Get that dang space shuttle of my lawn.

[Vanamonde]

Hubble is not the subject of this thread, guys. 

[ImmaStegosaurus!]

What do you guys think of cultural impact of the Shuttle program? It was most launched manned American spacecraft and every time it was launched it gathered a large crowd to watch it. It's also in the spotlight in multiple movies, games and books and I'd imagine it has inspired people to pursue science related careers and so created intellectual capital like no other program since Apollo.

[Bill Phil]

8 minutes ago, ImmaStegosaurus! said:

What do you guys think of cultural impact of the Shuttle program? It was most launched manned American spacecraft and every time it was launched it gathered a large crowd to watch it. It's also in the spotlight in multiple movies, games and books and I'd imagine it has inspired people to pursue science related careers and so created intellectual capital like no other program since Apollo.

Well, actual public interest in space was at an all time low during Apollo... So I wouldn't be surprised if more people were inspired by Shuttle (which was piloted by three(?) generations).

[Maltman]

On 8/27/2016 at 1:38 PM, Corona688 said:

NASA tried and failed to justify another order of Saturn V's when they stopped sending moon rockets...  Skylab was a cry for help, more or less, "See?  See?  The Saturn V is still useful!  Please don't make us give it up!"  No good.  After throwing away Saturns for a decade -- each one costing as many man-hours as the Great Pyramid to build -- people were sick of it.  NASA had to sell the idea of a cheaper, reusable launch system to get any interest.

Enter the Navy, which had its own uses for a new payload lifter -- covertly boosting a series of stupidly huge top-secret film satellites.  So NASA had it decided for them that their trim, low-fat, reusable launch system must be able to lift the navy's 15-ton depleted uranium lawn gnomes.

To cope with this, their slim, trim, low-fat reusable launch concept grew an external tank and the largest SRB's the world had ever seen.  The rest is history.

Still, for all its faults, the space shuttle is the only vehicle in the history of man to perform repairs in space.  With it gone, we have absolutely nothing else for the job.

It's definitively the most iconic real life space craft in my mind. It was really the symbol of space exploration for me. It looks really high tech. The ISS is so gangly and covered in solar panels compared to the sleekness of the shuttle. Looks like some Buck Rogers craft.

That coupled with the big crew capacity made it seem really futuristic like the Star Trek Enterprise or something.

I only wish they would have painted it some different colors. Why this obsession with black and white space craft?

[GoSlash27]

2 minutes ago, Maltman said:

Why this obsession with black and white space craft?

Maltman,

It's a Von Braun thing.

 

Best,
-Slashy

[ImmaStegosaurus!]

3 hours ago, Maltman said:

Why this obsession with black and white space craft?

They are two highly contrasting colours and they're painted in stripe patterns so it is easier to see if rocket starts to roll. Today engineers have other means to determine if rocket rolls and the cameras are much better than they used to be making patterns obsolete. Reason why most rockets are white is to reflect sun light and reduce boil off.

[Nibb31]

4 hours ago, Maltman said:

I only wish they would have painted it some different colors. Why this obsession with black and white space craft?

For thermal reasons. White reflects, black absorbs. Depending on what you want to achieve, black or white are the most efficient.

Contrary to what some people believe, spacecraft are designed for efficiency, not to look sleek. One of the fundamental flaws with the Space Shuttle was NASA's obsession with wings. Remove that component, and we might have ended up with a proper VTVL like the old ROMBUS, SASSTO designs, or DC-X or Falcon 9.

But we all know what they say about hindsight. You can't blame the engineers of the 70's with designing it the way they did. The intention of the Shuttle was to become the DC-3 of space, a single vehicle for all US launch needs. Apollo was considered too expensive, so NASA needed to come up with something more economical. It had to fly often to be economical, which means that it had to be used for everything, which means that it had to be multi-purpose. It made sense in the day.

It really should have been a smaller experimental vehicle, like X-33 or DC-X) rather than a operational fleet. I'm certain that after a few years of flying an "X" Space Shuttle, they could have come up with a much more mature, safer, and more serviceable design.

[tater]

Shuttle started out more reasonably as a crew shuttle. Lumping in NRO's needs to Shuttle (lofting the spy satellites that were what HST was cloned from) pushed the cargo bay and cargo mass figures higher, and we all know what putting mass on top of the stack does via the rocket equation. 

@Nibb31 is right about a more incremental approach. The political reality might have been far different as is usually the case, however. Nixon was not keen on the space program at all, and there was even some talk about changing NASA to a technology office, removing "space" as a primary function. Like it or not, the government can be fooled into a sunk cost fallacy, and getting the ball rolling on a relatively big ticket item might have been necessary to avoid what would have been worse in retrospect.

