Spaceshuttle - National treasure or piece of crap?

[lampblack]

The "media" -- folks tend forget that the word is plural -- are a convenient, over-used whipping boy. As a working newspaper guy, it never ceases to amaze me to learn how many things -- including some things I've never even heard of -- are my fault.<br /><br />There *was* a recent New York Times editorial calling for NASA to consider scrapping the shuttle and devoting its resources into the CEV and the shuttle-derived systems. I thought Mike Griffin handled that extremely well -- with a marvelous response, which also appeared on the Times' editorial pages.<br /><br />Is somebody else clamoring to kill the shuttle?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[j05h]

there are people that want the Shuttle scrapped. i think some of the posts are confusing the media with "space activists", though. The people that howl loudest for STS shutdown are mostly on forums & blogs, not editorial pages.<br /><br />That said, I've been calling for STS to be scrapped for years. At least since the fuel-line issues in the late 90s. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Is somebody else clamoring to kill the shuttle?</font>/i><br /><br />Lots of people have, including a few semi-important people. General Worden has been one, and he is currently an advisor to Griffin (see quote below). Griffin himself only a year ago questioned the cost of returning the shuttle to flight and building out the ISS, but he has softened that position obviously.<br /><br />Homer Hickam, famous for "Rocket Boys", has been a strong critic of the shuttle program recently.<br /><br />Experts Say Path Beyond Earth Orbit Has Its Challenges<br />http://space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_041129.html<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Simon "Pete" Worden was even more harsh in his assessment of the shuttle program.<br /><br />"I’m absolutely convinced that we don’t ever need to fly the shuttle again. We’ve got three of them. Put them in the Smithsonian ... school parking lots. Kids can climb on them," said Worden, whose 30-year career spans a range of space duties, including stints at the White House National Space Council, the White House Office of Science and Technology and recently as a legislative fellow for U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Commerce science, technology and space subcommittee.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote></i>

 

[tomnackid]

The shuttle is expensive to operate and maintain properly. The "powers that be" have decided that they no longer want to put up with the expenses and unfortunately the only strategy they could come up with to phase out the shuttle is a "the shuttle is crap" campaign. (I may be too cynical, but I think the safety issue is secondary to cost in the minds of most politicians and bureaucrats.)<br /><br />People have been comparing the shuttle to the Soyuz which is really an apples and oranges argument in my opinion. These shuttle bashing pundits often neglect to mention that the shuttle can transport into near earth orbit 100 to 600 nautical miles (115 to 690 statute miles) up to 29,484 kilograms (65,000 pounds) of cargo carried in a bay 4.57 meters (15 feet) in diameter and 18 meters (60 feet) long. It can bring back from space cargo weighing a total of 14,515 kilograms (32,000) pounds. Whereas the Soyuz (a very reliable and robust vehicle) could until recently only carry 2 people and a few pounds of cargo. What would the safety record and cost of Soyuz flights be if they had to fly enough to match the shuttle's carrying capacity? I think the general public would also be surprised to find that most of the recent upgrades in the Soyuz (like the fact that it can now carry 3 full sized adults in pressure suits) were financed by the U.S. And no, I'm not trying to bash the Soyuz, but its like comparing a VW Beetle to a tractor trailer.<br /><br />The U.S. should have had its own, home-grown system for taking people to LEO. We should have developed the Shuttle-C. The orbiter should have had a jetisonable crew capsule. Maybe it was the day to day costs of the base STS that killed these alternatives, maybe it was political cowardice. In any case, the main problem with the shuttle is that it became the only option. Even the best tractor trailer money can by would quickly seem like a piece of crap if it where the only vehicle you had to use for all of your trips.<br /><br />In the end

 

[shuttle_rtf]

><br />In the end I think the shuttle will be compared to the Great Eastern. When the Great Eastern was built everyone said it was too big, it was too expensive, it used too much coal, it would never be able to turn a profit...and they were all right! It was far too ahead of its time, but it paved the way for the IDEA of large steamships, which are now the norm. It also was able to do a job that no other ship could do...laying the first transatlantic telegraph line. One could argue that kick starting the telecommunications revolution made the Great Eastern a success even thought it was a financial failure.<<br /><br />Fantastic analogy.

 

[ascan1984]

Even after 40 years since its first test flight the saturn 5 still rules.

 

[spayss]

Tomnakid; it doesn't matter an iota what the Shuttle is designed to do. What matters is what the Shuttle is actually doing. It's great to be able in theory to carry all this payload into space but if it's sitting on the tarmac it's carrying zero into space. Think of being stranded in the middle of nowhere, hungry, with a hundred dollars in your pocket. There's a corner store fifty miles away with a sandwhich for sale for a dollar. Some kid might stroll into the store with only a dollar in his pocket but he can still buy the sandwhich. You sit there 50 miles away with an empty belly. In theory the hundred dollar bill could buy a hundred sandwiches but your belly is still empty.<br /><br /> The Shuttle has taught us a lot. It's been a great source of info on which direction is most practical to take manned space flight. That was the success of the Shuttle and not 'not learning' by claiming success in areas that were clearly failures (such as cost, dependebility, bureaucratic stagnation, frequency of missions, etc.)

