Space Shuttle Theory

[wwwmwww]

Hello,

After watching all the news coverage this week of the issues with foam falling off the shuttles exterior fuel tank and seeing so many people eager to jump up and call it a design flaw, a question popped into my head that I'd LOVE to see asked. However I'm not sure were this question should best be directed so I thought I'd bounce it off a few of the aviation experts here to see if they thought I was on to something. First let me say that I have a Ph.D. in Physics and I've been a process engineer in the semicomductor industry for almost a decade. I can't count the number of times I've seen this scenario:

1) Engineer_A/Designer_A creates something that works and has all his checks and balances in place. He knows his part/design/process better then anyone else is ever going to.

2) Engineer_A/Designer_A retires, is laid off, fired, or for some other reason replaced with Engineer_B/Designer_B.

3) Engineer_B/Designer_B under heavy pressure to cut costs removes a check put in place by Engineer_A/Designer_A that he doesn't fully understand the reason for and creates a very big mess.

I've seen the above scenario play out over and over again. It usually is the result of management trying to save a few dollars and more often then not it costs them millions.

Anyways with that in mind who here remembers that the external fuel tank used to be painted white?

I even remember the claim being made that the reason they stopped painting it was two fold. One it saved them the cost of the paint and the labor needed to apply it. Two it reduced the weight of the tank by the weight of the paint that used to be applied. The number 40 pounds rings a bell in my head but I'm not sure I trust that memory.

So the question that's playing over and over in my head... did anyone stop to ask WHY they painted it in the first place before they asked how much money they could save by not painting it? Is it possible that who ever designed it wanted some special paint applied over the foam specifically for the reason of keeping the foam from falling off during a launch?

Part of me tells me I have to be out in left field as I have NO access to NASA and surely the brains at NASA would have found the problem in 2 and a half years had it been that simple. But the other part of me knows that 9 times out of 10 its the very simple/obvious things that get over looked.

Anyone here have any REAL info or experience in this area? If I'm on to something any idea how to get this thought to someone at NASA that might actually be able to act on it?

I've always been a big fan of the space program and personally I'm hoping the Space Shuttle has many safe flights left in her.

Thanks... just couldn't sleep tonight till I got that off my chest,

Carl

Edited July 30, 2005 by wwwmwww

[Pat S]

Good idea really. The ice has to come from somewhere, sealing the tank before filling it may at least help.

From Widipedia entry on the Shuttles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle

For STS-1 and STS-2 the external tank was painted white to protect the insulation that covers much of the tank, but improvements and testing showed that it was not required. This saved considerable weight, and thereby increases the payload the Orbiter can carry into orbit.

500 lbs according to this link...

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11022.html

[Hurin]

At the time of the Columbia disaster, I read in several places that there was not originally a problem with the foam breaking apart and falling off the tank. The problem only arose when NASA was forced to change the foam and/or its application methods due to "environmental concerns.

At first, I thought this was only political propoganda, but I actually found a NASA document backing it up here.

[David Hingtgen]

On the other hand, I've read on other aviation forums that foam has been a problem since day one, to the point that the first few flights had nets set up under the shuttle to catch it all, as it flaked off all day and night prior to the actual launch. Thus, new foam is actually better.

In summary: foam's always broken off, only once did it ever actually damage the shuttle, but it was fatal damage.

Common scenario 2, most often exhibited by the FAA, the so-called tombstone method:

Let a problem go until it results in fatalities. It's a known problem, always happens, but nothing REALLY bad ever happened. Until now. Fix it only after something really bad happens.

Common scenario 2, version B. Take the above, but be sure to have a similar problem in a similar system. People have died because of failures of the first system, but since the other, similar system has never actually had a serious problem, don't bother fixing it, even if the fix for this system would be similar to the fix for the first system.

This just happened with Discovery. There are 2 types of foam "ramps" on the tank for aerodynamic purposes. "PAL" and "bipod". They serve a similar purpose, and are made in similar ways that make them rather unique among all the foam on the tank. One broke off and lead to Columbia's destruction. So they fixed that one. The other, similar foam ramp was left as is. Guess what? That's the one that broke off for Discovery's recent flight.

"Never fix anything until you have to, even if nigh-identical parts have failed identical ways and caused deaths".

It's to the point that if "system 113, 114, 115, and 117" all failed in a row, they'd replace them, but never even consider taking a look at system 116...

