Do you miss the Space Shuttle Program

[Spatzimaus]

and killed more people than all other spacecraft in history combined.

Go read up on the early stages of the Russian space program; they've never officially acknowledged it, but it's common knowledge that there were a LOT of deaths in failed attempts before Gagarin made it into orbit; there might not have been fifteen deaths in total, but it might be close to that. And the shuttle program had two failures in 135 missions, whereas before that the entirety of the U.S. manned orbital spaceflights was what, 28 launches? (4 Mercury, 10 Gemini, 11 Apollo moon missions, and 3 Skylab missions, and that's NOT including Apollo 1 as a mission.) So when one program comprises over 80% of your history of manned flight, how is it surprising that it had more deaths than the others?

Here's the thing about the Shuttle. It was billed as a one-size-fits-all design, which is all well and good, but most of the things it did could have been done by more specialized (and therefore cheaper) designs. Most of the things it launched could have been lifted on a normal booster, and most of the scientific experiments done onboard could have been done on a more specialized capsule. (Although, a capsule large enough for seven people to live on for a week at a time? Not so easy.) But there were a few things it did that really couldn't have been done as well in other ways, like launching/servicing the Hubble telescope or launching the biggest communication satellites. One of its biggest advantages for launching satellites with very delicate components was that the astronauts could check the payload out after the high-stress launch, before deploying, which made the launch far less likely to utterly fail (not uncommon with commercial satellites).

If NASA had continued their development of traditional rockets alongside the shuttle, it wouldn't have been so bad, but instead we had a couple decades where the shuttles were used for pretty much everything important. And that means that when it was retired, we had nothing in the pipeline to replace it.

[Sbowyer28]

As a stepping stone, I do miss it, What was that quote "If you had to throw airplanes away after every flight, no one would fly in them" I think thats from Musk and it is true for the shuttle, and I do miss it as it was the reason of my interest in space.

[Wait- Was That Important?]

Actually, it was an extraordinarily safe method of putting people in space.

It was ruined by cost cutting and bureaucracy, not by technical problems.

It was also made overly costly by design by those same bureaucrats, congresscritters voting themselves pieces of the construction contracts in order to enrich themselves and their sponsors.

This made the program the overly expensive monstrosity it became, and fueled the spiraling maintenance cycles that made the envisioned 1 week turnaround impossible that could eacily have been achieved with several of the original proposals.

Those same bureaucrats also, in order to prevent losing their little kingdoms, sabotaged every single effort that could have successfully replaced the SSTS with something cheaper, faster, and even safer.

Remember the original SSTS was designed to be in use until the mid-late 1980s by which time it was envisioned its replacement would have been designed and built, it was never intended to be in use for 40 years.

I would argue differently. The shuttle was never an inherently safe method of getting to space:

1.) No real Launch Escape System. Essentially, the plan was either to detach the shuttle somehow (which everyone said was next to impossible to do), or literally have the astronauts jump out the side and risk the exhaust plume, not to mention no abort in a Columbia- style failure.

2.) It combined the technical complexities of rockets and spaceplanes- though it was a good craft, it was hideously complex (it took a year to install all the Thermal tiles on the Columbia) and also very heavy- the orbiter alone weighed ~100,000kg, and because it was a combined crew/ cargo vehicle this meant the facilities to make a reuseable orbiter with the SSME's with room for humans greatly reduced its cargo payload.

3.) You said it wasn't a technical challenge, and I would say that you're dead wrong. The challenge in building engines powerful enough to push the shuttle and ET into orbit after SRB separation was huge- the engines were $45 million EACH and ran at pressures 3 times greater than any previous engine. A Space Shuttle Main Engine is incredibly expensive and vulnerable- it's supposed to be reusable, hence the large budget for it, but regardless there was no way that they'd be able to ever turn around a rocket with such extreme engines so quickly.

I would agree completely with your other points though.

