Space Transportation: Is the Space Shuttle concept dead?

[Chris Bergin]

I think that NASA should use a reliable workhorse, just as the Russians do for decades with their way less anomaly and delay-annoyed Soyuz. Changing back to capsule design is the best thing NASA could have ever done for decades.

The shuttle is dangerous, sure, but so is Soyuz. Firstly, Soyuz very nearly killed its crew on two of the last three re-entrys. Secondly, it's tough to compare Soyuz or capsules to Shuttle. It's like comparing a Sokda to an 18 wheeler juggernaut.

Shuttle is more dangerous, not only because of her design, but by the very nature she's taking 40 ton of cargo with her, as well as a seven man crew.

Of course, the inline design of LVs that carry capsules is safer (LAS etc).

It's probably coming down to a crew and cargo debate, with the argument being made to keep them separate, but Soyuz isn't all that great for what it is on safety, compared to shuttle and what she is, with *only* two failures.

Not to mention Ares/Orion is still on the drawing board, and still going through TO mitigation in order not to 'incapacitate' the crew.
(Subnote: Though progress has been made - via computer modelling - on TO mitigation via dampers and TMAs.)

We won't see anything like the shuttle again for decades, but mainly because she was technically ahead of her time.

[Moonwalker]

The shuttle is dangerous, sure, but so is Soyuz. Firstly, Soyuz very nearly killed its crew on two of the last three re-entrys. Secondly, it's tough to compare Soyuz or capsules to Shuttle. It's like comparing a Sokda to an 18 wheeler juggernaut.

Shuttle is more dangerous, not only because of her design, but by the very nature she's taking 40 ton of cargo with her, as well as a seven man crew.

Of course, the inline design of LVs that carry capsules is safer (LAS etc).

It's probably coming down to a crew and cargo debate, with the argument being made to keep them separate, but Soyuz isn't all that great for what it is on safety, compared to shuttle and what she is, with *only* two failures.

Not to mention Ares/Orion is still on the drawing board, and still going through TO mitigation in order not to 'incapacitate' the crew.
(Subnote: Though progress has been made - via computer modelling - on TO mitigation via dampers and TMAs.)

We won't see anything like the shuttle again for decades, but mainly because she was technically ahead of her time.

Well, I just think it is better to change back to capsules and that constellation is taking the right path if we want to leave low earth orbit in the long term.

Of course the Shuttle is way ahead its time and certainly the finest machine NASA has ever build. It revolutionized manned space flight engineering once again after Apollo. But the Shuttle is rather expensive and requires a lot of man-power on the ground. Even then, its complexity and design still delays missions significantly, and it has probably the biggest anomaly record ever. It nearly eats up NASA and prevents other systems being developed for returning to the Moon and try to go beyond.

Soyuz is a real workhorse, although it does not cary cargo and not more than 3 crew members. But Soyuz is rather reliable (delays) and can be enhanced, and is going to be enhanced for future moon orbit mission profiles. By Soyuz, Russia has a rather good basis for future space exploration and frequent launches to the ISS and future systems. And it does not nearly cost what the Shuttle program costs. Of course, Soyuz is not less dangerous. We really have to keep in mind that space flight on the whole will always be a risky business. But the Shuttle has a major design flaw, and changes were not archived on papers very well as the STS-107 investigation found out. The Shuttles days are numbered already for many years. It was just the ISS which required to keep it alive until today. But still, NASA is doing a very great and hard job to keep it flying. I think some at the cape and on other centers are really underpaid. And it is understandable that they don't want to lose their jobs.

Anyway, Ares is still on the papers and computers basically. But it is not unlikely that it can become a more frequent and less expensive launcher than the Shuttle. To me it is not bad at all what is going to happen within the next few years. It is going to become rather interesting. Behind the glamorous curtain, NASA was not on the right path for many years if we talk about going into deep space again, which is actually what manned space flight should be about, in my point of view. With the retirement of the Shuttle, there is a chance of new light in manned space flight history. We really need to move forward, and I just can't wait to see some new things happening. And I also want to see Soyuz enhanced, which is going to happen.

[Admin]

Chris, thank you for chiming in!

Yes, IMHO the Shuttle concept was and still is ahead of its time. I am sure the concept will return in a similar but safer format in the future - hopefully still in OUR future

Following the Soyuz near-kills (yes, saw they needed full medical attention after those "landings"), for the Orion program NASA decided to stop toying with the option of a land-based capsule recovery and go for the old, proven and safer sea-based recovery.

Who'd have believed that the Apollo concept will return after three decades? If so, the Shuttle may raise from its figurative ashes once again!

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

Following the Soyuz near-kills (yes, saw they needed full medical attention after those "landings"), for the Orion program NASA decided to stop toying with the option of a land-based capsule recovery and go for the old, proven and safer sea-based recovery.

Even water landings are a big challenge for the structure of a vehicle. The Apollo capsules were actually dead after splashdown (deformed). The impact attenuation system of the command module had to absorb 12 to 40 G's, depending on the waves and rate of descent. Following the fact that Orion is going to have more mass, I'm honestly still curious how the're going to make it reusable for several times...

Who'd have believed that the Apollo concept will return after three decades?

Honestly, I did so for many years. At least I hoped so since the mid 1990's

[desktopsimmer]

Back in the late 90's, I thought After the Shuttle program retires, a simpler form of the shuttle would evolve (hmm, evolve, missing from NASA's vocabulary?), basically a crew craft, not a cargo craft, unlike the shuttle. The X-38, or similar was going to be my best guess, but that was cancelled for budget/political* reasons.

I was surprised and applauded the Klipper design by the Russians, but they ran into budget concerns.

I after some early test results and 'minor' (that's sarcasm BTW) modification to the design, I honestly can't see Orion being totally reusable, okay maybe seats, computers, some electrical, but the craft itself...well time will tell....

* delete as applicable

[spaceboy7441]

Well first off I think that a capsule is really the best way to go back to the moon. The problem I have is that they say that the ares is going to be used for mars missions but I don't see that happening! They need a bigger rocket (roomier) or a lot faster way to get there.

BTW Admin could you switch the relivent posts into a new thread for sepperate disscution so we can keep this thread for launch and delay info

[JLM]

Or have crew craft that deploys short wings and can land on runways.

[RMS Driver]

That's too cpmplicated. Wings would add unneeded weight to the capsule, and that's a no-no on longer missions since they need more consumables and propellants.

[dtoups]

In a perfect world, with an extremely stable economy, I would love to see the shuttle (either one or two) stay in service as an ISS repair/resupply ship.  Who knows if there would ever be a problem with lets say the P4 truss segment.  What if possibly the solar arrays stopped working for some reason...then we are down a set of solar arrays limiting power to the ISS with a fully established 6 person crew.  Of course we dont have a spare P4 truss segment, but we can send up critical components with extra man power to repair it in rotational shifts around the clock with 6 people on each shift...2 or 3 Astronauts outside with at least 3 inside controlling RMS or SRMS and what not.  Of course I hope this never happens...

Now...since we don't live in a perfect world, the space shuttle was and still is slightly ahead of it's time. Think about after the STS-107 tragedy, a lot of the ground crew were amazed watching the shuttle doing the rendevous pitch manuver.  There are probably other things that the shuttle is capable of that no one has thought of or if they have, it's just too risky to attempt it without an unmanned flight.  Saying that, I do truly think it is time to retire the fleet and look forward to landing man on the moon again and going to Mars.  The shuttle is the most remarkable flying object there has ever been, but I think the next thing that will have the impact that the shuttle has had would be the ability to cut the time to get to the moon or Mars in half. 

[Admin]

Meanwhile...

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2341906,00.asp

I guess that after 2010 the only way to fly a Shuttle mission end-to-end will be with SSM2010... sad, but I understand the decision.

/Admin

[dtoups]

Well, between now and then, I guess I better reserve a spot to watch a mission launch and/or land...I've always wanted to go watch a launch!

[Chris Bergin]

Meanwhile...

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2341906,00.asp

I guess that after 2010 the only way to fly a Shuttle mission end-to-end will be with SSM2010... sad, but I understand the decision.

/Admin

Not so (as in there's been a major mess up by classing it as policy, it's not. Even SSP messed up and thought it meant an end to extension). For clarification, see this post from Senator (I can't name him, "51D", that's a bit of a clue though):

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16002.msg370515#msg370515

Senator Hutchinson will address the Houston media on this and NASA are expected to put out a retraction statement (which I think I'm going to get to run first ) noting that extension is still on and will be decided as per studies in a few months/summer.

ALWAYS question what you read, especially when it's from a wire service as above (and copied by some tech site), although this mistake is forgivable as even NASA thought it was a policy statement.

2012, most likely, is still on the cards, especially when it's a disaster waiting to happen if they think they can push Ares forward. That program is in a complete mess.

[Admin]

Thanks Chris,

Happy for the Shuttle, sad for Constellation. Why can't we get TWO good news in a row ?

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

I don't think that a continuance of the Shuttle program is happy for the Shutte and NASA. It does not decrease the post-STS gap at all, and also increases the risk of another crew loss. For the sake to see it flying a little bit longer, it is just happy for Shuttle fans.

I'd say that the manned part of NASA is in a complete mess, including the Shutte program, which without the existance of the ISS NEVER would have been operated with a requirement of STS-400, OBSS and the pitch maneuver. NASA finally has to shut manned space flight down and should concentrate to develope a new spacecraft that is not only bounded to low earth orbit anymore. People have to accept that there WILL be a gap after STS anyway, no matter if it ends in 2010 or slightly beyond.

[Firecapt_32]

I can understand the thinking in terms of Reliability Vs. Technology. But, their "workhorse" still hasn't put Russian boots on the moon.