Why didn't they make new orbiters ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

seth_381

Guest
This is kind of late to ask this question but when the orbiters started getting older why didn't they try and get funding to get replacement orbiters that were like the shuttles we have but with updates of capability. I know that it would more expensive than 2 billion per orbiter since contractors are long gone and the assembly lines are CLOSED. But don't you think it would have bee the right thing to do plus no one could argue that they are old and dangerous.
 
D

drwayne

Guest
"plus no one could argue that they are old and dangerous."

Perhaps not old, though one can certainly make the case that some of the dangers involved are a function
of design, not age.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
drwayne":23ej5wfx said:
"plus no one could argue that they are old and dangerous."

Perhaps not old, though one can certainly make the case that some of the dangers involved are a function
of design, not age.

The argument that the existing orbiters are "old and dangerous" has no basis in real reliability engineering. Here's a real paper on the subject:

http://www.aero.org/publications/crossl ... 01/03.html

In fact, virtually all launch vehicles become more reliable with repeated flights, not less, since with time the unanticipated failure modes that are "a function of design, not age" are identified and corrected. Aircraft, provided they are properly inspected and maintained, can fly safely indefinitely. The Soyuz, an older design, and the T-38, an older physical vehicle than any of the shuttles, have not been mentioned by those who attack shuttle. In fact, if you come out to the pad and actually look at the Shuttle ready for flight, you would think each is brand new; they are better maintained than the airliners we routinely trust our lives to and none of the three orbiters have reached even half their design lifetimes of 100 flights each.
 
S

SpaceTas

Guest
old
The technology is 20-30 years old. The United Space Alliance (the cost+++++ contractor) for shuttle operations and NASA have not been significantly upgrading the shuttles (eg one computer upgrade). However, they are only about 1/3 to 1/2 through thwir design lifetime, so every shuttle has many many flights in them.

dangerous:
as pointed out it is argued that the design itself is dangerous; with the boosters and external tank beside the orbiter rather than below it. This is why foam shedding killed one shuttle and crew. This is why Ares was going to be safer than shuttle. The odds of disaster now stand at about 1:70 (2 failures in about 140 flights). However, the safety is getting better with time as NASA gets more experience. Part of the danger was the attitude of NASA/USA in being complacent/ignoring trouble signs. This attitude is hopefully changed. So dangerous a maybe.

So the use of "old and dangerous" is misleading and not the reasons they are not making new shuttles.

The reason is: they are expensive to build and operate, plus there is no job for a large shuttle beyond the space station.
The Endeavour cost $US2.2 billion in (1990-1992) and was partly made from structural spares. But it is costs per flight. Estimates vary but $700 billion per flight is reasonable. NASA about $4.4 billion per year on about 6 flights.

Initially the shuttle fleet launched satellites, did military missions, retrieved and fixed satellites, did science missions. All these missions have been taken from the shuttle (cost, safety and politics at various levels). So the last job is haling up major pieces of the International Space Station. So now that is done there is no need for the shuttle fleet. You could use it a medium-heavy (it has one of the largest payload capacities) lift vehicle; say to put up modules of a exploration vehicle. But then it comes back to the running COST.
 
H

halman

Guest
The reason that NASA has not built more shuttles is that it never wanted the shuttle that we have. Way back in the late 1960's, popular opinion was starting to turn against NASA because huge, expensive rockets were being thrown away each flight. Capsules were the most primitive method possible of putting humans into space, and lacked any kind of terminal guidance. Recovery required a carrier group to stand by in the splashdown area, sometimes for a week or more. So the engineers at NASA decided to build the next generation of space vehicle, one that was reusable, and could land at the take off site.

The early designs of the shuttle were for a small vehicle, which would only carry passengers, not cargo, and which could be launched by a 'fly back booster', which would carry the orbiter to high altitude before the orbiter started its engines. Designs were nearing the prototype stage when Richard Milhous Nixon announced that NASA would only be allowed one type of launch vehicle, which would have to carry out all aspects of space exploration and development. He also required the U. S. Air Force to abandon its separate launch program, and to use the NASA launch vehicle.

The Air Force demanded that the new launch vehicle be capable of carrying the advanced reconnaissance satellites that it was building, which were the size of a rail car, and which weighed nearly 60,000 pounds. This necessitated the complete redesign of the space shuttle, resulting in the compromise which we have today. Putting the shuttle on the top of the stack would have meant discarding the engines after each launch, which was contrary to the design philosophy.

What we need is the original vehicle that NASA wanted, a totally reusable crew taxi, capable of carrying at least 10 passengers to Low Earth Orbit.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
The obvious answer is N-O F-U-N-D-I-N-G

This entire discussion is unrelated to a specific Mission or Launch. There are plenty of threads in Space Business and Technology discussing the topic. I am locking this thread, and will merge it with the appropriate SB&T topic later.

Meteor Wayne.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts