Was the Shuttle really worth it?

Another_Nut
anything to get us off this rock sooner rather than later is worth it

Unfortunately, you and I and most of the rest of humanity aren't going anywhere. Our best hope for feeling like we're traveling to distant, exciting worlds is better virtual reality. Probably better. Then we can just go get a sandwich when we get bored.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Funny. I will note all what you said and play it back in 20 years time


Theres been some big break throughs. I would bet a fair bit on seeing a SSTO in the next 10-20 years.

crazyewok
Funny. I will note all what you said and play it back in 20 years time

Theres been some big break throughs. I would bet a fair bit on seeing a SSTO in the next 10-20 years.

I bet you a dollar that in 20 years time you and I will both be sitting in our little rooms right here on ol' Terra Firma. Perhaps enjoying a very real simulation of a trip to Mars or some other planet, but not actually doing it.

Blue Shift
I bet you a dollar that in 20 years time you and I will both be sitting in our little rooms right here on ol' Terra Firma. Perhaps enjoying a very real simulation of a trip to Mars or some other planet, but not actually doing it.

I dunno. Boeing has something pretty huge in the pipeline. Apprently its gunna make the SKYLON research alot easier, if boeing dont have one in the works themselfs ontop of what there doing.

reply to post by JadeStar


Thanks for the video .. that is exactly what i was expecting..
So i missed it. thanks for showing me that.

reply to post by crazyewok


I'd be utterly shocked if we didn't already have SSTO-capable craft for military purposes. SKYLON Looks pretty neat, but I'm betting what it'll achieve has already been done.

MystikMushroom
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I'd be utterly shocked if we didn't already have SSTO-capable craft for military purposes. SKYLON Looks pretty neat, but I'm betting what it'll achieve has already been done.

I dunno what Zaphods on to seems to be pretty new. And by the sounds of it linked closely with SSTO craft. So I doubt it. I dont doubt the USAF has a thing or two in orbit, but I dont think they have anything like that.

reply to post by crazyewok


It was worth it since it brought the US back into the space race and gave the American People something to be proud of

MystikMushroom
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I'd be utterly shocked if we didn't already have SSTO-capable craft for military purposes. SKYLON Looks pretty neat, but I'm betting what it'll achieve has already been done.

There's a lot of Hypersonic research being done and the USAF has flown at least one unmanned hypersonic aircraft to the edge of space.

There were rumors that the Aurora was an Single Stage to edge of space aircraft as well.

reply to post by crazyewok


The shuttle was practical because it was reusable, more room for astronauts/cargo, and I feel as if it is more safe then the conventional rocket. All those flights and 2 mishaps. 1 of which was due to the unknown of a really cold launch temperature, and the 2nd, well sometimes things happen. Couldn't repair the broken tiles in space, from what I understand they had no choice but to reenter. The budget cuts from the first disaster though may have led to the 2nd shuttle burning up. Due to lack of budget, it wasn't restored properly, and/or they could have sent a 2nd shuttle up with parts for repair while docking with space station and figure out a return trip plan for the 2 crews on 1 shuttle, maybe a limited crew of the Columbia. They used to have a 2nd shuttle on the pad ready for a "rescue" mission, but that disappeared when it was never used or needed.

Well, it's not like we don't have the means to not have a SSTO craft. Imagine a craft with scramjets, areospikes, and rocket boosters for that final push into orbit.

727Sky

crazyewok
The aims of the shuttle for NASA was to bring cheap affordable reliable space travel.

But with 2 fatal accidents, a 1kg to LEO that was $10,000 (compared to protons $4000kg to LEO or Soyuz $5000) and a program cost of $209 Billion could the money have been better spent? Would carrying on the Gemini or Apollo craft have been cheaper?
Could we have been on mars by now? Did the 2 catastrophic faluires result in public opinion souring and budgets being cut?


I would say yes to the above and that the shuttle set NASA back 3 decades.


sources on figures:
source
source

As in many things the promise does not resemble the actual outcome. Hind sight/history seems to repeat time after time, No? I agree that the shuttle was a huge waste of money that at the time seemed like a good idea; or so the sales pitch went.

I have never understood why a large transport aircraft is not used to take a space vehicle to 40 or 50 thousand feet where it is released and powered to space by rockets. We were doing that with B-52s and the X-15 back in the early 60s..

Burt Rutan seems to be using that method for his launches and certainly makes sense to me because of the astronomical fuel used just to get a payload to those low altitudes.