[Kin]

The spaceshuttle is obsolete... NASA should use the existing new techniques.

Nowadays, they don't have guts to risk lives.. unlike the coldwar..

[Nightbat]

The spaceshuttle is obsolete... NASA should use the existing new techniques.

Nowadays, they don't have guts to risk lives.. unlike the coldwar..

315723[/snapback]

Only of that 50% is true

Problem is that NASA is risking lives purely for results, not for succes

they need to get contracts in, without the "coldwar" budget they cut corners everywhere

Problem is: NASA=the Shuttles

without them they're dead

if they keep going this way, you might as well kill it now

[Knight26]

One of the things you have to realize is that the shuttle was never intended to be operating this long. When it was originally developed the shuttle was slated for one purpose, to build the space station, which was suppossed to be completed by 1995! NASA has never stopped looking for shuttle replacements, even after the first few launches proposals started coming out for much smaller crew only launch vehicles. Politics and money kept any of these from seeing life, as is usually the case. That is one of the reasons why the Anasazi Z-Prize came into being, too many people were frustrated with NASAs lack of progress and unwillingness to develop a shuttle replacement.

As for the foam issue. The External tank has always lost foam from day one, as DH said they did used to have nets to catch it, but back then it came off in much smaller/lighter pieces. THere was a foam change in the early/mid nineties because of environmental concerns, the stuff is highly toxic and the application method was pure 70's environmental disaster. The major result of which to the shuttle is that the foam does not flake off as easily, but when it does it comes off in large chunks. NASA has always known about it, but prior to columbia none of it ever hit the shuttle, or if it did it was always small. Also, the shuttle has always lost tiles during launch, but it has never lost those critical leading edge wing tiles before.

My personnal opnion as a fan and believer in the space program is that the shuttle should be grounded permanently. It should have been grounded years ago. It should be replaced as soon as possible with a smaller crew only vehicle, with only minimal cargo capacity. Launching cargo into space and or large space station modules should be done by heavy lift rockets. We should also put more R&D back into the single stage to orbit space-planes/space-craft. Basically in other words we need seperate launch vehicles for personnel and cargo until such time as we have the technoonology to allow for safely doing both again.

[mikeszekely]

My personnal opnion as a fan and believer in the space program is that the shuttle should be grounded permanently. It should have been grounded years ago.

Seconded.

And I find it somewhat ironic that, despite several designs, a replacement for the shuttle was never chosen, with cost being the main reason cited. Meanwhile, they've spent over a billion dollars trying to get the shuttles back into space after the Columbia disaster (with no flights during that 2 and a half year period), only to have to ground the shuttles again because the problem hasn't been fixed. It might have initially been costly, but if they'd settled on a replacement, we'd have probably wound up with something that costs less to launch, and is more safe at that.

Basically in other words we need seperate launch vehicles for personnel and cargo until such time as we have the technoonology to allow for safely doing both again.

I still support NASA, but space flight can't remain the exclusive domain of government agencies if we ever want to see the kind of technology you're talking about. If the computer industry was run by the government, computers would still be tape-reeled mainframes that take up entire basements of college buildings.

[Mechmaster]

They would do better to put their money into the space elevator project, get that up and running and there would no longer be any need for people to ride what is essentialy a barely controlled bomb.

As for the attitude that if it hasn't caused fatalities it doesn't need fixing, I think that is universal. Where I work none of the forklift trucks had driver safety cages until a few years ago when one of our drivers was crushed to death beneath a stack of timber that collapsed when he tried to move it. Now they all have safety cages and drivers have to observe a "safe stacking" code, compared to the cost of overcomiong some of NASA's problems the cost of fixing this safety flaw was negligible, however it still needed someone to die before anything was done.

Lets just hope that the shuttle returns safely and that future missions (if any) go well.

[Kin]

They would do better to put their money into the space elevator project, get that up and running and there would no longer be any need for people to ride what is essentialy a barely controlled bomb.

As for the attitude that if it hasn't caused fatalities it doesn't need fixing, I think that is universal. Where I work none of the forklift trucks had driver safety cages until a few years ago when one of our drivers was crushed to death beneath a stack of timber that collapsed when he tried to move it. Now they all have safety cages and drivers have to observe a "safe stacking" code, compared to the cost of overcomiong some of NASA's problems the cost of fixing this safety flaw was negligible, however it still needed someone to die before anything was done.