We tend towards the Phil Bono counterfactuals here (because they are awesome!), but another counterfactual is that NASA gets crippled, and we don't do space in a meaningful way for a long time after Apollo.

Edited August 29, 2016 by tater

[wumpus]

"The thing is, you never get complex technology right in the first version. Ever.
So the only way to get a good product is to start iterating, and learn from your mistakes, and continually improve. 
If you don't do it yourself, you'll have to rely on somebody else who does it" - Linus Torvolds 8/28/2016 (yesterday, as I write this).

Of course, with a 20 year design cycle, NASA can't "continually improve" (the above quote was about CPU design).

I'm wondering how many KSP players can design a shuttle replacement that can hit *all* the design parameters of the shuttle with some "better" craft, even in hindsight.

• Return 20 tons from orbit
• Hit a polar orbit from Vandenberg
• reusable (I'd assume that most ignore this bit)

Ignoring the reusable requirement (which was likely pushed as hard by Congress as anything else), you might pull off a Saturn V (VI?  Saturn 1b/c?) that could do all of the above.  You would still have to build a launchpad and VAB (maybe only 1/4 the size, that thing could assemble 4 Saturn Vs.  But a 1/4 square foot VAB is going to cost big money) in Vandenberg as you are unlikely to be able to ship a completed Saturn V through the Panama canal upright.

The original designs (which appeared to have inspired the overall design of the Falcon) appear to make sense, but the downward cargo area pretty much sets the size of the shuttle in stone.  Since you are already committed to orbiting that much mass, simply including an extremely large fuel tank is going to be the "cheap and cheerful" means to orbit.  In hindsight, my guess is that hydrogen remains the wrong choice of fuel for reusable engines, but ditching them would be an issue.

We know an early engine (I'm thinking an F-1, but google won't confirm) was dunked in seawater and used again.  Of course, that was a single test but apparently never followed up on.  I'd assume that switching from hydrox to kerlox might possibly allow better reuse, but likely require some means of landing a first kerlox stage (presumably piloted gliding landing, the shuttle SRBs* went *deep* in ways that the F-1 dunk test never experienced [think much higher pressure]).  Early shuttle concepts used this, but you still wouldn't get to shrink the size of the shuttle (and all the tile issues it had) and are piling on development costs merely in the hopes that refurbishing kerlox engines (sooty) would be easier than hydrox engines (enbrittled).  I suppose that methane was considered at some point, but ignored with all the experience NASA had with kerlox and hydrox.  I just can't see NASA committing to an extra manned stage to avoid hydrogen issues in refurbishing the engine.  Note that Merlin's fabled "reusable kerlox rockets" have a listed life expectancy (without refurbishing) of 10 flights (and spacex hasn't yet demonstrated a 90% chance of landing) and Discovery flew 39 (granted, the engines were nearly rebuilt every time).

* shuttle SRBs hit the water at 82 kmh (according to wiki, that seems slow) and came back to the surface due to filling the center with air on the way down (and at high enough pressure to push water back out on the way up).  Expect some seals to break and brine where it never should be.

[Red Iron Crown]

8 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Ignoring the reusable requirement (which was likely pushed as hard by Congress as anything else), you might pull off a Saturn V (VI?  Saturn 1b/c?) that could do all of the above.  You would still have to build a launchpad and VAB (maybe only 1/4 the size, that thing could assemble 4 Saturn Vs.  But a 1/4 square foot VAB is going to cost big money) in Vandenberg as you are unlikely to be able to ship a completed Saturn V through the Panama canal upright.

If you ignore the reusability bit I'd imagine a Delta IV Heavy could do this, heatshields and parachutes aren't *that* heavy. No need for a Saturn V-scale rocket at any rate.

[tater]

6 minutes ago, wumpus said:

I'm wondering how many KSP players can design a shuttle replacement that can hit *all* the design parameters of the shuttle with some "better" craft, even in hindsight.

• Return 20 tons from orbit
• Hit a polar orbit from Vandenberg
• reusable (I'd assume that most ignore this bit)

Why the return 20 tons from orbit capability at all? The largest cargo ever returned on Shuttle was Space Lab, right? Sort of a self-licking ice cream cone.

The military payloads to polar launch (which for the US means Vandenberg) were already serviced by Titan III quite admirably. Returning 20 tons? Make a big capsule, and throw chutes on it? Seems like Space Lab was purpose built to fit in shuttle, as were other payloads, so if return was part of the overall design from the start, make stuff self-returning.