Totally agree, but like anything NASA had people in the govt. and contractors that wanted the shuttle the way it is and it stayed like that for decades. NASA should have put their resources into R&D for better propulsion systems and transports that could get to the edge of space and then launch. We wasted so much money on the altar of capitalism that we won't have this chance again.

reply to post by crazyewok

As a reusable vehicle for repairing satellites (and the Hubble) it was actually a lot cheaper than expendable launch vehicles.
I had the honor to work on several parts used in the shuttles. I built some of the molds for the tiles when I lived in Westlake and when I moved to Arizona I built the turning vanes (these are the Nitrogen 'jets' in the nose that controlled the position of the 'nose' (they were made of Inconel and there was eight square 'nozzles' that blended with the shape of the nose, the internal channels were 'tuned' in/as they all were the same length (like tuned headers on a race car). I made 16 each (2 per shuttle) and after they were welded together and I machined them a guy from JPL came and x-ray them and put them in a plastic container along with the original prints and a form that both he and I had to sign, he then put a seal on it and and took it away. We built a lot of parts for the shuttles and all the prints were stamped "SPACE SHUTTLE". Shortly after this I left the company (it was called DeVelco and my dad helped start it in the early 1950's) and got into the semiconductor industry (Motorola).
While at Motorola we built the infamous Iridium satellite phone system using off-the-shelf computers, modems etc for the satellites, they tested our first satellite by attaching it to the SR-71 Blackhawk ) Iridium pretty much ruined Motorola and it was sold pennies on the dollar).
I am getting off-topic so I will get back on before I stop reminiscing, I was talking to another Engineer at JPL and we were talking about the cost of the shuttles and he said every circuit board was in a slide-out assembly so if there was say a guidance or radar malfunction before the flights all they had to do was take out 4-screws and slide out the assembly and slide in a new one. Funny thing was, they built all the assemblies when they were building the shuttles and had hundreds of back up assemblies that he said was obsolete just a few years into the flights as electronics had become smaller and lighter so the shuttles could have carried more payload with complete overhauls using new smaller, lighter slide-in assemblies but they already had all the assemblies so it was cheaper in the long run to use them. The shuttles were updated occasionally but they were too old to keep using them as they took such a pounding on take-off and landings they were more than ready to retire.
But, yes they were very cost-effective.
Lets face it, once the public tired of the Apollo moon landings and Nixon cancelled all remaining moon flights (to continue to fund LBJ's war) our 'race to mars' ended.

wulff
reply to post by crazyewok

 

The shuttles were updated occasionally but they were too old to keep using them as they took such a pounding on take-off and landings they were more than ready to retire.
But, yes they were very cost-effective.
Lets face it, once the public tired of the Apollo moon landings and Nixon cancelled all remaining moon flights (to continue to fund LBJ's war) our 'race to mars' ended.

I just wanted to say thank you for your reply and personal story. And thank you for your service to the space program.

The shuttle was the first, real manned "space craft" which actually deserved this name.

For me it was worth it. Shooting a permanent explosion (what a rocket basically is) into orbit cannot be compared, IMO.

I wish we would live in a time (again) where people are excited about stuff and where costs are looked at AFTERWARDS respective won't play a fundamental role as they have today.

Once there was a time where a president went public announcing a promise to send people to the moon and everything got excited.
Today....such things don't exist anymore. It's all about money, obamacare, terrorism etc., the usual crap which dominates our news every day.

Also...I read quite a lot about the Challenger tragedy and the Columbia tragedy, including the official reports etc.....worse even, and that really freaked me out a few years ago I had a quick stunt working as a temp for the company who made the O-Rings for challenger.

I am not sure now but the two tragedies where actually within statistical likelihood, in other words something like that at some point would have "have to" happen.

And..astronauts KNOW that their jobs are dangerous and it should never become "routine", also for NASA.

Because this is exactly the underlying reason for the Columbia tragedy and also in some way for the Challenger tragedy.

"Out of the norm" events, like shedding of tiles from the Shuttle were simply accepted as "normal" because they happened regularly and didn't cause a disaster in the past... so they just ignored the problem or saw it as less "important"...against any common sense.

intrptr
reply to post by crazyewok

 

New inventions that were going to make every thing better …


Bronze sword, the arrow, gun powder, TNT, the machine gun, Nuclear weapons, Nuclear Power, and yes "space travel".

What have we learned? Space is coooold, desolate, lifeless, and very, very expensive.

Hasn't been "worth it" to you and me, just the corporations that profited.

Flame on.

Better...


Peter Weyland TED Talk 2023 (Prometheus Viral)


Man n Woman have Always looked at the Stars and wanted to REACH Them ..

Shuttle Was Made For Satellites Mostly ..

