Does anyone know why the shuttle happened?

"D. Orbitt" wrote in message
ps.com...
In my mind, the biggest problem was the military wanted to be able to
use the same design, and they added requirements of size, capacity,
and cross-range in the landing profile that bloated the design and
upped the costs.

NASA was happy to get the political support of "the military" behind the
shuttle program, because they were having a hard time justifying the
development costs if they were going to be the only users of the system.

Worse, after forcing all the compromises, the
Military then mostly abandoned using the shuttle for defense payloads.

Only after it became painfully obvious that the design was a real dog in
terms of turn around times and costs.

Had they gone with the simpler Max Faget design, I think we would have
had a better program and better results for the money, and a follow-on
higher-capacity shuttle cpould have evolved organically from that.

You sound like you think they had a choice. They didn't, since they didn't
have the political backing to spend the money needed for Max Faget's fully
reusable two stage design, even if the orbiter in that design was physically
smaller than the orbiter we got.

The fully reusable two stage design would have likely had higher development
costs than the existing shuttle, since you're essentially designing two
complex, reusable vehicles. The existing shuttle replaced an expensive to
design reusable first stage with a big, dumb external tank and two big, dumb
solid rocket boosters which were both fairly easy to design.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On Jul 6, 10:51?am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:33:04 -0000, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:



well shuttle could still be converted to unmanned operation today, if
so desired.

this is obvious solution to allow ISS completion

No, that would be stupid, and pointless. ISS completion is occurring,
with crew.

time is running out, supposed end date 2010, new crew vehicle about
2014.

unmanning shuttle could allow operations till just one orbiter
remains.

no risk of future deaths,

killing crews is whats killing the shuttle

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:22:52 -0000, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

well shuttle could still be converted to unmanned operation today, if
so desired.

this is obvious solution to allow ISS completion

No, that would be stupid, and pointless. ISS completion is occurring,
with crew.

time is running out, supposed end date 2010, new crew vehicle about
2014.

unmanning shuttle could allow operations till just one orbiter
remains.

We could do that with crew, though it would stretch out the program to
a ridiculous and expensive length. And without crew, we couldn't
perform the assembly, or change out crew. The primary reason to fly
the Shuttle is because it delivers crew.

no risk of future deaths,

If completing the station is important, it's worth risking crews for.

killing crews is whats killing the shuttle

No, destroying orbiters and costing too much is what's killing the
Shuttle. We have no astronaut shortage.

And (not that it's news to long-time readers of the newsgroup) you're
an idiot.

On Jul 6, 1:53 pm, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"D. Orbitt" wrote in message

ps.com...

In my mind, the biggest problem was the military wanted to be able to
use the same design, and they added requirements of size, capacity,
and cross-range in the landing profile that bloated the design and
upped the costs.

NASA was happy to get the political support of "the military" behind the
shuttle program, because they were having a hard time justifying the
development costs if they were going to be the only users of the system.

Worse, after forcing all the compromises, the
Military then mostly abandoned using the shuttle for defense payloads.

Only after it became painfully obvious that the design was a real dog in
terms of turn around times and costs.

Had they gone with the simpler Max Faget design, I think we would have
had a better program and better results for the money, and a follow-on
higher-capacity shuttle cpould have evolved organically from that.

You sound like you think they had a choice. They didn't, since they didn't
have the political backing to spend the money needed for Max Faget's fully
reusable two stage design, even if the orbiter in that design was physically
smaller than the orbiter we got.

The fully reusable two stage design would have likely had higher development
costs than the existing shuttle, since you're essentially designing two
complex, reusable vehicles. The existing shuttle replaced an expensive to
design reusable first stage with a big, dumb external tank and two big, dumb
solid rocket boosters which were both fairly easy to design.

Jeff, IMO, fully reusable systems do not have
to cost more to develop. This economic factor
is poorly understood even today--and it was
certainly misunderstood in the Econ economic
model that favored the current shuttle design
over Phase A two-stage designs or Max Faget's
two-stage design.

Simply said, throw-away hardware runs up the
cost in the development phase--as well as
in the operational phase. A fully reusable
system can utilize incremental, airplane-like,
flight testing. If this is combined with appropriate
program management, then one can avoid the
hand-wringing, horrendously expensive, test
and reliabliity efforts that result when one has
to progress by steps that are too big and
expensive. Low operational costs can--if done
right--permit lower development costs.