I'd not argue that all those parameters are really hard to hit, they are. I suppose I'd argue that the parameters are not valuable.

Take the last point. Reusable. Reuse is only useful/interesting if it is cost effective. I would look at the cost per kg to orbit here, but clearly you need to include human factors. Shuttle held a large crew... but honestly, why? There is likely an optimum crew for a give set of missions, and once you have station, those crew-heavy tasks are best done on station.

So take a capsule mk2. Something akin to CST-100, because were' exclusively talking about a LEO program. We have a large crew capacity option, but we'd likely not use more than 3-4 seats. We'd only use this to deliver people to station, or if some human work was needed on orbit elsewhere, there could be an interstage with the cargo, and or whatever tools are needed to do the required work---perhaps even a small habitat with a manipulator arm and airlock.

[PB666]

On 8/28/2016 at 8:58 AM, tater said:

Shuttle was a product of DC, obviously. I suppose that the SLS/Orion people are hoping for a similar sunk cost motivation as Shuttle, though it is certainly easier when you can point to a few Orbiters and say, "we have our spaceship right here!"

Those of us who saw both programs (Apollo/Shuttle) complained about us not going anywhere 30 years ago. Many of us were in the big dumb boosters camp, too. Disliking Shuttle is nothing new, I was doing it in college in the 80s.

Disliking it per say is not the problem, claiming a lack of success and then pointing to something more successful is the problem. You can dislike something that is successful, There was a greatly popular president from the 80's I disliked, but I cannot deny his success as a president and there were things that he did that I liked. The shuttle largely built the livable parts of the ISS, it placed hubble in space as well as a number of secret military satellites. It was expensive and some of those missions should have gone up on regular rockets.

The problem comparing shuttle and anything since with Apollo is this

-Apollo was extremely expensive. Money was being thrown hand over fist into the space program.
-We were too stupid to know about the risks and in a post WWII - cold war mindset the needs of the country outweighed the needs of the astronaut. We lost more crew/crew seat missions in Apollo than the shuttle, but no-one ever reports on the Apollo launchpad loses.
-There was a whole lot of luck involved in 7 landing missions, you are not going to get that luck if you fly 100+ missions, any weakness in the program and lady luck eventually takes its toll.
-I personally would not have paused the program for vehicle loses, In the case of challenger, they knew it was cold weather launches, so don't launch on cold weather and fix on the fly.

From my perspective we could not do today with Apollo what we did in the 60's and 70's because America just does not have the stomach for the risks or the costs.

If the US populous had backbone and stomach, we would have a working shuttle program and at least attempted a manned mission to mars if we were in a 60s to 70s mindset. But we are not. It does not ultimately take that much to get the mars, but you have to build a facility in space that can stock supplies and neccesary craft, and we are piddling around trying to re-invent a larger scale version of a lunar module which ultimately, by itself without some large ship, cannot get humans to mars alive. Part of that modern mindset is shuttle bashing self-defeatism.

Yes, to be certain, after every 30 missions or so there should have been a preprogrammed efficiency oriented (big) redesigned. They might have even had two versions of the shuttle, one for big launches and projects and a smaller shuttle. There could have also been contractor buy-ins and commercial repurposing.

I worked in a lab, actively producing science for 30 years now, I can tell you that any revolutionary system, platforms for conducting science need to undergo frequent and periodic renovation, old things thrown out. I can give an instance were we started with a 500 lb piped in steam autoclave that required about a 3 square meter footprint for operation replaced by an electric autoclave that takes less than a half a meter with a 5% relative operating cost (running steam, reparing steamline breaks, routing maintenance, etc). Just about every system from spectrophotometers to centrifuges have undergone technological revolutions that reduced weight, space and operating costs. The first spectrophotometer was 6 feet long and weight over 150 lbs, the one we use now is about 10 lbs and takes up a 10th of the space. We now produce the same amount of science as 30 years ago, but in 2/5 ths of the lab space.

So if you argue at the end of the shuttles life that it was obsolete, thats not a fair argument if the upgrades were largely trivial. Look at the 757 ->787, this is just commercial, not cutting edge science, cutting edge science platforms, to stay alive, have to evolve faster. At the same time the shuttle program was aging, the investment in space per GDP was declining basically by 10 fold from the end of the Apollo to the end of the shuttle, so the shuttle program cannot be blamed from the fact it did not evolve into something more efficient or useful over a broader variety of application. If you want to make a fair comparison compare soviet/russian commercial jet aircraft with US commericial jet aircraft.  You don't blame the Shuttle for being relatively obsolete compared to other evolving spacecraft if we have putinesque committment to technological renovation of that program.

