Space Shuttles

[208pilot]

I studied Aerospace Engineering and got my BS back in 84 ; the space shuttle has always been an icon for me and my peers as the years have gone by.
However, this weeks accident has brought back the sadness we all felt back in 86. With nothing but pride and best wishes for those lost, I immediately begin to feel that we might have been on the wrong course all these years. Is the space shuttle trying to do too much for its level of technology? Are there too many possible sources of failure in its design? It would make no sense to find the source of this accident, return the vehicles to service, and have the next accident occur at anything close to the rate that the program has experienced so far.

 

[NEDude]

I don't think the space shuttle has been trying to do too much. The problem most people have is they expect everything to be perfectly safe. Spaceflight is, by its nature, a hazardous undertaking. The fact that we had an accident does not mean the design is unsafe. However the space shuttle was designed back in the early to mid 1970s - nearly 30 years ago.

With the advances in technology in the past 30 years, the space shuttle has become badly outdated. If the design were a simple design, such as the Russian Soyuz capsule, being old wouldn't be so bad. Also note each Soyuz spacecraft is used only once, so each vehicle, while an old design, is fresh off the assembly line. But the shuttle is is a bigger and much more complex design and is used repeatedly, which leads to more oportunities for failure as it ages.

I think the accident highlights the need for some changes in the U.S. space program. We have a 25 year old spacecraft that is a 30 year old design, and it crashed. While I don't think the space shuttle should stop flying, we need it to keep the space station going, I do think we need to begin to focus on developing a replacement. Keep the shuttle flying, with any needed safety improvements, until a suitable new launch system is developed. I also think we need to develop a focal point for our manned space program - we need to send humans to Mars.

Just one mans opinion.

 

[busdrver]

I am the biggest supporter of the American space program as anybody and have been for years, but I am beginning to wonder myself if the shuttle program is no longer pertinent. I can't help but think that the shuttle has become a solution looking for a problem. I don't think it was conceived that way but once it became clear that it wasn't going to be as robust and reusable as originally intended then that's what it became. NASA has 2 things I think it should do.

One, NASA should go back to manned space exploration. They should start with the closest body and work outward, ie go back to the moon and develop a moon base, then Mars, etc. They should start with a clean sheet of paper. Only fly the shuttle as required to service the ISS. And speaking of the ISS, the primary purpose of the ISS should change to support a moon base and on-orbit basic science should become secondary. The money saved can then be directed to development of a more reusable (and CHEAPER) earth to earth-orbit reusable vehicle. Then start moving outwards in manned exploration of space.

Think back to almost all the science fiction movies and/or science fiction books about space that you have seen/read. In almost all cases there has been a private money-making aspect to people being in space. I think in this case, science fiction has predicted the future. There must be some way to make money in space. so the second thing NASA should do is to figure out a way to enable the commercialization of space.

My 2 cents worth.

 

[350DRIVER]

Two words- "B U D G E T " & "P O L I T I C S "

Without having to deal with so much of the above I am quite sure we would have the most modern and advanced fleet of space shuttles available. NASA is very limited however due to the above mentioned constraints and I cannot see such a high gov't budget increase that would allow them to build a brand new shuttle fleet unless they can prove without a doubt that this is a "must" and is in the best interest of safety all across the board. I do feel that NASA has a great group of highly gifted engineers and that once they are able to pin point the exact cause then they will be able to find a "fix" and use preventive methods to allow our current fleet to continue to fly.

As much as I am for a new and highly advanced shuttle fleet, it just is not practical or economically do able at the present time. I am sure there will be quite a few groups that will "attempt" to lobby congress for increased spending budget increases and who knows what the future will have in store.


3 5 0

 

[busdrver]

Of course there are budget constraints. But I think the things I outlined could be done without a large increase in budget, if any at all.

Politics is another matter. It would take somebody with bold leadership abilities to make it happen. After seeing Sean O'Keefe on Monday morning I don't think he has it. I think Bush is capable but I don't think he will do it.

 

[Archer]

As an Aerospace Engineering student, I respect and admire the Space Shuttle, yet I do believe that it is more complex and risky that it should be.

I think it's about time, after 2 space shuttle losses (out of 5, not 50 or some huge number, out of only 5) NASA should be convinced that they need to invest a little money in new research for a next generation RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle).

I think one of the ideas to explore is multi-stage spaceplanes.

I large "mothership" airplane that is cabable of reaching altitudes of up to 40 km with an "orbiter" spaceplane on it's back. This "orbiter" should then be able to have saved enough fuel (by not taking off from the ground under self-propulsion) to make it to orbit with a considerable amount of cargo.

Hell, if 2-stage spaceplanes are too far fetched, use 3-stage.

B-52s have been used to deploy missles, planes and other things for decades. It is nothing new.

747s carry the Space Shuttle on it's back.

I mean, it's not an entirely far fetched concept.

There are some private companies working on this, and I think NASA is waiting to see if they are successful, before they invest in it.

But NASA most probably has greater experience and technology than any other institution in the world, and they would have greater chance of success.


I think the 20th century was a great century for mankind, and immense advancement has occured, yet I think, with the new milleinum, the "Age of the Capsule" should be left behind...with something safer, like spaceplanes...to replace it...

Archer

 

[Typhoon1244]

Space Shuttle: the History of the National Space Transportation System by Dennis Jenkins is probably the best--or certainly the most detailed--book written about the Shuttle. I highly recommend it. It traces the history of the STS from Eugen Sanger's "Amerika Bomber" in 1945 all the way through the X-15 and X-24 all the way to STS-100 (in the latest edition).

What you find out from studying the Space Shuttle's history is that Columbia and her sisters are only a shadow of what NASA really wanted them to be. The "ideal" shuttle would have been carried aloft by a manned, reusable, liquid-fueled booster aircraft that would fly back to the Cape (or wherever) and land after launching the Shuttle. The orbiter itself was to have been larger, equipped with turbojet engines that would deploy after reentry and allow it to fly to a landing...and go-around if necessary.

But since we're always worried about what things like this cost, it didn't happen. Dick Scobee and his crew would probably be alive today if we'd had the Shuttle NASA really wanted. But hey, it was cheaper.

The ultimate goal of the space program is to begin human migration off this planet. It's never going to happen if we keep whining about how much things cost! Oh, to live in a world where things that need to happen just happen whether the money's there or not!

(Sorry. My utopian alter-ego popped out...)

 

[dmspilot00]

NASA cancelled the project for a dual-stage-type of replacement for the Space Shuttle because of budget constraints (big surprise). I think this was a stupid move, even financially. They plan to instead keep on using the current Space Shuttles into 2020. If they had invested in a new vehicle, I believe that they would have saved much more money in the long run. The extremely high expense of each Space Shuttle launch will cost us more eventually than what it would have taken to design and build a replacement. The government would rather pay a little less today and a lot more tomorrow, instead of a little more today and a lot less tomorrow.

There is (was?) a company that plans to take paying passengers into space within the decade using a dual-stage type of vehicle, however, it has been at least a year since I have heard anything about it.

I saw a TV documentary which was probably made a few years ago about NASA planning a manned mission to Mars around 2023, don't know if that is still on the "To Do" list or not though.

 

[flywithastick]

As an Aerospace Engineering student, I respect and admire the Space Shuttle, yet I do believe that it is more complex and risky that it should be.

I think it's about time, after 2 space shuttle losses (out of 5, not 50 or some huge number, out of only 5) NASA should be convinced that they need to invest a little money in new research for a next generation RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle).

Archer -

You say the shuttle systems is more risky than it should be. Get some experience with design, reliability assessment, risk management and working within a budget, then you'll see why the shuttle system carries the risk of failure that it does.

For a system comprised originally of 5 vehicles and having made a little over 100 flights with new thermal protection systems, new controls, new flight modes, etc., I believe the system is performing about as it should.

People who expect the system reliability to be something like an airliner or even a fighter plane are delusional.

Hell, if 2-stage spaceplanes are too far fetched, use 3-stage.

Now you're back to adding complexity and reducing reliability.

747s carry the Space Shuttle on it's back.

empty

I think the 20th century was a great century for mankind, and immense advancement has occured, yet I think, with the new milleinum, the "Age of the Capsule" should be left behind...with something safer, like spaceplanes...to replace it...

I think the current shuttle concept did just that.

So many people, here, on the radio and on TV keep saying NASA needs to develop and build a more "modern" transport system and then build the vehicles. It would cost tens of billions. IMO, we need to keep flying what we have. Upgrade where we can, check our mission and continue to get value out of the original investment.

The requested budget for FY 2004 is ~$15.5B. Space shuttle and flight support is ~$4.4B. Space station is $1.7B. Take $6.1B out of the $15.5. What do you want to cut in order have development money?

It cost ~$25B to develop the space station. To design and build another 5 vehicles would probably cost 2 or 3 times this amount, but for arguments sake lets say $25B. Spread it over 5 yrs and that's about $5B/yr... where we going to get $5B? Not spending the $$ on existing shuttle and space station? There's no easy answer. IMVHO, I say keep using the shuttles for now. Heck, we've managed to keep B-52's useful for the last 45 yrs, we can keep these machines productive and even improve the reliability.

 

[EagleRJ]

No Bucks- No Buck Rogers

The government just killed the replacement for the Space Shuttle several years ago due to budget constraints. They were going to build a semi-lifting body design with a revolutionary "linear aerospike" engine that was much more efficient, and it was going to be a true single stage to orbit vehicle. Lockheed Martin was going to build the X-33 technology demonstrator, and after it
proved the design, a larger version, called the Venture Star, would enter service to replace the Shuttle.

One of the things that made the Shuttle so expensive to operate is the number of duties we piled on it after the design was conceptualized. It started off as a pure shuttle- a simple vehicle that would bring materials up and down from orbit, and that's it. Remember when NASA was predicting eight flights a month with a two week turnaround? The design eventually grew into a research ship that could carry much more, support up to seven astronauts, and stay in orbit for over two weeks. We started off building a pickup truck, and we wound up with a vehicle that is asked to perform just about every task in the US space program.
If we go ahead and build some Venture Stars, we can have a modern, efficient shuttle based on 2003 technology, not 1975 technology. We no longer need the research and long duration capabilities- that's why we're building the space station.

It all comes down to funding. If NASA can convince Congress that it is cheaper in the long run to replace the Space Shuttle with a newer design, we might see some progress. I hope they don't just build a replacement for the Columbia and keep dumping money into this dated design. It's time to innovate, not vegitate!

 

[flywithastick]

Re: No Bucks- No Buck Rogers

It all comes down to funding. If NASA can convince Congress that it is cheaper in the long run to replace the Space Shuttle with a newer design, we might see some progress. I hope they don't just build a replacement for the Columbia and keep dumping money into this dated design. It's time to innovate, not vegitate!

You make good points. NASA, like many public companies, lives from budget cycle to budget cycle. It's hard for them to look long term, even if it's the right move.