Wernher von Braun was against Shuttle, but...

At July 4th I saw in German TV an interview with an older journalist.
Yeah, a journalist was interviewd by a journalist. The old guy said he
once did an interview with Wernher von Braun. Von Braun remarked that
the Shuttle is a bad idea. "Its the second step before the first" and
it will have reliability problems because its too complicated. I always
thought that WvB was a supporter of the shuttle. I dont know the time
of the interview or whether his remarks were off the record. The
reliability issue is a matter of course. But what did he mean by
"first step"? A space station as answer seems not to fit as it only
helps to give the shuttle a better reason to exist. For me it sounds
like he had some launch system in mind. Any idea?


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##

wrote in :


At July 4th I saw in German TV an interview with an older journalist.
Yeah, a journalist was interviewd by a journalist. The old guy said he
once did an interview with Wernher von Braun. Von Braun remarked that
the Shuttle is a bad idea. "Its the second step before the first" and
it will have reliability problems because its too complicated. I always
thought that WvB was a supporter of the shuttle. I dont know the time
of the interview or whether his remarks were off the record. The
reliability issue is a matter of course. But what did he mean by
"first step"?

Most likely, that *experimental* reusable vehicles should precede
*operational* reusable vehicles.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Most likely, that *experimental* reusable vehicles should precede
*operational* reusable vehicles.



That's the inference I'd take from his remark.
It's a pity we didn't build the X-20 Dyna-Soar, if for no other reason
than to get experience in the operations and maintenance requirements of
a reusable winged spacecraft.

Pat

wrote:

The old guy said he
once did an interview with Wernher von Braun. Von Braun remarked that
the Shuttle is a bad idea. "Its the second step before the first" and
it will have reliability problems because its too complicated. I always
thought that WvB was a supporter of the shuttle.

One of that group of german rocketeers was quoted as saying
something like 'they've reinvented the wheel -- and made it square.'
I don't recall who it was, though.

Paul

wrote:
At July 4th I saw in German TV an interview with an older journalist.
Yeah, a journalist was interviewd by a journalist. The old guy said he
once did an interview with Wernher von Braun. Von Braun remarked that
the Shuttle is a bad idea. "Its the second step before the first" and
it will have reliability problems because its too complicated. I always
thought that WvB was a supporter of the shuttle. I dont know the time
of the interview or whether his remarks were off the record. The
reliability issue is a matter of course. But what did he mean by
"first step"? A space station as answer seems not to fit as it only
helps to give the shuttle a better reason to exist. For me it sounds
like he had some launch system in mind. Any idea?


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##



Wernher von Braun was a vertical tubular rocket scientist/engineer par
exellence. If NASA went the way of Shuttle/Waverider vehicles then von
Braun might have to take second place to other scientist/engineers. So
there is some 'self serving' going on here.

The fact is winged rockets, or waveriders if you prefer, have
reusability and increased flexibility to offer. A large waverider
could be used to do a sub-orbital mission by carrying a large payload
to a distant city, place a sizable payload in orbit, or take a smaller
payload to the Moon. And, such a winged vehicle can return without a
half random parachute reentry. And, it could return with a sizable
payload too.

The Space Shuttle has proven itself despite Wernher von Braun's dire
prediction. More than 100 Shuttle flights prove it to be a spaceworthy
waverider. It is now time for a full HTOL (Horizontal TakeOff and
Land) version. It is now time for a Waverider.


tomcat

On 15 Jul 2006 15:21:39 -0700, "tomcat" wrote:

The Space Shuttle has proven itself

It was supposed to cost $100/pound of payload. I think I read that it
is actually about $10,000/pound.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

Bob Haller wrote:

shuttle was unsafe boondoggle from day one. nice idea cheap design


At two billion dollars per orbiter (the cost of replacing Challenger
with Endeavor) I wouldn't call it "cheap".
That's 2/5ths the price of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier.
Here's some other ways to grasp just how much money a Shuttle orbiter costs:
The ocean liner Queen Mary II cost $800 million so you could get two for
less than the price of one orbiter. If this makes one think that we are
getting taken to the cleaners be the aerospace industry when we have
them build a Shuttle, you are not the only one.
A Virginia class attack sub costs around the same as a Shuttle orbiter
though- 2 billion each.
Now let's have some fun: Endeavour weighs 172,000 lbs. with her motors,
or 2,752,000 ounces...or around 2,507,000 Troy ounces... now gold costs
around $400 per Troy ounce these days, so if we take our Shuttle and put
it on Sir Percival's scale with the duck, and start heaping gold on the
other side until it crushes the witch, we will find that the Shuttle's
weight in gold is worth around $1,002,800,000 dollars. So that a Shuttle
orbiter costs around twice its own weight in gold.
Now, a gold 1 Troy ounce coin- such as the .999 pure gold Canadian
Maple Leaf in this case- is 2.8 mm thick; so if we were to stack up the
number of them required to buy an orbiter (2,507,000) we would have a
pile of coins 7,574,000 mm; or 7,574 meters, or (to return to a more
civilized form of cyphering, untainted by the monstrous infamies
inflicted by the French on that cold and barren nation's mathematics.)
24,849 feet in height- or to put it another way- 4.7 miles high...up
where (if you were standing on top of it) you would go unconscious in
around 3-5 minutes due to lack of oxygen.
You don't want to know how high a pile of Sakawea dollar coins would be;
at 2 mm each, you would need a pile of them 4,000,000,000 mm high to buy
a Shuttle orbiter...in other words, you would be around 2,500 miles
up, far beyond the Shuttle's reach, and enjoying the subtle delights of
the inner Van Allen Belt.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Bob Haller wrote:

shuttle was unsafe boondoggle from day one. nice idea cheap design


At two billion dollars per orbiter (the cost of replacing Challenger
with Endeavor) I wouldn't call it "cheap".

True, although a lot of money was spent to solve problems and build things on
the shuttle which were never needed. The cargo bay was unusually large to
support very large DoD satellites, because policy was made to have shuttle be
the sole launch vehicle for all satellites in USA, civilian, government,
military. This choice was made to get needed funding from military budgets.

The wings were made larger than they should have needed to be otherwise, to
support cross range gliding capacity for polar orbit launches from Vandenberg
AFB. This was never used. However, the larger wings led to much greater
thermal challenges and lower safety margins for reentry.

As a result of these changes, the shuttle became much larger and heavier.
Important safety features, including a go around feature for landing and viable
crew escape system were deleted from the design. So while the shuttle wasn't
"cheap," many priorities led to over engineering some aspects (which were never
used anyway) at the expense of cheap decisions elsewhere.

The result is the shuttle is much more expensive to build and operate than it
could have been, and more dangerous too. After Challenger, priorities got
shifted and safety became more conservative (Centaur liquid fueled upper stage,
polar launches, military use all got deleted) but it was too late for much of
the shuttle design.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:06:37 -0400, Bob Wilson
wrote:


The cargo bay was unusually large to
support very large DoD satellites, because policy was made to have shuttle be
the sole launch vehicle for all satellites in USA, civilian, government,
military.

A bad idea, IMO.

---
Replace you know what by j to email

The final Shuttle design, as we see it today, is a result of trying to
keep the initial cost of development and construction down. The only
problem with this is that it costs way more in the long run.