Lets just hope that the shuttle returns safely and that future missions (if any) go well.

315738[/snapback]

Heheh... just take 4 of those big rocketboosters and hook the whole spacestation to it.

They are waisting money flying back and forth....

[Sumdumgai]

They would do better to put their money into the space elevator project, get that up and running and there would no longer be any need for people to ride what is essentialy a barely controlled bomb.

315738[/snapback]

Are you talking about some kind of orbital elevator? Orguss anyone?

[buddhafabio]

From what i read from today it has always came off. But not as bad as it has been since 1997 when nasa dropped using Freon as an applicator to the tank for enviromental concerns.

and that the section that lost the foam this latest time is the a section that was not altered when they "redesigned" the tank.

if they were so concerned about the ozone because of freon why are they not concerned with the shuttle punching holes in it every time it goes up? this is even debated if it has an effect in the ozone. i would love to see more data on this.

[JB0]

One of the things you have to realize is that the shuttle was never intended to be operating this long.  When it was originally developed the shuttle was slated for one purpose, to build the space station, which was suppossed to be completed by 1995! 

You are quite mistaken.

The shuttle was NOT designed solely to build ANY space station. Certainly not the ISS, which was inconceivable at the time of its design.

My personnal opnion as a fan and believer in the space program is that the shuttle should be grounded permanently.  It should have been grounded years ago. 

It really never should've been flown.

It was a jack-of-all-trades compromise that was created solely to appease a president that hated the space program and wouldn't approve anything more ambitious, and has never met most of its design goals.

http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/html/start.html

I strongly recommend reading the CAIB report, as it has a good deal of historical background information imbedded in it.

[Knight26]

I wasn't refering the ISS, that comprimise didn't occur until the early nineties. Prior to that, during the cold war, there was the old Space Station Freedom concept, parts of which were actually built, I've laid eyes on the modules. The shuttle was intended to be a jack of all trades spacecraft, but only until the Space Station was built, after that its primary utility would have been fulfilled.

When it comes to replacements, man there have been several that have made it to prototype construction only to be cancelled while they were being built. One notable one was being built specifically for the old Space Station Freedom, it was a small delta designed lifting body intended to carry a seven man crew. It was similar in configuration to the hermes concept and would be carried to orbit on top of a rocket or in the space shuttle cargo bay, but then its wings would have be removed. The ship would then have been left attached to the space station as an emergency escape craft. Back in '91 I actually saw the prototype, it was 75% complete when I walked into the hanger that was holding it, they had started dismantling it the week before. It was a beautiful little craft and a friend of mine who works at NASA is currently working on a similar project to be used strictly as an escape vehicle for the ISS. She has a piece of that old prototype sitting on her desk, I damn near cried when she sent me the picture of her desk and I recognized what it was, she didn't know what it was until I told her.

Burt Rutan worked on several single stage to orbit concepts for NASA in mid nineties to early 2000s. After the Delta-Clipperdebacle he got so sick of the NASA politics that he signed on with the Anasazi X-Prize and we all know what he did with that. The Delta Clipper could have made the first true single stage to orbit space craft had NASA and Congress not lost their nerve after a single test accident with the scaled prototype.

[Lindem Herz]

One of the things you have to realize is that the shuttle was never intended to be operating this long.  When it was originally developed the shuttle was slated for one purpose, to build the space station, which was suppossed to be completed by 1995! 

You are quite mistaken.

The shuttle was NOT designed solely to build ANY space station. Certainly not the ISS, which was inconceivable at the time of its design.

Actually, the shuttle is one part of the two part budget-tight NASA vision for space after Apollo (that is, after the whole permantent station on the Moon/mission to Mars ideas had been shed by the congress and the Vietnam War), which was having a huge space station up there and a Shuttle to service it. However, as it turned out, the budget was further restricted, and evetually there was only enough money to get one of those (and then some -__-), so NASA, instead of stepping back and doing a low cost-Russia style (highly successful, if not in scientific achivements or what not, at least in a LOT of experience) space station/expendable logistics approach, decided to push on with the low cost shuttle model, because without it there wouldn't be a not-so-costly way of putting their space station up there.

