Posted on 01/29/2016 8:03:15 AM PST by rktman
In the aftermath of Challenger, there was never any doubt about continuing, never the thought of quitting. After the Columbia accident almost seventeen years later, however, the program was wound down over the next eight years. Once construction of the International Space Station was completed, the Shuttles were grounded and the shuttle program ended.
I think that was a mistake. Space Shuttle was and remains the most capable flying machine ever conceived, built and operated. We learned much from the thirty years of Shuttle flights, and in my opinion, we should still be flying them. Shuttle carried a crew of seven, plus nearly sixty thousand pounds of payload to low earth orbit. After transforming from a rocket into an orbital research or construction platform, it entered the atmosphere and landed on a conventional runway at the end of its mission. After around one hundred days of processing, it was ready to fly again.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.scientificamerican.com ...
We have some shuttle engines available but looks like we’re gonna be dependent on Russian engines for the most part. How come elon hasn’t come up with some solar engines yet? :>)
Having built it, shutting it down without a replacement was wrong.
...
Why?
They were only designed to last 20 years, the remaining ships had done many more flights than they ever were intended to. More disasters were going to happen. The big problem isn’t their retirement but that 5 presidents in a row failed to greenlight their replacement.
I’m not opposed to us having a shuttle program, but we should be looking forward not backwards. How about launching a shuttle from a dirigible platform? Save yourself the bother of pushing through the lower atmosphere, and you don’t need huge booster rockets, so you could make a true SSTO spaceplane work.
Some people here obviously believe that since the shuttle was not 100% safe that it should not have ever flown; that anything to do with manned space flight is a waste of money; that somehow unmanned drones should be used to replace far cheaper unmanned resupply missions to the ISS.
We’ve seen all these arguments before - they basically boil down to a group of people so ingrown staring down their lint filled navels that they rival fundamental Islamists in their fervent dislike of anything which contradicts what they believe should exist; its their religion.
If the Shuttle had been built
in the numbers first stated it
would still be in use.
The second incident was directly related to “green” materials put in place of original materials.
For all of the technical and design issues what really killed both crews was not technical.
The first shuttle was lost because of management and politics that forced a launch outside of operational limitations.
The second shuttle was lost largely due to EPA regulations which resulted in an inferior application of the required insulation.
Shutting down the shuttle program with no replacement left us with no manned spaceflight capability.
I find that to be a bad situation.
- Using the entire vehicle as a re-entry device caused a huge need for heat shielding...since the very beginning, the heat tiles were a problem, always some were lost...which really was walking on a razor’s edge
...
The Shuttle was designed for a military mission to launch from California, snag Soviet satellites and glide back to California in one orbit without being detected. It had to glide a long distance, so the wings were unnecessarily large. That increased weight and required more tiles. Of course, the Shuttle was never used for that purpose but we were stuck with the design.
The second incident would have happened sooner or later regardless of “green” materials. Debris falling from the fuel tank damaged the heat shield tiles on every flight.
We are building the aurora.
Maybe build more, but the ones we had probably went well beyond their day and would have eventually shook apart on a launch.
The second incident was directly related to “green†materials put in place of original materials.
...
That’s a myth that was spread by Limbaugh.
The fatal piece that hit the wing was made with the older foam.
To add to your list:
- Because the PR aspect of the shuttle needed to plant the idea of space travel as routine, the shuttle was designed to land like a conventional aircraft. This meant landing gear, wings, and systems to control an aircraft-like landing process.
Much weight, cost, and complexity could have been saved if the shuttle simply splashed down in the ocean like a typical space craft returning from orbit, but that didn’t fit NASA’s marketing plans.
I think I read that the first “populated”(can’t say ‘manned’ anymore due to PC rulings and regs) launch has been pushed to 2021 now. Also, Sierra Nevada has gotten a contract for their mini-shuttle to fly some missions after all.
http://spacenews.com/europe-to-invest-in-sierra-nevadas-dream-chaser-cargo-vehicle/
Then there’s this about Orion:
http://spacenews.com/lockheed-says-orion-still-on-schedule-for-2018-mission/
Should have planned a second transport vehicle before shuttering the STS.
There was some risk, but so far it’s been less costly, probably safer, and hasn’t caused us any problems other than some concern that relations with Russia could deteriorate further.
We’re at the point now that a United States crewed vehicle could be sent to the ISS within a few months if there was an emergency.
Two hundred billion dollars and thirty years wasted riding around and around and around in a clunky low earth orbit pickup truck instead of returning to the moon and prepping for journeys to other planets.
Should have just saved the money.
I never said the problem wasn’t solvable.
It’s still a problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.