1.) It was far too political a spacecraft- what was intended to be a useable demonstration of reusable spaceplane technologies and manned space access turned into a program huge in scope and budget. It was an engineering triumph, but politics inflated it far beyond what it should have been.

2.) Politicians became too involved in the spacecraft, especially from the beginning when NASA announced it was going to be cheap to run. When money is the sole reason of "going to space today", chances are you won't "go to space tomorrow".

3.) The Space Shuttle should've been replaced by the Ares-1. I think the Ares-1 was a great idea, far cheaper to launch than a Space Shuttle and yet carrying a capable Command Module with a Launch Escape System. I might not agree with Bush on many things, but his sponsorship of the Constellation program was a good idea. What are we even going to do with a LV as powerful as the SLS? We're not building space stations and a Martian mission is very far off, but had the Ares-1 been continued the Orion program would likely be flourishing now.

[Temstar]

Ares I is a whole nother can of worms. It was suppose to be cheap because it reused shuttle tech. But it turns out that to make it work you'll have to change every single part of it so nothing of it resembled the space shuttle stack in the end:

• five segment SRB rather than shuttle's four, plus it had different grain design, different casing, different nozzle, basically different everything from the shuttle SRB except the basic shape
  
• completely new J-2X engine have to be developed for the 2nd stage, rather than say reusing RL-10
  
• 2nd stage's fuel tank is suppose to be based on the ET, only it's actually different size and had a common bulkhead rather an intertank structure. The only thing that it kept from the ET was the spray on foam insulation.
  

So NASA looked at this and thought "so we're building a whole new first stage, a whole new second stage, a new spacecraft and a new LES for the spacecraft". Everything about it is new and there's nothing really "shuttle derived" about it. So when it's over budget and behind schedule because it's running into all these unforeseen problems caused by using only solid for first stage for a man-rated launcher (never attempted before), NASA did the wise thing and pull the plug.

[Wait- Was That Important?]

Ares I is a whole nother can of worms. It was suppose to be cheap because it reused shuttle tech. But it turns out that to make it work you'll have to change every single part of it so nothing of it resembled the space shuttle stack in the end:

• five segment SRB rather than shuttle's four, plus it had different grain design, different casing, different nozzle, basically different everything from the shuttle SRB except the basic shape
  
• completely new J-2X engine have to be developed for the 2nd stage, rather than say reusing RL-10
  
• 2nd stage's fuel tank is suppose to be based on the ET, only it's actually different size and had a common bulkhead rather an intertank structure. The only thing that it kept from the ET was the spray on foam insulation.
  

So NASA looked at this and thought "so we're building a whole new first stage, a whole new second stage, a new spacecraft and a new LES for the spacecraft". Everything about it is new and there's nothing really "shuttle derived" about it. So when it's over budget and behind schedule because it's running into all these unforeseen problems caused by using only solid for first stage for a man-rated launcher (never attempted before), NASA did the wise thing and pull the plug.

I guess I must agree with you. I've heard the phrase "NO NEW LAUNCH VEHICLES" repeated a few times by now.

The Russians have had Soyuz for many years now, but the US has always futzed around with making a dedicated Launch Vehicle and sticking to it and the Command Module. Even with the overruns, I guess I hoped that the Ares-1 would become the new US Standard, although looking at the estimates, $1.5 billion a launch is hellish. The Soyuz, by comparison, only costs about $153 million a launch.

[Panichio]

They were cool, and that's about it for me. I'm excited to watch the future of the space program though, and see how NASA and private companies intertwine.

[spike52656]

No. Watching SpaceX try their hand at it is so much more exciting, and I am very much looking forward to SLS, once the Gov't gets around to funding it.

While it is fun watching private companies get into space, the SLS is absolutely useless in my opinion, as it would be easier for another private contractor to build one

[AlternNocturn]

Pretty much what Panichio said. The shuttle was badass, and I loved watching it launch. But I can't wait until we've got a proper capsule again.