Now, the jack of all trades - that's further cost problem. Even the Shuttle program was over the new budget, so NASA had to go to the Air Force and tell them they could launch their stuff on the shuttle and forget all about those costly expendable boosters. Problem was, the design required some extensive modifications (ei, more power for heavier payloads, enough thrust to launch polar orbits, enough cross range to be able to launch and land in Vandenberg doing just one orbit)

That, of course, meant the shuttle was getting heavier, and suddenly it's recoverable booster was getting bigger (and more expensive to develop) than the Saturn V. NASA missed this second decision point and it's alternative (launching a Skylab like station on a Saturn V, service it using Gemini derivatives - like the Big Gemini - on Titan IIIs), and hoped than with a good enough launch rate, the development would pay off. But neither NASA or the Air Force could provide such a rate, so it was decided that practically EVERY US launch would be done with the shuttle.

Of course, that's a flight a week launch rate -______-U

Recipe for cr@p, I say. Further cut costs and weight limits decided that a big reusable booster would be impossible to develop and whatnot, so NASA went for smaller booster rockets (although they were supposed to be liquid, eventually they become solid as those are cheaper to design and fly - to be eventually replaced by liquid. Eventually) and external fuel to save weight on the orbiter.

Compromise after compromise, eventually the Shuttle flew, and during the first years it was good, hell, in 1985, with it's average of one flight per month, it looked like the launch rate of once a week was even really possible, and on March of 1986 the first truly air force only shuttle mission was to be launched, STS 62-A, finally using those extra features that NASA really didn't need. Even then, the first drafts of Space Station Freedom were done, and it looked like they would get their Shuttle and Space Station in the early 90s.

That is, until the Challenger blew up - and suddenly people realized that NASA was flying at breakneck speed on a ship that cut way too much corners - and HAD to work whatever happened, since it had no escape systems for the crew.

The result - no more commercial satelites on the shuttle, air force was back to using the Titans for the time being, a helluva long turn around rate because the ship had to be virtually broke down and put back together to make sure it would work. All the things that the shuttle tried to avoid suddenly became a must.

I love the ship, it's probably the most beautiful spacecraft I've ever seen and a wonderful example of technology - but it has been a doomed white horse since the morning of January 28, 1986. It has been almost 20 years since then. It's time to go. Wouldn't mind seeing them flying again as private ships in 30 or so years, but they have no place as the spearhead of minkind's reaches into space. Pull the plug as soon as it can be done.

Now, 40 years old Soyuz, on the other side... that's a helluva good basic design

Edited July 30, 2005 by Lindem Herz

[JB0]

One of the things you have to realize is that the shuttle was never intended to be operating this long.  When it was originally developed the shuttle was slated for one purpose, to build the space station, which was suppossed to be completed by 1995! 

You are quite mistaken.

The shuttle was NOT designed solely to build ANY space station. Certainly not the ISS, which was inconceivable at the time of its design.

Actually, the shuttle is one part of the two part budget-tight NASA vision for space after Apollo (that is, after the whole permantent station on the Moon/mission to Mars ideas had been shed by the congress and the Vietnam War), which was having a huge space station up there and a Shuttle to service it. However, as it turned out, the budget was further restricted, and evetually there was only enough money to get one of those (and then some -__-), so NASA, instead of stepping back and doing a low cost-Russia style (highly successful, if not in scientific achivements or what not, at least in a LOT of experience) space station/expendable logistics approach, decided to push on with the low cost shuttle model, because without it there wouldn't be a not-so-costly way of putting their space station up there.

Now, the jack of all trades - that's further cost problem. Even the Shuttle program was over the new budget, so NASA had to go to the Air Force and tell them they could launch their stuff on the shuttle and forget all about those costly expendable boosters. Problem was, the design required some extensive modifications (ei, more power for heavier payloads, enough thrust to launch polar orbits, enough cross range to be able to launch and land in Vandenberg doing just one orbit)

That, of course, meant the shuttle was getting heavier, and suddenly it's recoverable booster was getting bigger (and more expensive to develop) than the Saturn V. NASA missed this second decision point and it's alternative (launching a Skylab like station on a Saturn V, service it using Gemini derivatives - like the Big Gemini - on Titan IIIs), and hoped than with a good enough launch rate, the development would pay off. But neither NASA or the Air Force could provide such a rate, so it was decided that practically EVERY US launch would be done with the shuttle.