Len


Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

unmanning shuttle could allow operations till just one orbiter
remains.

We could do that with crew, though it would stretch out the program to
a ridiculous and expensive length. And without crew, we couldn't
perform the assembly, or change out crew. The primary reason to fly
the Shuttle is because it delivers crew.

no risk of future deaths,

If completing the station is important, it's worth risking crews for.

killing crews is whats killing the shuttle

No, destroying orbiters and costing too much is what's killing the
Shuttle. We have no astronaut shortage.

And (not that it's news to long-time readers of the newsgroup) you're
an idiot.

crew can and will go by soyuz till when or if america gets a new
manned launcher.

but the modules currently built have no other way to be launched. they
are really over sized freight, and should be treated as such.

politically killing more crews isnt acceptable.

if / when shuttle kills again does anyone think it will EVER fly
again?

shortage of astronauts no, polytical will to send them to their deaths
no longer exists

wrote:

Mind you, this takes things into the 60s. But during the late 60s it
appears that everyone involved had become fixated on the idea that
some sort of a shuttle should replase the tried, tested and efficient
spacecaptule.

You have it precisely backwards. During the late 50's and early 60's
the idea arose that primitive and jury rigged capsules could be a
short term solution to getting into space _now_. Later they would be
replaced with more conventional spacecraft (I.E. winged and resembling
aircraft).

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"D. Orbitt" wrote:

Had they gone with the simpler Max Faget design, I think we would have
had a better program and better results for the money, and a follow-on
higher-capacity shuttle cpould have evolved organically from that

Assuming the Faget shuttle worked (or could have been made to work
after suitable investment).

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:53:00 -0000, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

killing crews is whats killing the shuttle

No, destroying orbiters and costing too much is what's killing the
Shuttle. We have no astronaut shortage.

And (not that it's news to long-time readers of the newsgroup) you're
an idiot.

crew can and will go by soyuz till when or if america gets a new
manned launcher.

Not enough to complete station construction.

but the modules currently built have no other way to be launched. they
are really over sized freight, and should be treated as such.

politically killing more crews isnt acceptable.

Of course it is. I already told you, we have an oversupply of
astronauts.

if / when shuttle kills again does anyone think it will EVER fly
again?

Probably not, but not because it killed crew. It will be because
there are too few orbiters left to complete the job in a reasonable
time.

shortage of astronauts no, polytical will to send them to their deaths
no longer exists

You continue to be an idiot, who can neither punctuate, capitalize, or
spell..

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:22:52 -0000, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

well shuttle could still be converted to unmanned operation today, if
so desired.

this is obvious solution to allow ISS completion

No, that would be stupid, and pointless. ISS completion is occurring,
with crew.

time is running out, supposed end date 2010, new crew vehicle about
2014.

unmanning shuttle could allow operations till just one orbiter
remains.

We could do that with crew, though it would stretch out the program to
a ridiculous and expensive length. And without crew, we couldn't
perform the assembly, or change out crew. The primary reason to fly
the Shuttle is because it delivers crew.

no risk of future deaths,

If completing the station is important, it's worth risking crews for.

killing crews is whats killing the shuttle

No, destroying orbiters and costing too much is what's killing the
Shuttle. We have no astronaut shortage.

And (not that it's news to long-time readers of the newsgroup) you're
an idiot.

Let the Russians fly in the crew, let the hardware fly in the shuttle.

Cheers, Einar

Derek Lyons wrote:
wrote:

Mind you, this takes things into the 60s. But during the late 60s it
appears that everyone involved had become fixated on the idea that
some sort of a shuttle should replase the tried, tested and efficient
spacecaptule.

You have it precisely backwards. During the late 50's and early 60's
the idea arose that primitive and jury rigged capsules could be a
short term solution to getting into space _now_. Later they would be
replaced with more conventional spacecraft (I.E. winged and resembling
aircraft).

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

I see, so it was the classic rocketship 40s - 50s schi-fi idea, with
wings and all, looking somewhat like an aeroplane, except it could
supposedly fly in space, that they had at the back of theyr heads?

I remember the old movie, "when worlds collide". Everibody thought in
the old schi fi stories that rocketships would be sleek looking, would
have wings and would take off and land on a planet each time.

When I was younger I got into my father´s collection of schi-fi books
dating back to the 40s through to the 60s. I read most of them. Some
of them were dated in amusing ways, nice to read the same.

Cheers, Einar