[hawkinator]

I kinda miss it, but I'm more excited about whats coming next than I am sad to see it go. Honestly, it probably should have gone away a while ago.

[Echostatic]

I'm honestly not too familiar with it, but gosh golly was that thing gorgeous...

[M5000]

It was kinda an icon of all things spacey for me when I was younger in the late 90's and early 2000's, so it's a bit sad to see it go, but there were an awful lot of failures for what it actually accomplished..

[Canopus]

Go read up on the early stages of the Russian space program; they've never officially acknowledged it, but it's common knowledge that there were a LOT of deaths in failed attempts before Gagarin made it into orbit

This is NOT true and if you would have looked it up you would know that this is only a conspiracy theory. Before Gagarin only dogs were launched and most of them came back alive. Edited April 23, 2013 by Canopus

[AmpsterMan]

I'm just happy that I got to see one launch when I was at KSC. Truly a breathtaking moment for me.

[Brotoro]

I am sad that I no longer live in a space-faring nation (we're just a bunch of hitchhikers for now). But the Space Shuttle program went on longer than it should have once it was clear that it was not going to live up to its promises. A follow-on program should have been in the works a couple decades ago... we shouldn't be doing this in fits and starts and delays and confusion.

But the Space Shuttle was an impressive technological feat. Just not what we needed to keep using.

[Canopus]

Im glad that the shuttle is gone and i hope that the SLS gets actually build. It could complete the goals set for the Saturn V before it got cancelled, like building a Moonbase and i love the L2 station.

[leopardenthusiast]

Yes, it looked cool, and yes, it was a bit reusable, but is an asymmetrical launch vehicle that is supposed to do EVERYTHING really all that practical?

[Asmosdeus]

Yes, but only because everything about it was the coolest thing ever.

[NASAFanboy]

I do miss it, I loved the glory and beauty of the massive white airplane flying into space. But I am sort of glad it is gone, so we can fianlly get out of the "dark ages" were our manned spaceflight was stuck in LEO, and get out to the moon and Mars.

By the way, apparently NASA wants to have Bigelow build a moonbase, and to get astronauts ferried there using Golden Spike landers. That would be a biggie for the Commerical Program.

[Canopus]

The dark ages of space flight are over and the renaissance of the capsule has begun:)

[NASAFanboy]

The dark ages of space flight are over and the renaissance of the capsule has begun:)

Now, will be the era of American Companies making moonbases and NASA towing asteriods and taking people for flags and footprints on the Red Planet. And beyond!

We will now leave LEO.

[Canopus]

No not only America. The whole earth plays a part in the future of Spaceflight.

[NASAFanboy]

No not only America. The whole earth plays a part in the future of Spaceflight.

I agree. I read on a article that the Russians plan for a moonbase by 2030, so even if the plan does not come, we will still be like Mir, the Americans hitching rides. The ISS would have been called "Space Station Freedom", but America wanted to test international cooperation in space.

Every step in spaceflight is one more to the human race. It does not matter if it is American, Chinese, Russian, Indian, European, or Japanese. And every step, every boot crunching the soil of an alien world, will one day propel us to the stars.

[Canopus]

This is the right spirit:D

[Mastodon]

I will miss the Space Shuttle itself. but the program, no. it is time to move on. I think we are on the brink of a golden age of spaceflight that will make the Space Race look like small potatoes. especially if China makes bigger leaps and bounds and other countries start to get in it.

[drakesdoom]

The technical limitations of the shuttle have already been mentioned and were real. However it was originally in-visioned as 1 of at least 3 launch vehicles to be used together, mach like you don't bring home lumber for a new deck in your prius. However political backing sagged and NASA found itself severely under budget and since the shuttle was closest to reality it would have to do everything. Personally I think NASA has been running on 1/10th what it deserves for the last 20-30 years or more. As far as safety goes yeah it could have been better, but considering how many launches it underwent as the most reused space vehicle ever I think it did well, also this is still exploration and that is always dangerous.