How many shuttle crashes before you think it unacceptable?

a reply to: AT9S911

That's why you perfect it before you start putting people on them.

I would imagine that for future moonshots what they would do is create in orbit a reusable mothership with spots for a couple of landers. Then just have shuttles and single use rockets from Earth do the stocking and restocking of the consumables. Think ISS with the ability to go from Earth orbit to Lunar orbit and back. And the first Moon base would start out as automated as possible constructing buildings and the various facilities that would be needed.

The goal is to get automated factories and mining facilities going and get the Moon base self sufficient. And if the economics work out a Helium-3 production facility and setting up a Moon to Earth pipeline.

Then later on take what we learn from the creation of the Moon bases and apply it to Mars. Then Jovian moons and so on. Though by then it would be helpful if we can figure out the Impulse engine from Star Trek or a reasonable facsimile. Say Earth to Pluto in 6 weeks or so. Earth to the moon in a day. Earth to Mars in less than a week.

The only thing shocking is that any country would use the far more expensive and far less stable shuttle.

Found the problem...

A shuttle cannot land on the moon.

a reply to: MiaBandetoh

Under its current design? No. But here I think "shuttle" is a more generally meant to refer to reusable take-off and landing vehicle. The shuttle is just our most recent iteration and never had to go farther than earth orbit.

a reply to: MiaBandetoh


My conspiracy theory on the Space Shuttle was they wanted an expensive and low performance ship to give them an excuse not to go back to the moon. Yet feed a bunch of bureaucrats and companies with lots of taxpayer pork.

What they really needed was multiple vehicles for different jobs. A tiny ship or shuttle made to get up to 4 astronauts up to the space station and back. A big honking cargo carrier to resupply the station. And others for various reasons like satellites and such.

But yah the shuttles held back NASA at least 40 years. We should of had a moon base by now. Maybe even a Mars base.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MiaBandetoh

Under its current design? No. But here I think "shuttle" is a more generally meant to refer to reusable take-off and landing vehicle. The shuttle is just our most recent iteration and never had to go farther than earth orbit.

The design, as I see it:

1. A reliable vehicle (a space taxi) that launches people into low Earth orbit, not fancy, just enough to get them there. It's also used to return the astronauts back to Earth.

2. An orbiting "transfer station". You convey people to that station from Earth using the "space taxi".

3. An LOI vehicle/lander that is a long-haul taxi to the moon and back. Using SpaceX tech for the landing/launch to/from the moon.

4. Profit $$$$

a reply to: AT9S911

At what point would you have found this unacceptable - and bad for public morale etc?

I get the feeling it's about the life loss your thread revolves around. Since these are all volunteers, there's nothing I can see unacceptable. A shuttle or rocket is a complicated thing to build. Whenever we go to the edge of possible, fatalities are to be expected. Those who take the seat know that very well. We can't narrow it down to just fame or adrenaline either, as the reasons can be multiple ones.

Many such "jobs" where one is required or expected to go to the limits, lot's of participant have an internal switch. I have seen it in video recordings in my own face and I notice it in others. I think it's necessary to have this as when something bad happens, you need to be 100% on your toes and not emotional.

You won't allow yourself to think about what happens if a tire comes of doing 200mph or a booster not firing or detaching from your spacecraft. Trust in the machine and the people that built it is crucial for survival. That all written it's hard to blame fault on a signle group, mechanics, engineers as space travel is indeed a big challenge with all the parts, procedures and knowledge needed to pull it off.

How many race car or normal car drivers had died before some safety mechanisms were deemed absolute necessary, like seat belts, cushion zones or airbags? It's tragic every time but as long as we try to take with us the lessons, their deaths at least in some way's have pushed us further.

Everyone in such a top-end fields should be aware of this and I think most are.