Pro's of the Space shuttle

[GoSlash27]

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.

Using Vanamonde's analogy, it was originally intended to be an 18 wheeler, but budget constraints turned it into an oversized panel van and the loss of it's primary mission forced it to adapt to being the world's least- efficient commuter car.

The failure had nothing to do with it being a first attempt. The failure was due to budgetary reductions, curtailed missions, and the compromise between building and operating costs. The concept itself is still sound (even more today than ever), but it has to be executed.

Nice things about the shuttle: It was highly reliable, combined payload carrying capability and habitability, Put a huge tonnage of payload into orbit, did all sorts of jobs nobody had even guessed would be needed, and inspired generations of astronauts, scientists, and engineers.

It's an iconic, beautiful machine.

Best,

-Slashy

[wumpus]

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

I remain convinced that this is the [biggest] requirement that did in the shuttle. Lose the cargo bay (and use fairings like every other launch vehicle) and the size gets under control.http://xkcd.com/1461/large/ (3/4 of the shuttle wasn't payload. Figure out how much of that was the cargo bay.)

[Bill Phil]

The shuttle's problem is that it was only one part of a system.

It looked cool, I guess...

Allowed for the construction of the ISS...

[Sampa]

the space shuttle was also designed to allow more people to experience space.

[lextacy]

It was black and white

Edited February 2, 2015 by lextacy

[cpast]

The shuttle had more manned missions than any other spacecraft, achieving more manned flights than Soyuz in 20 fewer years of operation, and took more people to space than every other spacecraft combined. In addition, a crew capacity of 7 meant it could take more people who didn't have to be fully qualified to operate it -- you generally want at least 2 people who are perfectly capable of flying the thing, and having 7 total means you have 5 flexible seats instead of the 1 you get on a 3-seater.

- - - Updated - - -

I think more of the reputation has to do with the fact that the missions it excelled at turned out to not be as critical as believed. Claims that it "trapped us in LEO" are ridiculous -- budget is responsible for the lack of manned missions outside LEO since Apollo (as it turns out, no one was both willing and able to pay for such a mission). It was capable of on-orbit repair, but it turned out to be cheaper to junk a satellite and launch a new one. It could be turned around in a couple of months, which is seriously impressive (it's only in comparison to the original projected launch numbers that the launch rate is low). And even to the degree it turned out that reusability wasn't necessarily cheaper, there was no way to know that before building a reusable rocket. Part of the point of a space program is to try things no one has tried before, and STS was an experiment (which turned out to work OK, and work really, really well as a way to deliver people to orbit).

[cptdavep]

Interesting article here comparing the Russians Buran to the Shuttle, turns out they may have had more versatile system as the main engines were on the fuel tank rather than the shuttle, meaning you had both a shuttle launcher, and a system that could put a massive payload in orbit. Less reusable but the Shuttle was bad at that anyway!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/science/space/rockets/did-the-soviets-actually-build-a-better-space-shuttle-16176311

[FishInferno]

The shuttle had more manned missions than any other spacecraft, achieving more manned flights than Soyuz in 20 fewer years of operation, and took more people to space than every other spacecraft combined. In addition, a crew capacity of 7 meant it could take more people who didn't have to be fully qualified to operate it -- you generally want at least 2 people who are perfectly capable of flying the thing, and having 7 total means you have 5 flexible seats instead of the 1 you get on a 3-seater.

- - - Updated - - -

I think more of the reputation has to do with the fact that the missions it excelled at turned out to not be as critical as believed. Claims that it "trapped us in LEO" are ridiculous -- budget is responsible for the lack of manned missions outside LEO since Apollo (as it turns out, no one was both willing and able to pay for such a mission). It was capable of on-orbit repair, but it turned out to be cheaper to junk a satellite and launch a new one. It could be turned around in a couple of months, which is seriously impressive (it's only in comparison to the original projected launch numbers that the launch rate is low). And even to the degree it turned out that reusability wasn't necessarily cheaper, there was no way to know that before building a reusable rocket. Part of the point of a space program is to try things no one has tried before, and STS was an experiment (which turned out to work OK, and work really, really well as a way to deliver people to orbit).

I see your point about the crew, but why not make a dreamchaser-style shuttle (a la dyna-soar)? still seven people, and cheaper than the STS.

[GoSlash27]

I see your point about the crew, but why not make a dreamchaser-style shuttle (a la dyna-soar)? still seven people, and cheaper than the STS.

Had it been built as originally designed, it probably would have been cheaper and more reliable than disposable rockets.

The original idea was a horizontal launch 2- stager with the main engines in the boost stage and OMS in the second, both stages to recover 100% intact at a runway.

They didn't move away from that design because it wouldn't work, but rather due to budget constraints and political expediency.

So in that sense the shuttle wasn't a first attempt that didn't quite work out, but rather a good concept that was poorly executed.

Best,

-Slashy

[Motokid600]

Something ive been wondering for awhile now if I may. How did the Buran compensate for the off centered mass?

[cptdavep]

I think there were small engines on the Shuttle part too. It would need them to move about in space and de orbit anyway.

[GoSlash27]

I don't think the Buran used it's engines during the boost phase. Could be wrong...

Best,

-Slashy

[Motokid600]

I know the Buran only had oms engines. It didn't act as its own launch vehicle like the shuttle. And yea afaik those engines were not active during launch. So was the off centered mass just compensated by brute force of the engine gimbals on the main tank?