No More Space Shuttle = ?? for ISS?

[TGTheodore]

I think it just didn't live up to it's potential, and that's a shame, if you ask me.

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.

They can't try "anything new" when the frigging Republicans cut their funding to the bone for the last 40 years.

Sure NASA has made its own share of major screw-ups, but look to Washington as the chief cause. Try going to Mars on $5 a day.

--Ted

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Uh... the Republicans weren't in charge for all of those 40 years... What about the Reagan years? Wasn't that a Democratically-controlled Congress?

 

[RJDiogenes]

I don't know the spending history intimately, but I don't think Democrats are particularly friendly toward the manned Space Program. Republicans have only shown interest because of military and national defense reasons. Politicians are seldom visionary.

 

[Deckerd]

I think the motivation for development is a lot more healthy now, even if the achievements of NASA in the 1960s were historically important for the whole of humanity.

 

[Guartho]

Uh... the Republicans weren't in charge for all of those 40 years... What about the Reagan years? Wasn't that a Democratically-controlled Congress?

Thank you. When you're talking about a 40 year span, pretty much everybody gets a share of the blame. Heck, I know lots of people on both sides of the aisle that have switched parties because its "not the republicrat party I joined" after only half that time.

 

[Saturn0660]

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 It was outdated the moment it was built.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

You sir are full of scat.. In other posts you talk about the shuttle being 100 flights a year.. you couldn't be more wrong. Hell the unit itself was only designed for a max of 100 flights. It was more like 50 flights a year. I'd settle for one a month.

Lets talk about tech. The GNP on the shuttle are old indeed. However, for the computer load it needs it works fine. The thats the idea. She doesn't need Dual-core shit. She need something that will work ALL the time.
Also, The shuttle is all glass now..

Lets talk about your no crew escape system built in... Just where would you go? You gonna dive out at 50miles up? Far as I know the Soyuz doesn't do this... Remember, once the SRB's are off the shuttle CAN return to launch site. Never been tired but she's designed for it.

Also, name another launch system that CAN bring a sat back from orbit?

Now that all being said... I'm also for something like the Constellation program.. Hell, we should have kept the Apollo system going. Making upgrades as we went. (hell, block II's were way better then block I's,
block III's were on the drawing board for Mars and Venus flybys's as well as Moonbase)..

 

[Mr Awe]

^^ Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I've followed the space program in depth for several decades. Originally, they were talking about launching many, many flights (if not 100) per year. The original talk was that it was going to be like using a pickup truck. They'd use it for all sorts of tasks, including a myriad satellite launches. Of course, that hasn't happened because the shuttle is too darn expensive.

When I criticise the technology, I'm not talking about the CPU and the number of cores. I'm talking about it collectively and how it's unreliable, unsafe, and overly expensive. In a nutshell, it has not met the goals of reducing the launch costs while maintaining reliability. The technology failed those goals.

A crew escape system would've been feasible if the crew compartment was at the top of the stack, not the middle. This has long been a design criticism.

It's true that the Shuttle can do a few thing that other vehicles cannot. That doesn't justify using it for decades longer than they should've.

Next time check out your facts *before* you say someone is full of scat.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

Uh... the Republicans weren't in charge for all of those 40 years... What about the Reagan years? Wasn't that a Democratically-controlled Congress?

This actually goes back to a point of mine about bad NASA management. NASA has really pissed of the Congress with their bait and switch. Their promises of a design at a certain cost and timeframe and then switching that.

Basically they'd promise something good for a little money and then continually ask for more money. "We won't be able to complete it without yet more funding." You know, the infamous cost overruns and missed deadlines. Some of that may be expected but what NASA has done has really been excessive.

No, I don't think politicians in general are visionary but NASA has played a long ongoing role in biting the hand that feeds them.

Mr Awe

 

[sojourner]

Lets talk about tech. The GNP on the shuttle are old indeed. However, for the computer load it needs it works fine. The thats the idea. She doesn't need Dual-core shit. She need something that will work ALL the time.
Also, The shuttle is all glass now..

Where did he mention the cockpit? Big deal about the conversion from instruments to glass. The rest of the orbiter was still 99% 1970's tech.