Russia plan was to Use The Payload of a Shuttle for War Heads


seeing some members have been asking

Q. Can the Space Shuttle fly to the Moon?

A. No, the Space Shuttle is designed to travel in low-Earth orbit (within a few hundred miles of the Earth's surface). It does not carry enough propellant to leave Earth's orbit and travel to the Moon. The Space Shuttle also is not designed to land on the Moon since it lands like an airplane and the Moon has no atmosphere. The Shuttle could be used to carry pieces of Moon or Mars vehicles to low-Earth orbit, where they could be assembled prior to beginning their mission.

www.nasa.gov...

What they Wont Say that the Shuttle can be Modified and used as a Command Module

instead they have this...

Orion (spacecraft)
en.wikipedia.org...

a Back to the Basic Space Craft like in the Apollo Missions ??

NASA's New Spaceship Tech Could Help Take Astronauts to Mars
www.space.com...


NASA Deep-Space Missions Take Aim at Mars
by Miriam Kramer, SPACE.com Staff Writer | February 27, 2013 06:43pm ET
www.space.com...

Since its lead the way to better more efficient and safer space exploration id say a firm "worth every penny"

Wolfenz
What they Wont Say that the Shuttle can be Modified and used as a Command Module

How exactly? What what astronomical sum of money would that cost? An Apollo-type capsule is the way to go if you wanna go to the Moon or Mars. Undoubtedly it could be made larger and more comfortable, but it would still be a capsule.

Trust me, the Shuttle could not get beyond the Earth's orbit, it simply wasn't made for that.

wildespace

Wolfenz
What they Wont Say that the Shuttle can be Modified and used as a Command Module

How exactly? What what astronomical sum of money would that cost? An Apollo-type capsule is the way to go if you wanna go to the Moon or Mars. Undoubtedly it could be made larger and more comfortable, but it would still be a capsule.

Trust me, the Shuttle could not get beyond the Earth's orbit, it simply wasn't made for that.

Answer to your Question

( Popular Mechanics )

Did the Soviets Actually Build a Better Space Shuttle?
Twenty-five years ago this month, the Buran—the Soviet space shuttle—made its one and only flight.
November 19, 2013 4:20 PM

By building Buran this way, the Soviets were essentially building the superheavy, multipurpose rocket later known as Energia. It could potentially support the Soviet response to Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program, as well as a manned lunar base and even expeditions to Mars. However, with the end of the Cold War and the Soviet collapse, none of these projects could go beyond the drawing board. Ironically, afterward it became NASA's turn to try to reverse-engineer a Soviet design, as U.S. engineers looked into an architecture similar to Energia's but using the shuttle's components. Unfortunately, the concept known as Shuttle-C never went beyond a full-scale mockup.

www.popularmechanics.com...


and Buzz Aldrin wanted to place a Refueling/Resource Base on the Moon .. to go to the Moon Using a Space Shuttle ...

Wolfenz

wildespace

Wolfenz
What they Wont Say that the Shuttle can be Modified and used as a Command Module

How exactly? What what astronomical sum of money would that cost? An Apollo-type capsule is the way to go if you wanna go to the Moon or Mars. Undoubtedly it could be made larger and more comfortable, but it would still be a capsule.

Trust me, the Shuttle could not get beyond the Earth's orbit, it simply wasn't made for that.

Answer to your Question

( Popular Mechanics )

Did the Soviets Actually Build a Better Space Shuttle?
Twenty-five years ago this month, the Buran—the Soviet space shuttle—made its one and only flight.
November 19, 2013 4:20 PM

By building Buran this way, the Soviets were essentially building the superheavy, multipurpose rocket later known as Energia. It could potentially support the Soviet response to Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program, as well as a manned lunar base and even expeditions to Mars. However, with the end of the Cold War and the Soviet collapse, none of these projects could go beyond the drawing board. Ironically, afterward it became NASA's turn to try to reverse-engineer a Soviet design, as U.S. engineers looked into an architecture similar to Energia's but using the shuttle's components. Unfortunately, the concept known as Shuttle-C never went beyond a full-scale mockup.

www.popularmechanics.com...

and Buzz Aldrin wanted to place a Refueling/Resource Base on the Moon .. to go to the Moon Using a Space Shuttle ...

and heres... is another Answer


Mars Trip Proposed for Space Shuttles
by Tariq Malik, Senior Editor | January 06, 2009 06:05pm ET
www.space.com...


Your Right it would be best using something else other then a space shuttle ...


but it would be nice later on mar building a base and using natural resorces for fuel and again using a something like a space shuttle to land and launch from Mars back to earth or another planet ... a seeding kinda thing...