Interesting OLD space shuttle article

[rvastro]

Published in April 1980. Has some errors in the text.<br /><br />http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html

 

[mrmorris]

A long read, but very interesting, yes.

 

[lycan359]

<br />It's good to know that not everybody in those days was delusional.

 

[steve82]

Actually when he gets beyond the design compromises and talks about schedules, engines blowing up, and tile problems, it sounds like a neat high-tech project that any recent science and engineering graduate (myself included) would have been more than happy to sign up for.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Sounds way too opinionated. Mind you, I don't think this writer was going for objective article of the year.

 

[lycan359]

<br />Shuttle_RTF, did you actually read it?<br /><br />I assume your a shuttle fan... May I ask why?

 

[najab]

I dunno, most of what they've written has come to pass. I did notice a few hyperbole and a couple of mistakes, but all in all it's depressingly accurate.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Not being critical of the content/subject matter - just the columnist style he employs is full of irritating rhetorical commentary, when he could have let the quotes doing the talking. Took away objectiveness and thus the article lost a lot of purchase because of it. <br /><br />And yes, Lycan, of course I read it. I am a Shuttle fan and I'm proud to be so. A sin on this site - I know.

 

[lycan359]

I didn't ask if you were a shuttle fan, I asked why you were.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Ok, give me till later <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[lycan359]

<br />Give you until later? I just asked why your a shuttle fan not to go and write an essay about it.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Give you until later? I just asked why your a shuttle fan not to go and write an essay about it.<<br /><br />Well tough, if you want to know, I'll describe why in as many bloody words as I want! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[haywood]

And now we know why Lycan359 is a molecule and Shuttle_RTF is a star.<br />LOL.<br /><br />Yay! I'm a rock!<br />

 

[lycan359]

<br />I'm still waiting...

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Lycan,<br />I'm a Shuttle fan, and here's why.<br /><br />It can do more than any other spacecraft ever built. Using the Shuttle, enormous space stations could/should have been built, and manned by hundreds of people, enough people and stuff to actually make manned missions to Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn possible on spaceships as big as Aircraft Carriers, built almost entirely out of Moonstuff. The shuttles could/should have sent semi-automated ore collectors and smelters, and foundries to the moon where the materials to build those interplanetary giants would have been made well outside of Earth's gravity well. <br /><br />The Shuttle had the ability to support these stations that would support the Moon bases which would allow us to send hundreds/thousands of people to other planets, and more importantly, bring them home through the Hellish few minutes of re-entry.<br /><br />For some reason, we wussed out in doing this, and to be perfectly honest, it's a little frightening to me because I think it shows the future, a future that I don't like. A kind of Dark Age, akin to the fall of Rome. Naj said that he couldn't imagine the need for all of that capacity that the Shuttle has in the future, and by God I hope he's wrong, I hope we need 10 times the Shuttle fleets current capacity. I'm not saying that a single Shuttle that is 10 times bigger is necessarily the way, but a System that has 10(or 100) times the capacity is what I want. I am very proud to be part of the greatest Navy the Planet Earth has ever seen, and that too is very expensive, many would say that it isn't worth it, but I can be sure of this, no other country can close the Sea from us, and that alone is priceless. Certainly worth the cost of a few billion per Carrier Battle Group, and the tens of thousands of people needed to make them sail.<br /><br />I wish that our Space Program was more like our Navy. I wish it had the Navy's sense of purpose, and the Navy's commitment to go big, ridiculously big if <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Naj said that he couldn't imagine the need for all of that capacity that the Shuttle has in the future, and by God I hope he's wrong...</i><p>Just to clarify, I see the need for heavy lift, just not <i>manned</i> heavy lift.</p>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Naj-<br />Thanks for clarifying, and I agree to a point. I think that much heavier payload unmanned versions of Shuttle should have been developed, like Shttle-C for example, but I would have wanted the engines to be brought down later in a Shuttle Orbiter, maybe 9 engines at a time, but I'm just guessing here, without any figures. <br /><br />I definately think the Shuttle was under developed, and under utilized. It had a lot of great potential, but it needed a few different versions, unfortunatly, one size does not fit all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Blur]

Very prophetic. Did Miss Cleo write that?<br /><br />The biggest mistake I found is that he UNDERestimated the cost per flight by a factor of 10.<br /><br />Like the concorde, it is an amazing machine, but a total white elephant.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Yes, an amazing machine, but unlike Concorde(which I also am a fan of) the Shuttle is a freighter. I just wish other versions of it had been developed. <br /><br />On a side note, A Concorde frieghter, especially with mid-air refueling from another mach 2 tanker.........anywhere in the world in 12 hours. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lycan359]

rocketwatcher2001, uhh you can't be serious... spaceships the size of aircraft carriers built from moonstuff with auto smelters and factories?<br /><br />Are we talking about the same Shuttle here? We are having a hard enough time building a useless space station, and you want carrier sized spaceships and Jupiter missions?<br /><br />Ok if it was ever in the plan to create a space based infrastructure, then why make the shuttle manned at all? If we made it a cargo pod instead it would be able to carry more into space by saving all the weight from the crew support systems and that whole reentry thing.<br /><br />I don't think you understand the size off that kind of undertaking.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Lycon-<br />Actually if there is one thing I know, besides airplanes, it's logistics. Yes, it would be a huge undertaking. And you're right about making an unmanned version of Shuttle(Shuttle-C) the main heavy hauler. The problem with the Space Shuttle Program was that in relied soley on the Orbiter, and doing so, vastly limited the program, because as you say, it all has to come back(Orbiter, that is). <br /><br />Can you tell that I'm a Shuttle-C supporter? I'm guessing to build the kind of facilities required to build the gigantic interplanetary spacecraft the vast majority of the shuttle flights would be Shuttle-C, with maybe one out of every 5, or maybe 10, being a Shuttle Orbiter mission, and that would be primarily for assembly of several Shuttle-C's payloads, and bringing back the Shuttle-C's engines and anything else that is reuseable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lycan359]

Then I guess what I should say is that I dispise the Orbiter part of the Shuttle launch system.<br /><br />The thing is, the Shuttle-C is not what NASA is using it's time and money to make but instead they're trying to return a grounded piece of garbage into a flying piece of garbage.<br /><br />Remember, the Shuttle wasn't made to service the ISS. Instead the ISS was created to give the useless Shuttle something to do.

 

[najab]

><i>Remember, the Shuttle wasn't made to service the ISS. Instead the ISS was created to give the useless Shuttle something to do.</i><p>Actually, you are wrong there. One of the main purposes for which the Shuttle was built was to service space stations. The sad thing is that they didn't build a space station until the Shuttle was on its way out.</p>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>I'm still waiting...<<br /><br />Keep waiting - I don't have time to pamper to Shuttle bashers.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">it was an awesome future that we chose not to follow.</font><br /><br />Very true, well said. And I'm quite disappointed about it, too. So now we are going to have a much less ambitious program, that is still going to be the best in the world, but Damn! We coud have done/be doing so much more! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>