The true story of Space Shuttle

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

carp

Guest
In the mid-1960's the US Air Force conducted a series of classified studies on next-generation space transportation systems to support projected large military space stations, conduct manned military reconnaissance and strike missions, and reduce the cost of launching military payloads. These Air Force studies finally concluded that a partially reusable vehicle was the most attractive, along the lines of Lockheed's Starlifter, which had a large drop tank but returned the engines and avionics of the vehicle for reuse. The Air Force probably spent around $ 1 billion on 'black' technology development tests at this time, including work on linear aerospike engines and high fineness lifting body shapes that would re-emerge again 30 years later in Lockheed's X-33 space shuttle successor. <br /><br />NASA also had ambitious plans - for large space stations, lunar bases, nuclear interplanetary rocket stages, and manned Mars expeditions. NASA went through a long iterative process in designing and selecting the space shuttle, leading ultimately to the same conclusion as the Air Force. Initial Phase A concepts were for two stages, both either winged or lifting bodies, both recovered at the launch site for reuse. NASA explored some alternative concepts, including Lockheed's LS200 single orbiter with drop tank, and Chrysler's SERV ballistic single stage to orbit vehicle, before proceeding to Phase B. The Phase B designs were more refined but still used the same two-stage approach. At this point the controversy were over large cross-range winged designs, medium cross-range lifting body designs, and minimal cross-range stub-wing designs. NASA's Faget strongly pushed for the stub-wing design. <br /><br />Eventually the Nixon administration advised NASA that not only were there to be no flights to Mars, no nuclear interplanetary stages, no space station, no more Saturn V's, no orbital transfer vehicle - but there wouldn't be a space shuttle either if NASA couldn't get the development cos
 
L

lampblack

Guest
Ummm... the last sentence or two suggests this document is somewhat dated. Shouldn't it be attributed to somebody?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
E

ehs40

Guest
i personally think there is no problem with the space shuttle. the orbiters are just old and worn there is nothing wrong with them other than that i think they are great but its time to move on put the shuttle in a museum where they can inspire little kids to want to go to space and move on into the 21st centary with the cev klipper and the atv (if esa gets moving) finish the iss and get our presence further into the solar system
 
N

najab

Guest
The DoD rejected the Shuttle because it isn't responsive enough (turnaround time of months instead of weeks) and because it had become too high-profile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts