Replies

Good images. That first concept of the space shuttle looks workable. It'd be better if it was a single stage, if only to avoid the ground handling of mating the two vehicles. The first Trans-atlantic mail plane for the Brits did this, with two 4 engine aircraft stacked on top of each other. Yeah, it'd work, and like this concept it would be more "efficient". But it's just so darn much easier to operate something that you just put fuel in and let fly. Even if the payload wasn't that much as a percentage of tare weight and fuel, it's just so much easier to tank it up.

I did a bit searching on the net on the early proposals for the shuttle from the late 60's, early 70's. Obviously it was damaged because NASA insisted that it be able to haul up large components. That might be nice, but you just don't need an 18 wheeler every day. They had the Saturn V for that. Dummies.

I worked in the now named Johnson Space flight Center during Apollo and Skylab. I state that so the reader will know my bias. I'd like to add some reality (as I remember it) to NASA's plight since Apollo 11.

Following 11, the budget cuts started. The final Apollo flights were canceled for budget reasons.

The space shuttle was supposed to be used for 10 years then be replaced by the next vehicle which was to be designed and built in that 10 years. There were numerous shuttle designs floating around. But, nobody complains too loudly when NASA's budget was cut so the cuts continued.

The shuttle as built was a compromise in an ever shrinking budget process. There was no room in the budget for the next vehicle. What was supposed to be a 10 year life span was stretched each year as more budget cuts eliminated any thought of new vehicle. So the shuttle has been stretched to a 20+ year lifetime with patchwork to make it last.

The original purpose of the space station was to have a platform to build spacecraft that did not have to be lifted out of earth orbit. Again, more budget cuts killed that. I have not heard of that use in a decade or more.

It was changed to the I space station for several reasons the first of which was PC but also to get the Russians to help pay for it.

So the net is NASA has built what they could with limited resources. There was plenty of vision, but like so many things, no money to implement the vision.
I could on and on about the changes at NASA but I'll stop here. (Is that applause I hear?)