We lost functionality when we lost the shuttle, while other craft may be more efficient and we may be saving money, neither of these will restore the lost functionality, and there is neither a monetary commitment or drive on the part of the US gov or NASA to restore the lost functionality. Was it worth paying a bit more for, I think so, it increased the diversity of US based space operations.

 

[Red Iron Crown]

12 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Disliking it per say is not the problem, claiming a lack of success and then pointing to something more successful is the problem. You can dislike something that is successful, There was a greatly popular president from the 80's I disliked, but I cannot deny his success as a president and there were things that he did that I liked. The shuttle largely built the livable parts of the ISS, it placed hubble in space as well as a number of secret military satellites. It was expensive and some of those missions should have gone up on regular rockets.

I would argue that it was unsuccessful at its primary goal: Reducing cost to orbit. Sure it successfully lifted ISS modules, but so could any large enough rocket (and likely for less cost). It's the opportunity cost of the shuttle that I think grates on space enthusiasts, because the same budget could have put more mass in space if conventional disposable rockets had been used.

Much of that is hindsight though. It was not clear how much reusability would save with the shuttle; optimistic projections aside it seemed likely that some savings would be realized but that never came to pass.

[tater]

I guess I don't see the diversity (loads of LEO stuff that was either about people being in LEO, or could have been done with expendables) but then again, I see manned spaceflight as a really cool stunt which I support wholeheartedly for purely "psychological" reasons---I think a sense of exploration is valuable as an end unto itself.

That the shuttle built ISS is true, but then again, that was the make-work that was created for it, in much the same way we will likely see make-work for SLS/Orion as NASA struggles to come up with the requisite 2 payloads a year to justify running the program.

BTW, I don't argue it was obsolete at the end of life, I would argue it was a bad choice from the start, though I will certainly grant that it might well have been the best we could have ever expected given political realities. 

Counterfactuals are always a mess, and this is no different. If someone posits a non-shuttle NASA, they need to explore what might have happened instead, and many of those paths look pretty awful in comparison. If I were to pick a fantasy path, I might go farther back, and reexamine the JFK time limit... on one hand, if there was no "...before this decade is out..." line, we might well have stopped before going. OTOH, minus the time limit, perhaps EOR would have continued to dominate thinking. EOR never would have gotten us to the Moon in 1969, but the original conception of assembling a craft in orbit would have left us with a sort of infrastructure for moving forward which was utterly lacking in the all up in 1 stack LOR Apollo Program. 

Seeing @Red Iron Crown's post makes me want to agree about cost reduction. It just never panned out.

[HebaruSan]

I think the Shuttle has enriched my experience of playing KSP. Emulating it gave me otherwise unique experiences with re-entry, offset thrust with staging, mobile centers of mass, and VTHL, and thinking about the design has taught me things about aerodynamics, engine placement/recovery, the distinction between planes and rockets, pros/cons of igniting engines at different times, etc. And the Mk3 parts may never have been created without it. Similarly, it has sparked many forum discussions of cost, reusability, reliability/safety, and so on, which can give an added depth to designing things in the VAB and SPH.

I'm not trying to use that to justify the program; it's just something I appreciate in retrospect. This might not be quite as interesting a game if we all intuitively assumed a sharp distinction between rockets and planes in a pod-only historical timeline.

[wumpus]

4 hours ago, tater said:

Why the return 20 tons from orbit capability at all? The largest cargo ever returned on Shuttle was Space Lab, right? Sort of a self-licking ice cream cone.

I just looked up the stats on keyhole (it might not have been block 3 keyhole and have a considerably less mass, but that is the alleged driver of downward capacity).  Ask congress why the shuttle had to do everything.

If you have a contract to do all that, which is exactly what NASA got from Congress, a shuttle starts to look like a great way to go.  Get anything different about the contract and everything changes.

[tater]

No argument there. Still, from a cost standpoint, seems like a self-return would make more sense if KH actually needed that. 

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, ImmaStegosaurus! said:

They are two highly contrasting colours and they're painted in stripe patterns so it is easier to see if rocket starts to roll. Today engineers have other means to determine if rocket rolls and the cameras are much better than they used to be making patterns obsolete. Reason why most rockets are white is to reflect sun light and reduce boil off.

If you look at the V2 you see the same pattern, Do we have many image of  Von Braun in an white shirt with black squares, it might just be an fixation
But yes its to keep track of the rocket during flight, look at the markers during crash tests of cars, same deal, however riockets don't need the mm accuracy so telemetry works just as well today and you save weight. 

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I would argue that it was unsuccessful at its primary goal: Reducing cost to orbit. Sure it successfully lifted ISS modules, but so could any large enough rocket (and likely for less cost). It's the opportunity cost of the shuttle that I think grates on space enthusiasts, because the same budget could have put more mass in space if conventional disposable rockets had been used.

Much of that is hindsight though. It was not clear how much reusability would save with the shuttle; optimistic projections aside it seemed likely that some savings would be realized but that never came to pass.

I have some thought of an far smaller shuttle, think an larger dream chaser with an small cargo bay, it keep the shuttle type engines and drop tank, internal or secondary drop tank to power main engine for abort. First stage return like falcon 9. Cargo bay would be mission specific. Airlock and arm for repair, This only leaves an small area for spare parts. Or you could have an pressurized cargo hold perhaps in two sized, and secondary payload or unpressurized cargo.  
One fun idea some here had was an fairing on top of droptank for cargo. 
Else I think it should be possible for this shuttle to pick up an previously launched module and move it to the space station?
You could have an unpressurized cargo only shuttle as an reuseable upper stage, you would loose the drop tank. or you could use first stage with an disposable upper stage like falcon 9. 
 

[PB666]

4 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I would argue that it was unsuccessful at its primary goal: Reducing cost to orbit. Sure it successfully lifted ISS modules, but so could any large enough rocket (and likely for less cost). It's the opportunity cost of the shuttle that I think grates on space enthusiasts, because the same budget could have put more mass in space if conventional disposable rockets had been used.

Much of that is hindsight though. It was not clear how much reusability would save with the shuttle; optimistic projections aside it seemed likely that some savings would be realized but that never came to pass.

I mean we could argue the same thing about building the Hoover dam, or building an aircraft carrier. Neither were/are really cost effective unless you need water in LA or to ward off some foe. How many weapons systems has the pentagon built that came under cost or saved money. The joint-strike fighter was supposed to save more money than the F22, the F22 is greatly more capable.

The problem is quite clear when we lost the shuttle we lost functionality. The shuttle was the only movable manned space activity platform.

Check your boxes.

ISS, has a telescoping arm, but is in a fixed orbit that cannot be substantially changed, and very expensive. Has the capability of self repair, but cannot repair things in space

Orion, Apollo. Sure its manned and can transport, yes can access movable orbits,  but were a decade at least away on anything Orion-like from a repair capability. We could collaborate with the neo-soyuz program, but like thats going to work given the delays ESA is facing in collaborating with RSA. 

Can launch satellites that need some post launch manipulation. ISS can, but only from its orbital inclination.

Upgrades, Think about K2 and Hubble. Hubble was launched in the late 80s, and its still kicking cheeks. This is surprising because as launched the hubble was a fail, but human spaceflight rescued it, and upgraded it several times. K2 is what we call crippled kepler, most of keplars mission is now K2, sure its still going until one more gyro fails, which can be tommorow. Compare the two, unmanned, basically dead in the water, mission will be over soon. Manned, started crippled, (through no fault of the shuttle), shuttle crew repaired and upgraded the cripple turning it into the single most successful science mission ever launched by humans. IF JWST has any major problem, no matter how much we invested in it, its dead, nothing can be done, ever, its over, kaputs. This is what I call obsolescent functionality by design. Hubble could have been that, should have been that, but for the shuttle was not that.

Short term science missions that require human assistance. We (our group) were the beneficiary of one of the animal studies. If you send animals to the ISS, that's good for a few months, but you may not get a ride back when you planned. The short term missions helped to define in animal models some of the medical problems of space flight.

It is true that all these functionalities could be replaced by other spacecraft, but . . . . if wishes were horses beggars would ride. Those capabilities have not appeared, not only that they are not in planning. It is basically true that we ended the shuttle program with an eye on the bottom line, but we closed our eyes to what was lost hoping those problems will just be forgotten over time.

The shuttle program was bogged down in standards that were not neccesary, by contractor overcharging, and when push came to shove important safety issues were overlooked. Much more of the work could have been done in a SpaceX manner. But the shuttle was a feeding trough for political favors. How much should solid fuel rockets really cost, if 95% of the cost is in the casing, well then who was wasting the money.

On board computer systems could have been lightened. The weight of air recycling could be reduced, the amount of metal required for structured could have been reduced with new age composites. Particularly on the non-heated side. Reduce wing loading means total wing mass could have been reduced. Satellites have gotten smaller, the payload bay could be reduced. Flight crews could be reduced to 4 even for ISS missions only one pilot is needed. The payload bay could second as an added crew compartment when added for complex repairs or high crew missions. There are a grand many things that could have been done, upgrades starting in the mid 90s.

