The strangest space vehicle

[Admiral8Q]

I miss this, hard to believe it's so long ago.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Admiral8Q

I miss this, hard to believe it's so long ago.

Those were the days.

Thanks for sharing.

[Jimbuna]

Bit of a shame it has all come to an end.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Bit of a shame it has all come to an end.

I have a different opinion. The STS was nice while it lasted but needed to be killed. The design had too many political, economic, and technical compromises. Some of which prevented any real major improvements.

The re-useability was mostly in name only as we were never able to turn the orbiter around for another flight without major repairs and inspections. It is unfortunate that the concept of re-useability added a lot of the cost and did not really garner that much of a benefit. The cost in the terms of pounds to low earth orbit were much higher in this "re-usable" system.

In 1995, when I wrote my paper, using the STS cost $6,000 per pound into LEO. Using the 100% expendable S1B (one of the more expensive systems we had), it cost $2,000 per pound in LEO.

Technology has advanced to where we could build a better more efficient STS. But according to the actual rocket scientists I work with, there really is no need for an STS.

What is needed is a reliable, relatively inexpensive, and more importantly expandable launch vehicle, which we have developed with the Delta/Atlas/EELV families of lift vehicles. These can do more than the STS could, cheaper, more reliably and as the technology matures, more modifiable.

It was a novel idea, but at the time, the compromises of the design limited its practicability and cost.

[GoldenRivet]

"Six and a half million pounds of thrust..."


that put a big smile on my face

[magic452]

This is hanging in my closet. The official NASA crew jacket.



My brother was the guy that gave all the astronauts their final walk through before NASA accepted each shuttle. Got this for my mom.

Magic

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

"Six and a half million pounds of thrust..."


that put a big smile on my face

Puts a lasting impression on your arse.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Puts a lasting impression on your arse.

Just a bit

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by magic452

This is hanging in my closet. The official NASA crew jacket.

Now that's just...magic!

[TG626]

The sts big accomplishments were convincing the soviets to waste money on Buran, and getting Nixon votes in socal.

Imagine where we might be if we had moved forward with Apollo...

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by magic452

This is hanging in my closet.

Very nice indeed

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by TG626

Imagine where we might be if we had moved forward with Apollo...

Some more guys would have their names in the history books, and we'd have a bigger rock collection.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[TG626]

No no, there was an advanced Apollo applications program that got scrapped in favor of the shuttle. Skylab was a hamstrung example of it. There were some really interesting ideas, and even if there weren't wed at least be able to orbit our astronauts in an advanced version of a Saturn Ib / Apollo CSM rather then a Soyuz.

http://www.nss.org/resources/library.../chapter02.htm

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by TG626

The sts big accomplishments were convincing the soviets to waste money on Buran, and getting Nixon votes in socal.

Imagine where we might be if we had moved forward with Apollo...

The whole reason for the space program in the first place has been revealed in a Transformers movie.

Has anyone else noticed that Ted looks a lot like a certain Mythbuster?

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I have a different opinion. The STS was nice while it lasted but needed to be killed. The design had too many political, economic, and technical compromises. Some of which prevented any real major improvements.

The re-useability was mostly in name only as we were never able to turn the orbiter around for another flight without major repairs and inspections. It is unfortunate that the concept of re-useability added a lot of the cost and did not really garner that much of a benefit. The cost in the terms of pounds to low earth orbit were much higher in this "re-usable" system.

In 1995, when I wrote my paper, using the STS cost $6,000 per pound into LEO. Using the 100% expendable S1B (one of the more expensive systems we had), it cost $2,000 per pound in LEO.

Umm I think there is something is a little off with your math (or maybe it's my sources).

According to NASA, each launch with the SST in today's dollars cost an average of about $470 million, and could lift 53,600 lbs to LEO.

The Saturn 1B cost $310 million in today's dollars, but could only lift 46,000 lbs to LEO

The shuttle cost $8770 per pound of payload to LEO, while the Saturn 1B cost $6740 per pound of payload to LEO.

For fun the Saturn V cost $1.19 billion in today's dollars per launch and could lift 260,000 lbs to LEO. So it would cost $4580 per pound of payload to LEO.


So amazingly the massive Saturn V's were the most cost effective platform of the three. The only problem with them was their capacity was way to high for most missions (even if you stacked a whole raft of satellites together, it still is not cost effective for those purposes). But I believe the Russian launchers are even more cost effective. Of course it helps that those rockets were massed produced unlike any of the Saturn rockets.

Anyhow the shuttle had its uses and could do things no other craft could as easily. Such as satellite repair or recapture to be brought back down, running many experiments, carrying a large crew compliment, and I believe it was rather useful in building the ISS. But as for its intended purpose to lower costs while acting as a lifting platform, that it clearly failed in.