Of course, that's a flight a week launch rate -______-U

Recipe for cr@p, I say. Further cut costs and weight limits decided that a big reusable booster would be impossible to develop and whatnot, so NASA went for smaller booster rockets (although they were supposed to be liquid, eventually they become solid as those are cheaper to design and fly - to be eventually replaced by liquid. Eventually) and external fuel to save weight on the orbiter.

Bingo.

The original plan was a thing of beauty. What ultimately arose was far less so.

Compromise after compromise, eventually the Shuttle flew, and during the first years it was good, hell, in 1985, with it's average of one flight per month, it looked like the launch rate of once a week was even really possible, and on March of 1986 the first truly air force only shuttle mission was to be launched, STS 62-A, finally using those extra features that NASA really didn't need. Even then, the first drafts of Space Station Freedom were done, and it looked like they would get their Shuttle and Space Station in the early 90s.

That is, until the Challenger blew up - and suddenly people realized that NASA was flying at breakneck speed on a ship that cut way too much corners - and HAD to work whatever happened, since it had no escape systems for the crew.

Of course, the Challenger launch was in an environment that was out of spec for a safe launch, if I recall.

*quick search*

Totally unrelated, but... Never knew the Challenger was a conversion job. Was apparently originally a test vehicle like Enterprise, and not space-worthy.

Of course, NASA DID kludge a bailout system onto the shuttle after the Challenger accident, but it's useful in VERY limited situations(relatively low speed, orbiter seperated from fuel tank and solid rocket boosters, and in a controlled glide) and should be considered non-existant for most purposes.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/techno...sts_egress.html

Of course, there's not a bailout system in the world that would've saved the Columbia's crew, but the crew of the Challenger might could've been spared if there was any provision for a proper ejection system.

The result - no more commercial satelites on the shuttle, air force was back to using the Titans for the time being, a helluva long turn around rate because the ship had to be virtually broke down and put back together to make sure it would work. All the things that the shuttle tried to avoid suddenly became a must.

I love the ship, it's probably the most beautiful spacecraft I've ever seen and a wonderful example of technology - but it has been a doomed white horse since the morning of January 28, 1986. It has been almost 20 years since then. It's time to go. Wouldn't mind seeing them flying again as private ships in 30 or so years, but they have no place as the spearhead of minkind's reaches into space. Pull the plug as soon as it can be done.

Now, 40 years old Soyuz, on the other side... that's a helluva good basic design 

315770[/snapback]

I love the shuttle too, really.

It just seems to be a fundamentally flawed design.

I wasn't refering the ISS, that comprimise didn't occur until the early nineties.  Prior to that, during the cold war, there was the old Space Station Freedom concept, parts of which were actually built, I've laid eyes on the modules. 

My mistake.

I was thinking SpaceLab.

I know more than one of those was planned. As was a mission to bump the one we DID get up into a higher orbit.

Edited July 30, 2005 by JB0

[B-52 GUNNER]

WOW, I wasn't the only one who thought about this.

I haven't received a reply yet but this is the e-mail I sent to the public inquiries office at NASA.

5/29/2005 3:46am

To: 'public-inquiries@hq.nasa.gov'

To whom it may concern,

While witnessing the launch and following reports that the foam insulation on the external tank still detaches I had a thought.

At the beginning of the Shuttle Program the first few launches had an External Tank which was painted white.

In order to save weight and monetary resources this practice was abandoned.

Did the foam from the external tank come off on those first flights or could the paint that was applied to the External Tank have acted as a sealant which could have prevented the foam from being torn from the tank?

Sincerely,

Scot Washburn

[Lightning]

on the Shuttle replacement topic, whatever happened to the X-33 (the "Venture Star" I think it was called?)

here's a weird Idea, take the shuttle, but instead of sticking the external tank/smaller rockets on it, take a pair of Titan IV's and strap it to it, same concept, just bigger rockets, right?

[Knight26]

The Venture Star was another nice single stage to orbit concept that never went very far, too bad too as it as one of the few that seemed like it would really work.

[Lightning]

I remember another weird concept that NASA never did: in Ace Combat 5, they had a "Rail-gun" style launching system for a shuttle, like a like a huge reverse slide.

(edited for spelling)

Edited July 30, 2005 by Lightning 06

[MGREXX]

Fact #1:

The Space Shuttle was designed to get payload into space, build a new space station and conduct experiements until it's estimated decommission around 2010.