Lets talk about your no crew escape system built in... Just where would you go? You gonna dive out at 50miles up? Far as I know the Soyuz doesn't do this... Remember, once the SRB's are off the shuttle CAN return to launch site. Never been tired but she's designed for it.

That's right, Soyuz, like Apollo, is at the top of the vehicle which allowed for the use of a LAS (Launch Abort System) at any time during flight. It wasn't limited to "after the srb's shutdown". You didn't have to try and bailout from 50 miles up.

 

[RJDiogenes]

You sir are full of scat..

There's no need of that.

Originally, they were talking about launching many, many flights (if not 100) per year.

I seem to remember them promising about one a week.

 

[Saturn0660]

^^ Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I've followed the space program in depth for several decades. Originally, they were talking about launching many, many flights (if not 100) per year. The original talk was that it was going to be like using a pickup truck. They'd use it for all sorts of tasks, including a myriad satellite launches. Of course, that hasn't happened because the shuttle is too darn expensive.

When I criticise the technology, I'm not talking about the CPU and the number of cores. I'm talking about it collectively and how it's unreliable, unsafe, and overly expensive. In a nutshell, it has not met the goals of reducing the launch costs while maintaining reliability. The technology failed those goals.

A crew escape system would've been feasible if the crew compartment was at the top of the stack, not the middle. This has long been a design criticism.

It's true that the Shuttle can do a few thing that other vehicles cannot. That doesn't justify using it for decades longer than they should've.

Next time check out your facts *before* you say someone is full of scat.

Mr Awe

Unsafe as in over 98% safe? Shuttle.. Or unsafe as in 83% safe? Apollo..

Also, it was NEVER 100 per year.. Thats twice a week.

I total agree it was/is WAAAAAAY overpriced.. But a failure it wasn't..

 

[Saturn0660]

You sir are full of scat..

There's no need of that.

Originally, they were talking about launching many, many flights (if not 100) per year.

I seem to remember them promising about one a week.

Sorry i'm just used to the TNZ

 

[Squiggy]

^^ Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I've followed the space program in depth for several decades. Originally, they were talking about launching many, many flights (if not 100) per year. The original talk was that it was going to be like using a pickup truck. They'd use it for all sorts of tasks, including a myriad satellite launches. Of course, that hasn't happened because the shuttle is too darn expensive.

When I criticise the technology, I'm not talking about the CPU and the number of cores. I'm talking about it collectively and how it's unreliable, unsafe, and overly expensive. In a nutshell, it has not met the goals of reducing the launch costs while maintaining reliability. The technology failed those goals.

A crew escape system would've been feasible if the crew compartment was at the top of the stack, not the middle. This has long been a design criticism.

It's true that the Shuttle can do a few thing that other vehicles cannot. That doesn't justify using it for decades longer than they should've.

Next time check out your facts *before* you say someone is full of scat.

Mr Awe

Unsafe as in over 98% safe? Shuttle.. Or unsafe as in 83% safe? Apollo..

Also, it was NEVER 100 per year.. Thats twice a week.

I total agree it was/is WAAAAAAY overpriced.. But a failure it wasn't..

I think the original claim was 20-25 missions a year. Or one every other week.

 

[Saturn0660]

^^ Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I've followed the space program in depth for several decades. Originally, they were talking about launching many, many flights (if not 100) per year. The original talk was that it was going to be like using a pickup truck. They'd use it for all sorts of tasks, including a myriad satellite launches. Of course, that hasn't happened because the shuttle is too darn expensive.

When I criticise the technology, I'm not talking about the CPU and the number of cores. I'm talking about it collectively and how it's unreliable, unsafe, and overly expensive. In a nutshell, it has not met the goals of reducing the launch costs while maintaining reliability. The technology failed those goals.

A crew escape system would've been feasible if the crew compartment was at the top of the stack, not the middle. This has long been a design criticism.

It's true that the Shuttle can do a few thing that other vehicles cannot. That doesn't justify using it for decades longer than they should've.

Next time check out your facts *before* you say someone is full of scat.

Mr Awe

Unsafe as in over 98% safe? Shuttle.. Or unsafe as in 83% safe? Apollo..

Also, it was NEVER 100 per year.. Thats twice a week.

I total agree it was/is WAAAAAAY overpriced.. But a failure it wasn't..

I think the original claim was 20-25 missions a year. Or one every other week.

total spot on..