Let me just put it like this

Dehavilland Comet- first commercial jet. Production did not even last two decades with british miliary support.
Boeing 707 - 4 engine direct thrust jet. As quickly went out of production - replaced by 737. Unless you count KC-135 none are still flying.
DC8- same thing. The DC7 was a great aircraft and some are still flying, along with DC3, 4 and 6s but you would be hard pressed to find a 707 or DC8 in service anywhere.
Concorde, first of its class. not flying, and for good reason. This is not to say Concorde is a bad aircraft, it was a great aircraft, but it was not really designed for modern runways or modern fuel costs. Had someone invested in its marked renovation it might be still flying. 

Why is this, the first production model of any serious craft is generally not optimized for its task DC6B and DC7 were the heavily refined versions of the DC3/DC4 class of aircraft. But we see elements of the 707 in both the 737 and 747. In addition there are less demands on a DC3 than a jet aircraft. They can run on low melting point gasoline, don't need a formal runway, getting particulate in the propeller intake is not a serious problem. Every new class of aircraft places increased demands on the physics, kinks that need to be worked out in the next generation.

Even the 727 are basically fading away. It was one of the fastest non-heavy commercial passenger jets around and yet its basically been delegated for hauling boxes.
Why, because under the demands of the current US aviation industry these old first off the line models were not efficient, there had to be relatively fast design overhauls.

The result 737 still in production, 747 still in production.

All of the faults attributed to the shuttle can be attributed to basically any first model of production. We can look at the SpaceX early rockets and merlin engines. All of these technologies are GREAT in that that put the platform out to be tested, but eventually the platform needs to undergo intense refinement process that works out the kinks and inefficiencies. The shuttle did this, it got better more powerful and efficient engines, what you did not see is a 30 to 50 percent reduction in the airframe, complete replacement of the 5 on board computers with more efficient computers, a gross reduction in the weight of onboard electronics, reduction of air management weight, etc. THat is what one might have expected if there was a commitment that one might have expected with a viable aircraft corporation. If the 707 is such a great improvement why is it not flying, the answer is the DC9, L-1011. Same is true for the DC-8.

Did the goverment ask for competitive major variants of the space shuttle, say in 1990. Did they take bids from competitors for replacement, and how exactly did the RSA end up carrying passengers, was that competitive? See its not particularly a matter of what is competitive, I have no problem with RSA carrying some manned ISS resupplies, my problem is that they are carrying all manned resupply, and basically NASA is out of the game. If you get 5 flights out of one shuttle, its worthy of retirement, so 30 missions for 3 shuttles the fixed cost becomes trivial savings for addtional missions, its better to replace and upgrade.

 

 
 

 

 

[tater]

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

I mean we could argue the same thing about building the Hoover dam, or building an aircraft carrier. Neither were/are really cost effective unless you need water in LA or to ward off some foe. How many weapons systems has the pentagon built that came under cost or saved money. The joint-strike fighter was supposed to save more money than the F22, the F22 is greatly more capable.

The Shuttle was partially sold as very low cost access to space, though.

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

The problem is quite clear when we lost the shuttle we lost functionality. The shuttle was the only movable manned space activity platform.

Check your boxes.

ISS, has a telescoping arm, but is in a fixed orbit that cannot be substantially changed, and very expensive. Has the capability of self repair, but cannot repair things in space

Orion, Apollo. Sure its manned and can transport, yes can access movable orbits,  but were a decade at least away on anything Orion-like from a repair capability. We could collaborate with the neo-soyuz program, but like thats going to work given the delays ESA is facing in collaborating with RSA. 

Can launch satellites that need some post launch manipulation. ISS can, but only from its orbital inclination.

The robot arm could be added to another spacecraft if it were ever needed, I suppose. Something like Orion, or CST-100, or D2 could have a "repair" pod added to an interstage that it docs with.

This functionality is 100% predicated on the idea that such a repair would be cost effective vs just replacement. 

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

Upgrades, Think about K2 and Hubble. Hubble was launched in the late 80s, and its still kicking cheeks. This is surprising because as launched the hubble was a fail, but human spaceflight rescued it, and upgraded it several times. K2 is what we call crippled kepler, most of keplars mission is now K2, sure its still going until one more gyro fails, which can be tommorow. Compare the two, unmanned, basically dead in the water, mission will be over soon. Manned, started crippled, (through no fault of the shuttle), shuttle crew repaired and upgraded the cripple turning it into the single most successful science mission ever launched by humans. IF JWST has any major problem, no matter how much we invested in it, its dead, nothing can be done, ever, its over, kaputs. This is what I call obsolescent functionality by design. Hubble could have been that, should have been that, but for the shuttle was not that.

