
The Space Shuttle should not have been the only way to deliver the HST to orbit. If they had developed an alternative system upon seeing the inadequacies of the Space Shuttle, we would have had a different way to get the HST to orbit. Instead, we were locked in to the SS due to NASA's poor decision making.
Mr Awe
It is a shame. And, if I come off angry in this thread it's because I'm angry at the decades of poor NASA management. It has long been obvious that the SS just was not going to meet the design requirements but the management defended and stuck with the SS for decades rather than trying something new.
The SS should've been a prototype. Test it out, see how it works, and then come up with something better. A stepping stone on the way to an improved design. Instead, NASA treated it as the final destination. They made minor tweaks to it but that's about it.
Mr Awe
Exactly. It's an experimental vehicle that is used as the workhorse of space travel; it really should have been replaced long ago. Thanks to the political monster that NASA has become, we're way behind where we should be in exploring space.
