[Nik Naym]

"What are the solid boosters using for fuel?
(And is it true that the only reason the solid boosters were used is that they're made in Walter Mondale's district?)"

Solid boosters use an Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant.

AP is the oxidizer. Not sure what the rest is, but likely it is a mixture of some metals such as Aluminum (Guessing here) and others, held in a rubber binder. (Speculating here)

The solid boosters were used because it is a cheap way to get a lot of thrust. Drawback is that once they are lit, they go full blast until they run out of fuel. Can't be throttled or turned off.

They were originally made by Morton Thiokol in Utah. Hardly Mondale's district. However, they are made in sections (which caused the first disaster) so they can be transported to Florida. Of course, way back in the day bids for one piece boosters made closer to the launch site were rejected due to powerful politicians in Thiokol's home state.

The shuttle is an amazing technological answer to a question we never asked.

Politics had everything to do with its very existence, and much to do with its design.

We should have continued with Apollo to its end and progressed from there, IMHO.

[Nik Naym]

Guess I should have read to the end of the thread. Everything was already answered. Sorry folks!

[Central Scrutiniser]

More like Sen. Jake Garn from Utah, a Republican who strong armed NASA into putting him on a shuttle flight, thereby causing a real, trained astronaut to sit on the ground, and any actual work that astronaut could have done going to waste.

Same goes for Florida Senator Bill Nelson and John Glenn.

In fact, in Mike Mullane's book, a very prominent senator tried like hell to get put on a flight, but was rebuffed after NASA finished their stupid stunts with non trained personnel.

[El Gato]

The shuttle is an amazing technological answer to a question we never asked.
Politics had everything to do with its very existence, and much to do with its design.
We should have continued with Apollo to its end and progressed from there, IMHO.

Both Apollo and the Shuttle were victims of lack of Presidential (R) and Congressional(D) support. Apollo was terminated early, to save the (relatively small compared to development) cost of the later missions.

The Shuttle was starved for funds during the most critical time, development. As originally conceived, there would have been a fly back booster. Thus eliminating both the solids and the external tank. There might have been some problems with the tanks on the fly back booster, but it's hard to envision that they would have been anything like the "simple" external tank's. Both the Booster and the shuttle would have been almost completely reusable. Operating costs would have been much lower, but... development would have taken longer and cost more. Nixon never supported the space program, it was Kennedy and Johnson's creation, or so it seemed in his estimation.

The shuttle was to have much more of a military mission, as it did in the early days, and that both drove requirements, and earned the hostility of the crowd that "loathed the military".

The result was the half assed design and all the troubles we have today.