 

[j05h]

Shuttle could have, would have, should have. Soyuz actually flies. The real comparison is Shuttle vs Soyuz+Proton - which also works out far cheaper and nearly as reliable for cargo. Proton can't orbit quite as much as STS, but does it cheaper and actually flies these days. I don't consider down-mass as something to keep STS flying for - if we really need material returned from Station, a "film capsule" return system makes the most sense. And, strangely enough, t/space is building one! Remember, we're looking at several years stand-down, plus another year (into mid-06 earliest) for Return to Flight 2. Michoud and Stennis are down for the count right now, that seriously impacts RTF activities. Why not just hang the jersey up and call it good? Griffin can beg Congress for the manned-flight budget to go into CEV and new HLVs instead.<br /><br />America does need it's own manned and robotic space access. We SHOULD learn lessons from the past. See the latest Venturestar thread - it looks good so it must work. The cheapest, safest form of space access is capsules with escape towers on top of line-manufactured mature rocket designs. Space planes on the side of foam-shedding fuel tanks should be a thing of the past. We need a space tug/EDS no matter what plans NASA uses. Why not baseline that for all future flights - rocket to LEO, tug to destination? <br /><br />You're analogy with the Great Eastern is excellent. At least we get Hubble and some kind of space station from STS.<br /><br />Caveat, I'm not being negative for negativity's sake. There is no need for make-work jobs programs. I want NASA to become the exploration agency it once was - I've been watching STS and Station suck good money after bad for my adult life. Like Arnold said, "Get your ass to Mars."<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[drwayne]

There is another point one could make from the Great Eastern that, while not directly analagous to the the shuttle, has some bearing in the discussions on its successor.<br /><br />The Great Eastern, because of its extreme compartmentalization/double hull, was one of the safest ships ever, arguably the safest liner (excluding military ships for obvious reasons).<br /><br />The features that made her so safe also contributed strongly to her unsuitability for her designed purpose.<br /><br />Rest assured the real successor(s) to the shuttle will have trades involving safety margin versus performance. How these trades will break, we will see.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Keep in mind that the Titanic was several steps back from the Great Eastern in safety.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

My grandparents were Titanic survivors so I feel the need to answer this even though its a bit off topic! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Actually as designed the Titanic WAS one of the safest passenger ships of its day. The real culprits were (as usual) human error and just bad luck. If the ship had hit the iceberg head on instead of trying to turn away from it at the last moment the multiple watertight compartments would have kept her from sinking. As it was she was moving too fast (faster than the designers recommended for ice clogged waters) and turned too late. Add to that an unusually calm sea and a misplaced pair of binoculars made spotting bergs difficult. If the White Star lines didn't try to save money by eliminating lifeboats most of the crew and probably all of the passengers could have been saved. (Note: the original designers never claimed Titanic was "unsinkable"--that was a marketing gimmick. The designers called for a full complement of lifeboats but the company wanted more open deckspace.)<br /><br />If we had a shuttle-C and a spacestaion in the early 80s as originally planned we would not have had to use the shuttle as a temporary spacestation/space taxi/space truck. Crews would have been smaller--maybe even down to two as in the first few flights. Even with the current safety (lack of safety?) record we may have only lost 4 or 5 astronauts instead of 14. <br /><br />"Of all the words of tongue and pen the saddest are these 'It might have been.'"

 

[drwayne]

None of what you said changes the fact that the Titanic was, in fact, several steps down from the Great Eastern in safety. <br /><br />The Great Eastern was far more comparmentalized, both longitudinally and transverse, with bulkheads running all the way to the top, and a full double skin. She sustained considerable damage in some groundings and survived just fine. Compared to the Great Eastern with respect to safety, the Titanic was a piker.<br /><br />My point with respect to the shuttle was to not assume that things get safer as time goes foward, as safety will in fact get compromised to some degree to support capability to do the mission. (In the context of the "Great Eastern" metaphor)<br /><br />(A couple of points to ponder)<br /><br />(1) More lifeboats would have been of limited help. Time ran out on launching the boats that they had. The only aid would have been any boats that floated off the ship.<br /><br />(2) Some interesting engineering studies have been done that suggest that a head-on collision might well have split seams down the length of the ship - sinking it MUCH faster.<br /><br />(3) The issue with lifeboats was not so much the Titanic and the Olympic themselves, but the fact that fitting that many lifeboats to them would have drawn attention to the rest of White Star's ship's number of lifeboats. (This is not an original observation on my part, credit goes to Walter Lord)<br /><br />I think you would get a blast out of the Encyclopedia Titanica board, there are a number of famous historians and experts in residence there, I am sure you would enjoy it!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

But it was discovered that the Great Eastern could do something that it was not designed for. The shuttle on the other hand hasn't discovered an important alternative use that would make it worthwhile.<br /><br />The problem with space is that naval analogies are not really appropiate. The closest naval analogy would be a tribe going from a canoe to a steam ship, in one go.

 

[vt_hokie]

<font color="yellow">"The Rocket is in the Science Museum, London."</font><br /><br />Glad to know that! I had the opportunity to climb into the cab of an American classic recently - the GG-1 displayed in Altoona, PA. Maybe it's a piece of crap compared to the Acela Express, but it was one of the finest locomotives of its day! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />http://www.spikesys.com/GG1/

 

[drwayne]

Taking this thread even worse off course - it is fascinating to me to realize that they were able many years ago to find and haul up and repair cables with simple navigational methods, and in essense, a long rope with a hook on it.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>