Fact #2:

The shuttle program was originally conceived to be able to launch 1 space shuttle every two monts. With the maximum of 4 shuttles in service, there were suppose to be 24 shuttle launches per year. Instead, we have gotten an average of only 4-5 space shuttle launches a year......that is when they are not blowing up.

I say we let this overpriced and flawed program die and go with newer and more reliable ways (vertical launches are extremely inefficient and so 80's!!). Oh wait, there are still 3 shuttles left (they could also lease the Buron from Russia ). If things keep going the way they have, then we will run out of shuttles in a few years anyway and NASA won't have any choice but to get their heads out of their a$$e$ and do the right thing.

The X-33 had my vote but a few problems and those wimps at NASA scrapeed it to get money for other "projects". Maybe the X-34 will come thru and save our space program. X-34 program

Edited July 30, 2005 by MGREXX

[Commander McBride]

Haha, IIRC, Buran's still sitting in a park in St. Petersberg!

[JB0]

Oh wait, there are still 3 shuttles left (they could also lease the Buron from Russia ). 

Could build a new one, as we did after Challenger.

Hell, the Endeavour's the best one we have, precisely BECAUSE it's newer.

Could also refit Enterprise and make it spaceworthy, though I gather that'd be as expensive as building a new one.

Not that I really think either is a good option.

[Pat S]

Could build a new one, as we did after Challenger.

Hell, the Endeavour's the best one we have, precisely BECAUSE it's newer.

Could also refit Enterprise and make it spaceworthy, though I gather that'd be as expensive as building a new one.

Not that I really think either is a good option.

315845[/snapback]

Making a new Shuttle will not fix the problem of ice laden foam from damaging the tiles on the shuttle.

How about a carbon fiber shield for the underside and wings of the orbiter. Anything that falls off the tank will hit the carbon shield. Then when seperating from the tank, the carbon shield can be jetisoned. Just a thought.

Edited July 31, 2005 by Pat S

[JB0]

Could build a new one, as we did after Challenger.

Hell, the Endeavour's the best one we have, precisely BECAUSE it's newer.

Could also refit Enterprise and make it spaceworthy, though I gather that'd be as expensive as building a new one.

Not that I really think either is a good option.

315845[/snapback]

Making a new Shuttle will not fix the problem of ice laden foam from damaging the tiles on the shuttle.

But it fixes the problem of "there's only 3 orbiters, and they're old."

(though Endeavour's not THAT old)

How about a carbon fiber shield for the underside and wings of the orbiter.  Anything that falls off the tank will hit the carbon shield.  Then when seperating from the tank, the carbon shield can be jetisoned.  Just a thought.

315873[/snapback]

Nice thought.

The hole that killed Columbia was punched through a carbon shield, though, and there was likely enough power left to rip through something under it.

[wwwmwww]

WOW, I wasn't the only one who thought about this.

I haven't received a reply yet but this is the e-mail I sent to the public inquiries office at NASA.

315794[/snapback]

WOW!!! Great minds think alike.

Thanks for all the info everyone,

Carl

[Lindem Herz]

Haha, IIRC, Buran's still sitting in a park in St. Petersberg!

315841[/snapback]

Worse, man, it was crushed to death when it's hangar's roof collapsed.

Now, Ptichka on the other side... $25 million, as is, new everything and assembly required

[Beltane70]

Is it at all possible to actually insulate the fuel tank from the inside instead of the outside?

[Pat S]

Is it at all possible to actually insulate the fuel tank from the inside instead of the outside?

315894[/snapback]

Yes, but that will add a lot of weight which will limit the types of missions the shuttle could perform.

[The Nighthawk]

You know, for all people's moaning about how crappy the Shuttle is, and a lot of talk I hear about how we should scrap manned space missions altogether, I don't see any shortage of people lining up for the tiny chance of making it as an astronaut. I wish I'd done better in school so I'd have a shot at it (of course thanks to Rutan maybe I do!!). Let's not forget that even though the shuttles are due to be permanently grounded in 2010, they were intended to have a 100-mission lifespan. When we do kill the program it'll be like having a classic car that's 25 years old and only has a couple thousand miles on it.

