The concept of the Shuttle--a reusable orbiting payload vehicle sounds like a good idea but it has never worked out with with our current technological and budget limits.
Simply put NASA has placed all its eggs in the Space Shuttle program and because of that our rocket technology and space exploration program has suffered. The Russians are still a generation ahead of us on rockets because they still produce them and rely on them.
Disposable rockets are 10 times cheaper and 100 times more structurally sound than a reusable space shuttle.
In addition the cargo bay of the space shuttle limits the payload capacity of the shuttle while on disposable rockets the payload is theoretically unlimited.
PS: A story I heard about the approach of the Russian and NASA space programs is very illuminating. The story goes like this, when a Russian space agency official was told by a proud NASA official about the expense and effort of its engineers that goes into desgining even the so called astronaut or space pen that allows it to be used in zero gravity the Russian replied "we use pencils."
It is time to start using disposable-reliable space vehicles and open up space to private industry.
For starters I would ask congress to authorize a bounty that it would reimburse any private organization that would send a manned mission to Mars and return its crew to Earth safely that would cover all expenses plus 15%.
Competition to Mars would capture and ignite the world's imagination.
Open space to private industry yes .... yes disposables, absolutely NOT.
We should have an SSTO spaceplane to replace the shuttle. And nuclear rockets for ultra heavy payloads to go into orbit.
"Recent inspections of Space Shuttle Atlantis and Space Shuttle Discovery found cracks, measuring one-tenth to three-tenths of an inch, in one flow liner on each of those vehicles. Some of the cracks were not identifiable using standard visual inspections and were only discovered using more intensive inspection techniques. "These cracks may pose a safety concern and we have teams at work investigating all aspects of the situation," said Space Shuttle Program Manager Ron Dittemore. "This is a very complex issue and it is early in the analysis. Right now there are more questions than answers. Our immediate interests are to inspect the hardware to identify cracks that exist, understand what has caused them and quantify the risk. I am confident the team will fully resolve this issue, but it may take some time. Until we have a better understanding, we will not move forward with the launch of STS-107." The impact of the investigation on other upcoming space shuttle launches has not been determined." - - June 24, 2002
Here's what I would do, and I have said this repeatedly, even just yesterday: Launch cargo on BDBs [Big, Dumb Boosters.] Launch crew on separate man-rated vehicles, which means the crew can escape under any circumstances, and for crew re-entry, use something much smaller and easier to make robust. Forget the wings.
Get to work on this right now and assume the Space Shuttle is headed for mothballs as of today. If any more building is to happen on the ISS, use BDBs to launch the hardware.
It's time to rethink NASA's mission. Moonbase and Marsbase should be the goal. NOW.
That is silly. Things break, shiite happens. Airliners have catastrophic failures, nobody (except the French) panics and gives up. One hundred years from now, with technology we can't imagine, people are going to die traveling to and from space.
Sure, the shuttle is a failure in many ways, but if you think space can be made affordable by throwing away millions of dollars worth of hardware with each flight, forget it.
Right now, you really can't draw conclusions and take them seriously.
I cannot imagine any private company that would attempt this for a mere 15% return on investment.
Would you like to get on-board for this great business opportunity I'm working on? We're developing a disposable car; you *throw it away* after one trip. Imagine all the savings ... no oil changes, no expensive repairs, typically you don't even need to visit a gas station (we sell it with a full tank of gas). And it only costs 40% of what a reusable car costs! Amazing! We think we'll revolutionize the automotive industry. What do you think?
The only way space travel is going to become routine or efficient is through the development of reusable vehicles. The shuttle is a first-generation reusable vehicle flying 30-year-old technology that cut some questionable corners (for budgetary reasons) when it went up the first time. Like most first-generation techologies, it has quite a few problems. The solution is to develop the second-generation technology, not retreat back to a technology that is ultimately a dead end.
The Russian Soyuz vehicle is 40+ year-old technology for the most part, by the way, not at all "a generation ahead" of anything.
One of the radio stations talked with Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) about some of the questions you have raised. His thoughts (very loose paraphrasing of what I remember) were in synch with yours. He did state the shuttle was 40-year old technology and he hoped NASA would not replace Columbia and start phasing out the shuttle program.
I was left with the impression that he was not the only elected official with this point of view. Could be the public needs to start putting some pressure on Congress to nudge NASA along to the next step in the space exploration process.
Primary payloads -- ISS seventeenth flight (ULF1)/Multi-Purpose Logistics Module, crew rotation
Bowersox, Budarin and Pettit are up there now:
I can't imagine what today's been like for them up there.
It all depends on the mission and what you want to do. If you want to commercialize space, you use the shuttle and technologies. If you want to make survival missions, then you use rockets and simplicity.
It is like choosing between being a survivalist or a surgeon. The missions are different and the tools of surgery are markedly different. You are comparing Apples and Oranges.
The most important of those limits are not the current ones, but the one imposed by Presidents Nixon and Carter, when the shuttle was designed. Lots of factors led to a "spend money later during operations rather than during design and production" attitude. One major example, directly related to the Challenger disaster, was that the Shuttle was originally to have a fly back booster, rather than the solid rocket motors that they ended up with. The shuttle is th only manned spacecraft to ever use solid rockets, and it uses the largest diameter ones every made (for production at least). Even then, logistical considerations meant that the SRBs are not as large in diameter as the designers might have wished.
A smaller spacecraft that was only tasked for transporting people and not cargo would mean a lot less complexity throughout. A smaller spacecraft would mean smaller rockets, and it would mean fewer tiles. We don't fly airliners that carry maybe a dozen pasengers plus several tons of FedEx parcels -- why should we think that what doesn't make sense for routine terrestrial air transport should make sense for what is supposed to become routine space transport?
Now is the time to brace up our political leaders to support not only a return of the shuttle fleet to service ASAP, but also the development of a new generation spacecraft to replace the shuttles as a national priority. NASA has tried and failed to develop such a replacement several times, but a combination of techical difficulties and lack of funding has doomed each such effort. Now is the time to decide that we are serious about our space capabilities and put sufficient effort and funding into the program to succeed.