Pro's of the Space shuttle

[Secuas]

I heard many bad things about the space shuttle like how it's a weird idea to ducttape a plane to a rocket and how expensive it all was. So I have a question: What were the actual pro's of the Space Shuttle?

Have a free shuttle below.

Thanks in advance!

[Motokid600]

Payload delivery, plus a crew of seven. Partly reusable and low g reentry. Bout' all I can think off.

The whole idea was for a quick turn around time which sadly never happened.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Motokid600

[razark]

Not only could it launch satellites, it could bring them back to earth.

[FishInferno]

It had the crew on hand to preform EVAs (useful for the ISS), but this could have been easily done by launching and unmanned rocket and then a smaller crewed rocket

[T-Bouw]

It rekindled the love of spacefaring in a lot of people. Inspired many to pursue a related job.

It's the first reusable orbital spacecraft.

It looks awesome of course!

[Yukon0009]

It was awesome.

[Kryten]

It's the first reusable orbital spacecraft.

Soviet Zenit spy satellites were being reused decades before Shuttle flew.

[cantab]

Not only could it launch satellites, it could bring them back to earth.

This. That was the Shuttle's main distinguishing feature I believe, and something the Air Force were interested in but never really used much. It's why it needed to do a runway landing with the big wings. Probably the best use of that capability was Spacelab, a set of modules that turned the Shuttle's cargo bay into an ad-hoc space station. Almost all other shuttle missions could have been done just as well by a non-winged vehicle, and many wouldn't even have needed a manned spacecraft.

[UmbralRaptor]

Large payloads (comparable to some Protons and Titans), and a uniquely large payload down capability.

I can't actually say re-usability because the shuttle helped turn that into a joke for a generation. Maybe if it had actually pulled off the promised 50-60 flights per year...

edit: I suppose the lack of a CEP for landing was nice.

Edited January 30, 2015 by UmbralRaptor

[Kibble]

Shuttle did have one task it was suited for - the construction of large experimental modular spacecraft that require manual assembly. AKA construction of USOS, although it was flying a decade before construction began on Station. Simultaneously launching a 20t module, and the astronauts, Canadarm, and spacesuits to hook up the power connections and deploy panels and such is something only Shuttle could do. Not that manual assembly is always necessary, Russian modules have been autonomous docking with built in power and fluid connections since Salyut 6.

[MK3424]

Reusable, able to launch multiple satellites, able to repair satellite (Hubble Space Telescope),able to resupply space stations, able to bring space station building blocks,...

It was a great spacecraft, but it needed a more ongoing development to improve it over and over.

[zekes]

It's like a portable space station - you can live in it for a long time if you have to (I doubt a pod would be so luxurious).

[Frozen_Heart]

It looked cool? That's about all I can think of.

I think the concept was ok but the implementation was poor. It just turned into something that was poor at everything rather than exceling at one task.

What's more is that it has damaged the reputation of reusability to the point where many say that a reusable space vehicle will never work.

[UmbralRaptor]

Reusable

More expensive, less payload, and lower flight rate are pros?

[problemecium]

Yes.

Launching the shuttle was indeed very expensive, but as you know, it was much more expensive than it was meant to be per the original design, and building a new shuttle from scratch for every launch would have been a much bigger pain ;P

[Denks]

It was meant to put things up, repair things and bring things back. It had a cargo bay and was reusable.

[Vanamonde]

It bothers me when people demean the space shuttle as being inefficient and impractical. Here's its biggest pro: it was the first of its kind. The model T was not an ideal car, either, but we didn't give up on the idea of cars after it. It seems to me to be an economic certainty that we will eventually go to launch vehicles which don't have to be entirely discarded after each flight, and in retrospect, the shuttle will receive the respect it deserved.

[xcorps]

The Model T was not the first car. Depending on your definition, the first car was built in 1769 or 1692. (It wasn't even the first assembly line car, that was the Oldsmobile Curved Dash in 1901)

The Model T was merely the first AFFORDABLE car, due to efficient production. Hardly the best analogy.

Edited January 31, 2015 by xcorps

[Star Lord]

It was a remarkable achievement for mankind much in the way that the Gemini program was. Proving you could dock a spacecraft to another spacecraft didn't solve cancer, but the engineering and technological advancements made in the genesis of a space shuttle sowed benefits that will continue to reaped by space travelers in the future.

[xcorps]

It was a remarkable achievement for mankind much in the way that the Gemini program was. Proving you could dock a spacecraft to another spacecraft didn't solve cancer, but the engineering and technological advancements made in the genesis of a space shuttle sowed benefits that will continue to reaped by space travelers in the future.

I disagree. It was merely a step in the progression, and a poorly executed one at that.

[Lohan2008]

Henry Ford's Model T was not the first automobile, there was the prototype S, N, A & C. Not to mention the first mass-produced automobile, the Oldsmobile Curved Dash, beginning in 1901. Shuttle: secure cargo/ payload area that was convertible according to mission. Crew of up to 7. Able to re-enter atmosphere and glide to landing. NASA never reached the idea of having 50+ flights per year, which would have brought cost down.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Lohan2008

[Camacha]

It bothers me when people demean the space shuttle as being inefficient and impractical.

It is not demeaning, it is simply realistic. People went all starry eyed for the unusual and wonderful looking craft, while it did turn out to have some serious drawbacks and flaws. It never really did what it was designed for, which was to achieve a quick turnaround. Public opinion is now in the process or readjusting to that. It was not too efficient.

However, it is not all bad. Despite that relaunching one turned out to be a long, tedious process, the space shuttle has done some wonderful things. It has provided a major contribution to quite a few big missions, among which the Hubble telescope and ISS construction. It has earned its place in history, no doubt about that.

I feel it is not unlikely that the STS will go down in history as an early, quirky experiment with winged or reusable spacecraft.

Henry Ford's Model T was not the first automobile, there was the prototype S, N, A & C.

The first car was not a Ford. It somewhat depends on definitions on what would be considered the first car, but something like the Benz Patent-Motorwagen might very well be it. This page has some nice info. There seems to be some consensus that Benz has invented the first actual car.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Camacha

[Vanamonde]

Way to entirely miss the point of the car analogy, guys.

And Camacha, not everyone who criticizes the shuttle does so in a caustic way. But some people do, and it bothers me.

[Arugela]

It's a giant ship made with public money(I'm assuming). It shouldn't bother you for any reason if people criticize it. Even if it were or was paid for with private funds on the side it still shouldn't matter.

If you were involved with making it and that bothered you it would/should be a concern to your ability to engineer and maintain it. That pretty much sums up the rest. 8) Criticism is the only healthy thing in the world. We need more not less.

[Vanamonde]

It should fairly bother me if the entirety of a very useful concept was tossed out the window solely because the very first attempt was not ideally efficient.