Apollo astronauts to Congress: Bring back the space shuttles

[hachiman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44631718/ns/technology_and_science-space/

[Wayward son]

If we had done anything with them other than being a trash hauling delivery service for the ISS.

[Epsilon]

If we had done anything with them other than being a trash hauling delivery service for the ISS.

Wow, that is not true at all. That\'s what the Progress spacecraft does. Please tell me you\'re joking. The shuttle delivered many components and launched many crucial satellites and probes.

[Wayward son]

I knew that comment would have some getting out the pitchforks and torches.

The last Five years of STS flights almost exclusively dealt with supporting the ISS, not an ignoble end, but still not the best that could have been done.

Here\'s the mission profiles on which I base my claims:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/index.html

[Epsilon]

I know, I\'m sorry I got on your case with that.

[Wayward son]

No problem, gotta have a thick skin to post on the internet.

[Phoxtane]

They work just fine, why not keep paying for them until we develop those newer rockets I keep hearing about?

Unless it\'s cheaper to have Russia haul us up and back.

[sneakeypete]

Probably is ;P

[GroundHOG2010]

Knowing the russians, its cheap, cramped and safe enough.

[Johno]

Knowing the russians, its cheap, cramped and safe enough.

. . . for a given value of 'safe' . . .

[NovaSilisko]

. . . for a given value of 'safe' . . .

Hey, soyuz currently is the most reliable launch system in the world.

[icefire]

until recently >_>

[hachiman]

until recently >_>

Because of the Progress failure?

[Johno]

No, Soyuz remains as safe as *any* pressurised metal tube that gets blasted up into the sky with staggeringly unwise quantities of explosives.

[Epsilon]

I\'d actually consider the space shuttle to be fairly safe. Yes there were two major accidents, but they were easily avoidable if it wasn\'t for the screwy bureaucracy going on at the time. However, they were flying for THIRTY years.

I guess safe is subject to opinion and perception though.

[icefire]

I\'d actually consider the space shuttle to be fairly safe. Yes there were two major accidents, but they were easily avoidable if it wasn\'t for the screwy bureaucracy going on at the time. However, they were flying for THIRTY years.

I guess safe is subject to opinion and perception though.

And both of them caused by the parallel staging system it uses.

And though plenty of people will try to argue that the Shuttle borders on insanity for lacking an escape mechanism, they fail to take note that in both accidents such a system would have proven useless given the situation anyway.

Still, to this day it remains the deadliest spacecraft to ever fly due to its large crew size.

[Epsilon]

Its really a shame though too. Had development not gone awry, and support failed after Challenger, it would have really been able to achieve more. NASA wasn\'t getting enough to work with and improve the shuttle. It was such a capable vehicle, had the fleet been refitted, I could see it being used for even more missions beyond Earth orbit.

Of course, the design they worked with was problematic. The main engines are in no way practical, being extremely complex. As you said, there are no real good abort measures, as it\'s not dynamic enough in that regard.

[Phoxtane]

I read in PopSci magazine about six months ago that NASA is working on the design of a new rocket system. At the time, it looked as if it was going back to the capsule design of the Apollo missions, but it could take twice as many passengers.

I believe the project name was 'Challenger' but I\'m probably wrong.

[softweir]

I read in PopSci magazine about six months ago that NASA is working on the design of a new rocket system. At the time, it looked as if it was going back to the capsule design of the Apollo missions, but it could take twice as many passengers.

I believe the project name was 'Challenger' but I\'m probably wrong.

And this is what they came up with in the end:

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/september/311991/NASA-unveils-giant-new-rocket-design

There\'s a thread about it here, in case you missed it:

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=2574.0

[CaptainSlug]

There\'s really no actual benefit to a platform like the shuttle when compared to a standard capsule.

It costs more, it\'s much more complicated, requires more specialized support equipment, and is just absurdly large and heavy. It\'s also not as flexible when it comes to payloads.

It was an efficient approach in theory, but never actually provided any of the benefits that were claimed before the program went into service.

That\'s not to say that transitioning to a different platform would be cheaper than continuing with the shuttle.

[icefire]

Its really a shame though too. Had development not gone awry, and support failed after Challenger, it would have really been able to achieve more. NASA wasn\'t getting enough to work with and improve the shuttle. It was such a capable vehicle, had the fleet been refitted, I could see it being used for even more missions beyond Earth orbit.