 

[Mr Awe]

^^ Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I've followed the space program in depth for several decades. Originally, they were talking about launching many, many flights (if not 100) per year. The original talk was that it was going to be like using a pickup truck. They'd use it for all sorts of tasks, including a myriad satellite launches. Of course, that hasn't happened because the shuttle is too darn expensive.

When I criticise the technology, I'm not talking about the CPU and the number of cores. I'm talking about it collectively and how it's unreliable, unsafe, and overly expensive. In a nutshell, it has not met the goals of reducing the launch costs while maintaining reliability. The technology failed those goals.

A crew escape system would've been feasible if the crew compartment was at the top of the stack, not the middle. This has long been a design criticism.

It's true that the Shuttle can do a few thing that other vehicles cannot. That doesn't justify using it for decades longer than they should've.

Next time check out your facts *before* you say someone is full of scat.

Mr Awe

Unsafe as in over 98% safe? Shuttle.. Or unsafe as in 83% safe? Apollo..

Also, it was NEVER 100 per year.. Thats twice a week.

I total agree it was/is WAAAAAAY overpriced.. But a failure it wasn't..

Yeah, it wasn't 100 a year. I've heard about 55 a year, or about one a week. Although, I'm not sure about this, but I think they had hopes of expanding the shuttle fleet back then so they could launch more than that eventually. It was supposed to be a space pickup. Like an airliner which you could turnaround quickly and relaunch.

Current risk assessments place a catastrophic shuttle failure at about 1 in 75. Unacceptable according to NASA. Fail.

Maybe you missed the posts in this thread about how the Shuttle was built on a design with inherent flaws? Fail.

The primary goals of the Shuttle were to lower the cost of LEO access with acceptable safety. Fail on both accounts.

In addition to the more expensive costs, the Shuttle failed commercially (delivering satellites to orbit) and carrying space probes to orbit because of the many random launch delays. The thing is so complex that it develops faults just sitting on the launch pad. That continues to this day. We just saw the gas leak thing on the past couple of flights that caused delays. It's just one problem after another, even after several decades of use. Fail.

I could understand developing the Shuttle as a prototype, working out the bugs and then moving onto something else. If that was the extent of Shuttle usage, then it would've been fine. But, that's not what they did. Fail, for NASA management with bad planning.

The Shuttle was an interesting experiment. And, if it had been retired back in the 80s, that would've been fine. That would've given NASA about a decade to work on a new design that could've replaced the Shuttle.

Mr Awe

 

[Colonel Midnight]

This actually goes back to a point of mine about bad NASA management. NASA has really pissed of the Congress with their bait and switch. Their promises of a design at a certain cost and timeframe and then switching that.

Basically they'd promise something good for a little money and then continually ask for more money. "We won't be able to complete it without yet more funding." You know, the infamous cost overruns and missed deadlines. Some of that may be expected but what NASA has done has really been excessive.

No, I don't think politicians in general are visionary but NASA has played a long ongoing role in biting the hand that feeds them.

Mr Awe

That's Major System Acquisition in general -- NASA is no more at fault than any of the other Government agencies buying big, technology immature systems (Department of Defense, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Postal Service, etc.).

It's unfortunately the sad truth and seemingly the status quo... I live in that world every day.

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Mr Awe]

That's Major System Acquisition in general -- NASA is no more at fault than any of the other Government agencies buying big, technology immature systems (Department of Defense, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Postal Service, etc.).

It's unfortunately the sad truth and seemingly the status quo... I live in that world every day.

Cheers,
-CM-

As I said, I'm aware that this is normal--to a degree. NASA has been worse about this than is normal. If you read up on this, you would know that Congress has been pissed off about the level of the cost overruns *AND* the less than advertised performance of the results (e.g. Space Shuttle).

Mr Awe

 

[RJDiogenes]

And have we mentioned the issue of putting their eggs all in one basket? Remember how long Hubble was delayed because the fleet was grounded? There should never be only one option....

 

[Squiggy]

That's it! Crash the ISS. If we can't get there then no one shall!!!

 

[Saturn0660]

And have we mentioned the issue of putting their eggs all in one basket? Remember how long Hubble was delayed because the fleet was grounded? There should never be only one option....

All you eggs in one basket? How many people rated space platforms would you like?