Hubble was launched in 1990, broken. Minus the Shuttle, it would have been launched (equally broken) in 1985. The repair was done 3 years after launch in 1993. Had Titan III launched HST in 1985, that gives them 8 years to make a replacement and still have a functional HST by 1993---more time than it took to build the original, and minus the excessive shuttle launch costs, it would have been a substantial savings. Instead of the other 4 service missions, they could have simply flown new telescopes as new HSTs, plus expendable LV costs was comparable to a shuttle flight. Heck, slop it up, and of the 4 flights after '93, do 2 new telescopes and pocket whatever chuck of a billion is left over.

 

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

Short term science missions that require human assistance. We (our group) were the beneficiary of one of the animal studies. If you send animals to the ISS, that's good for a few months, but you may not get a ride back when you planned. The short term missions helped to define in animal models some of the medical problems of space flight.

This is legit, but did the animal studies require a 100 ton orbiter? Minus shuttle as we know it, but with, say, a smaller crew shuttle, or various capsule concepts what would have happened? Note that minus shuttle, stations would have been lofted in just a couple flights, ready to go. 

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

It is true that all these functionalities could be replaced by other spacecraft, but . . . . if wishes were horses beggars would ride. Those capabilities have not appeared, not only that they are not in planning. It is basically true that we ended the shuttle program with an eye on the bottom line, but we closed our eyes to what was lost hoping those problems will just be forgotten over time.

Shuttle did not get cancelled in a vacuum. The Columbia disaster was an Apollo 13 moment. The Apollo people thought (and you might have mentioned above someplace) that more Moon missions meant they would likely have an accident at some point. The problem that faced Columbia was not easy and perhaps not possible to solve without a massive redesign.

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

The shuttle program was bogged down in standards that were not neccesary, by contractor overcharging, and when push came to shove important safety issues were overlooked. Much more of the work could have been done in a SpaceX manner. But the shuttle was a feeding trough for political favors. How much should solid fuel rockets really cost, if 95% of the cost is in the casing, well then who was wasting the money.

But we all know that big ticket NASA stuff exists primarily as a jobs program, right? It employed many (too many) people at high wages. That was kind of the point. It's exactly analogous to base closings. The Pentagon wants most shut down, but every district want THEIR base in perpetuity, because a base is a cash cow.

As I have said above, Shuttle might well have been the best possible post-Apollo we could reasonably have hoped for because of politics. I dunno.

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

On board computer systems could have been lightened. The weight of air recycling could be reduced, the amount of metal required for structured could have been reduced with new age composites. Particularly on the non-heated side. Reduce wing loading means total wing mass could have been reduced. Satellites have gotten smaller, the payload bay could be reduced. Flight crews could be reduced to 4 even for ISS missions only one pilot is needed. The payload bay could second as an added crew compartment when added for complex repairs or high crew missions. There are a grand many things that could have been done, upgrades starting in the mid 90s.

The cargo bay was constrained by payloads that we don't actually know about  . No idea how much smaller, but it would take a long time to make a brand new shuttle, right? What about the heat shield issues?

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

Did the goverment ask for competitive major variants of the space shuttle, say in 1990. Did they take bids from competitors for replacement, and how exactly did the RSA end up carrying passengers, was that competitive? See its not particularly a matter of what is competitive, I have no problem with RSA carrying some manned ISS resupplies, my problem is that they are carrying all manned resupply, and basically NASA is out of the game. If you get 5 flights out of one shuttle, its worthy of retirement, so 30 missions for 3 shuttles the fixed cost becomes trivial savings for addtional missions, its better to replace and upgrade.

This would certainly have made sense, I'm no fan of us decommissioning Shuttle without a replacement capability for manned spaceflight. Commercial Crew is very much along these lines, but instead of piling on the money to make it happen quickly, that money went to Orion/SLS.

[GoSlash27]

5 hours ago, PB666 said:

If the US populous had backbone and stomach, we would have a working shuttle program and at least attempted a manned mission to mars if we were in a 60s to 70s mindset. But we are not.

Well... that's where we part ways. It's not a matter of "backbone and stomach", but rather a lack of consensus on Mars as a national priority. Our government is spending $2 for every dollar it takes in. Some people are worried that that is unsustainable and will tank the economy. Most people who are not concerned about that want more money spent in some other sector of the government that they deem more critical. Very few people, in or out of government, are interested in spending the kind of money a Mars mission would require, *especially* in this climate.