Of course, the design they worked with was problematic. The main engines are in no way practical, being extremely complex. As you said, there are no real good abort measures, as it\'s not dynamic enough in that regard.

Even with unlimited funding I doubt the shuttle would have been taken out of LEO. Wings are only good for one thing: entry and landing. Hauling all that extra weight outside of Earth orbit seems impractical to me.

But even if you ignore that fact you\'re faced with another one, It has only one landing option: horizontal flight. Meaning the Moon is out, as well as Mars, the atmosphere is too thin for any sane landing speeds. That leaves Venus and Titan, and that\'s not even putting into account on how to get BACK.

Combine that with the shuttles pretty much zilch delta V budget once in orbit and a limited flight time (16 days or something like that) and you have a ship that is only good for one thing; Earth orbit.

There\'s really no actual benefit to a platform like the shuttle when compared to a standard capsule.

It costs more, it\'s much more complicated, requires more specialized support equipment, and is just absurdly large and heavy. It\'s also not as flexible when it comes to payloads.

It was a great idea in theory, but never actually provided any of the benefits that were claimed before the program went into service.

Not entirely true, it proved itself a great station builder. It\'s large payload capacity and crew size allowed you to send up a module and any specialists required to install it. The ISS would probably have been much more difficult to build (and possibly much smaller) had the shuttle never existed.

It\'s capability to bring payloads BACK from orbit was also a unique feature of the shuttle, albeit one that was never fully taken advantage of. The servicing missions such as those done on the hubble telescope would also have been impossible without it.

And the reusable space plane concept in general provides far more advantages than disadvantages if done correctly. I just think NASA aimed too high with the Shuttle, if they had gone in a more modest direction, perhaps something like the Star Clipper, it might have proved more successful.

[4 IN 1]

I agree, the shuttle have proven to be the only way for HST service missions currently, without it the telescope can only wait for its death

I personaly had hoped that the last shuttle mission should be a final SM to the HST to keep it servicable as long as possible, but I also knew that it will never be the case...

[Howson]

Even with unlimited funding I doubt the shuttle would have been taken out of LEO. Wings are only good for one thing: entry and landing. Hauling all that extra weight outside of Earth orbit seems impractical to me.

But even if you ignore that fact you\'re faced with another one, It has only one landing option: horizontal flight. Meaning the Moon is out, as well as Mars, the atmosphere is too thin for any sane landing speeds. That leaves Venus and Titan, and that\'s not even putting into account on how to get BACK.

Combine that with the shuttles pretty much zilch delta V budget once in orbit and a limited flight time (16 days or something like that) and you have a ship that is only good for one thing; Earth orbit.

Not entirely true, it proved itself a great station builder. It\'s large payload capacity and crew size allowed you to send up a module and any specialists required to install it. The ISS would probably have been much more difficult to build (and possibly much smaller) had the shuttle never existed.

It\'s capability to bring payloads BACK from orbit was also a unique feature of the shuttle, albeit one that was never fully taken advantage of. The servicing missions such as those done on the hubble telescope would also have been impossible without it.

And the reusable space plane concept in general provides far more advantages than disadvantages if done correctly. I just think NASA aimed too high with the Shuttle, if they had gone in a more modest direction, perhaps something like the Star Clipper, it might have proved more successful.

The Buran had a Higher payload to and from LEO and a higher crew capacity. And they could have built the ISS in 3 or 4 launches with the Saturn V and Buran working in Tandem

[icefire]

I agree, the shuttle have proven to be the only way for HST service missions currently, without it the telescope can only wait for its death

I personaly had hoped that the last shuttle mission should be a final SM to the HST to keep it servicable as long as possible, but I also knew that it will never be the case...

The final mission to the HST would have been to bring it back to Earth actually, it was planned right up until Bush canceled the shuttle program.

The Buran had a Higher payload to and from LEO and a higher crew capacity. And they could have built the ISS in 3 or 4 launches with the Saturn V and Buran working in Tandem

That\'s implying that both programs had the money to fund such vehicles

Protip: They didn\'t.

[Guest LoSboccacc]

I keep hearing on how the shuttle had space enough to bring a bus into LEO. I think that would have been the perfect retirement mission: to place a yellow schoolbus kerb on LEO, just because we could.