So what to do? We could always build new ones. Compromise or not the thing does work. The concept is sound and proven. The airframe works. The booster system works. It's still the only spacecraft ever built that provides a true shirt-sleeve environment for a crew of 7, complete with an airlock, docking ring, massive payload bay, the arm, and of course that all-important re-usability. Yes, there are some faults. The tile system is outdated and new technologies may be able to help with that. The insulation problem can be fixed, if enough money is spent and people are allowed to think outside the box. New shuttles could be built to replace the current fleet, using the same basic design, along with the latest computers (which being lighter and more efficient will either save weight or allow for more powerful systems), new advances in propulsion, etc. Basically like some car companies that have popped up offering new versions of old classics like late-60s Camaros, with modern engines, brakes and safety features. Looks the same outside, totally new inside. The only obstacle is money. And, if we weren't wasting money torturing Iraqis and getting our soldiers killed by suicide bombers, we'd have money to spend.

Some good ideas have come down the pipe... Like the X-33 project. Problem is these great ideas run into a news media that's sick of space except as a punching bag, a public that's losing the ability to care and politicians who don't understand the benefits to society and can't get enough kickbacks from the contractors involved. The space program is losing steam, not just because of failures, but because the gullible public sees a lot of money being spent for what looks like little gain... Add the media harpies to that, constantly beating on NASA as being an outdated bureaucracy that Americans should have outgrown by now, and a bunch of right-wing whackos in government who both revile and fear anything scientific, left-wing whackos who think the NASA budget should be taken away and used to feed the poor, and the cash-grubbing whackos in government who just don't see enough dollar signs and favors coming out of it...

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I used to think, during the early days of the X-Prize competition especially, that NASA was a bunch of snooty elitists with crazy requirements for astronaut qualification. Now I realize they have to be, since they only get to send astronauts up on the rarest occasions. Now I kinda pity them.

I guess what I'd really like to see is for this country to stop being wussies when it comes to space travel. Buck up, take the hit, show some of that American bravery and start launching and developing solutions. It's dangerous work. We know that. So is war but we have no problem jumping into that fruitless endeavour, our reasons based on pure lies no less. Let's see... more than 1,700 dead Americans in Iraq vs. 14 dead Shuttle astronauts.... Hm. Tough choice.

Fly the g*ddamned Shuttle.

[Pat S]

You know, for all people's moaning about how crappy the Shuttle is, and a lot of talk I hear about how we should scrap manned space missions altogether, I don't see any shortage of people lining up for the tiny chance of making it as an astronaut.  I wish I'd done better in school so I'd have a shot at it (of course thanks to Rutan maybe I do!!).  Let's not forget that even though the shuttles are due to be permanently grounded in 2010, they were intended to have a 100-mission lifespan.  When we do kill the program it'll be like having a classic car that's 25 years old and only has a couple thousand miles on it. 

315927[/snapback]

I don't say scrap NASA, just the Shuttle. We can come up with something better, it's been 30 years since it was designed. NASA would have no problem going with a new program if it had a decent budget, but taxpayers might flip out. You never see the price of war being touted on the media, but everytime NASA gets 5 minutes on TV, the budget is rolling along the bottom of the screen.

Also, I believe the Shuttle was supposed to fly 100 missions or 10 years whichever comes first.

Edited July 31, 2005 by Pat S

[Mechmaster]

Are you talking about some kind of orbital elevator?   Orguss anyone?

315740[/snapback]

http://www.spaceelevator.com/

http://www.liftport.com/

http://www.elevator2010.org/site/index.html

http://www.isr.us/Spaceelevatorconference/

[Kin]

I don't believe in space elevators... one crash at the end in space and it's snapped on the bottom..

Or a freat leak will cause all the air of earth to flow into space and suffication.. maybe so big that the suction will cause some sort of a tornado.

Edited July 31, 2005 by Kin

[ComicKaze]

What happened to the X-33 anyway? I remember selling some anime and games to somebody who turned out to be a Lockheed Martin engineer and we chatted a bit about how the "horizontal strip of thrust" worked on the X-33 and it was really cool. The Aerospike engine is really like what we see in a lot of animes and science fiction where we have engines without nozzles/verniers.

Man, even GI-JOE had a Space Shuttle that looked like the X-33 back in 1987. Was it that old a concept? The X-33 was much cooler than the X-34 designs released so far.

Edited July 31, 2005 by ComicKaze

[Pat S]

X-33 was cancelled supposedely due to the composite fuel tank not being up to the task.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-33