If you run a poll on the average American's priorities or the average politician's priorities, space exploration is pretty far down the list.

That's not lack of fortitude, it's just plain pragmatism.

 

[PB666]

3 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Well... that's where we part ways. It's not a matter of "backbone and stomach", but rather a lack of consensus on Mars as a national priority. Our government is spending $2 for every dollar it takes in. Some people are worried that that is unsustainable and will tank the economy. Most people who are not concerned about that want more money spent in some other sector of the government that they deem more critical. Very few people, in or out of government, are interested in spending the kind of money a Mars mission would require, *especially* in this climate.

If you run a poll on the average American's priorities or the average politician's priorities, space exploration is pretty far down the list.

That's not lack of fortitude, it's just plain pragmatism.

 

But the government expenditure, think 2 trillion one for a war totally not needed, alot of hideous waste. Money spent on science and tech has been a ggod return on the investment. At the height of the apollo era, when NASA spending was 10x per GDP relative to today, deficits were less than 5o billion per year, we cancelled apollo and cut nih spending, about the same time deficit speding went to 250 billion. Proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you invest in the growth sectors of the economy and encourage research and developement, walla, what a surprise the fastest growing part of the economy will grow faster still, jobs will get higher pay, people pay more taxes and the economy will grow. The technology industry has been pulling the economy along, including paying that expensive debt for about 20 years now. Go down to clear lake, it was a swamp, NASA/ texas medical center makes houston the consistently fastest growing econmy, most diverse population, fort bend county is one of the richest counties in the US, and we are in the midst of an oil bust, how is that possible?

Our primary mistake in this country is that at the grass roots level we undermine science, we put a burden on science and technology, space base public projects drawn trainees into a very hungry system where good paying jobs around and otherwise flow overseas. If you do anything to cut sci tech investment, i can almost assure you, the deficit spending will get worse, not better. 

I see a crier in our society, its a finger that points blame on those that got ahead, because the crier  lags, they blame the government for their problems, they blame foreigners. But i was raised amoungst those that now cry i was in the FFA, i placed in show, shoveled excrement, sheered sheep, all that muck. I see where i went up and i watched as they fell. Its not like im an outsider commenting from the bubble, I went to the same schools, played in the same feilds, etc. Sorry to say many are gone. Wheras they listen to the social forces that be; it was the 70s. i pushed for something 'up' that was not just about a fast buck and do booze, girls and drugs. Next thing they are off to church for their redemption. Now i hear this 'why have the jobs gone overseas or why to this group, or aliens'. Its the biggest BS argument i have heard. In my place of work, they are almost all resident aliens, the last job interview we went through 40 interviews, not a single qualified candidate, position closed and a position opened to 'resident aliens' was opened. Thats the reality, the meat of the decline is motivating the growth engine of the economy, people, there is 1% added growth buried in underemployment in science tech, thats where those deficits lie. How many kids know how to use an iphone, how many american born college grads know how to program apps for an iphone? We 'white' males built the economy, who were the rocketeers and the test pilots. We built the econmy that requires task evolution to survive, but now 'we' are blaming others because we are too conservative to keep evolving and they aren't?

I don't buy these arguments, there is enough money for the shuttle program and ten shuttle programs. It was a loss of function plain and simple, a back peddling, a retraction of american standing, a sign of fatness, personal greed, a lack of self criticism, a feckless behavior. If i send 10000 troops onto the battle field in Iraq, i have added more to the debt, killed 100 more Americans, destroyed more lives, undermined the capacity of the VA, and thank you very much ended up with nearly every bayou bridge in our fair city being occupied by a disenfranchised homeless war veteran who lost his mind in a war the creators  thereof don't want to pay for. 

But the shuttle program is somehow singled out here many times as a disaster. black is white and white is black

[GoSlash27]

PB666,

 That's all well and good, but the rest of the country doesn't share your views. They have things they want to spend money on, and space exploration isn't high up on their list. You think it'd be productive for all of them to start calling you "spineless" simply because you happen to disagree with them? I don't.
 I also think "singled out as a disaster" is over the top. It's simply a program that wound up being less than it should've been. One program on an infinitely long list.

Best,
-Slashy

[Snark]

Closing the thread.

It may have started out (and/or been intended) as a technical discussion, but it has wended its way to the point where there's pretty much nothing but politics left, which is out-of-bounds here (forum guidelines, rule 2.2.b).

This is why we can't have nice things, folks.  Thank you for your understanding.