Slashdot Mirror
Europe to Join Russia Building Next Space Shuttle
An anonymous reader writes "Development agreement takes shape during the Paris Air Show
It's all but official--Russia and Europe will soon embark on a cooperative effort to build a next-generation manned space shuttle. Speaking at the Paris Air Show, in Le Bourget, France, in June, Russian space officials confirmed earlier reports from Moscow that their partners at the European Space Agency would join the Russian effort to build a new reusable orbiter, dubbed Kliper."
I know those guys up north built the space arm and some drilling equipment that will be sent to mars in the near future, seems like those guys have a knack for tiny/specialised space projects.. hope they get a contract or two. Unfortunately they may be too politically tied in & stuck with our our crumbling space program :-(
Because you don't build something as complex as a shuttle, and have a new model every other year. Having said that, they have gone through a lot of rebuilds. How much of the original electronics is still in it? Not a lot. And your old 310 didn't get nearly the inspections the shuttles have.
Because it takes time to develop new stuff. For anything complex it takes decades. The hardware in the ATC system I work on was obsolete the day the system was comissioned. You couldn't get dec to sell you new ones. That's just the way it is with technology. Sorry about that.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I drive a 1974 Jeep. Runs like a champ, never have had a problem with it not starting on cue, and the only real problems with it are its gas guzzling nature, and it's exceptionally small fuel tank for that use.
That being said, the Space Transport System program has been a wild success, and the space shuttle is just as reliable as my jeep. The problem is where the shuttle is located on its launch vehichle, and how that launch vehicle is put together. Foam falls off the tank because they use foam to insulate the thing, where a little more cost could use electric warmers. SRBs blow up because their rubber seals aren't constructed properly. But the shuttle is still fine.
I think now, as we should have been doing years ago, we should be investigating Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles. The current orbiters would make great museum pieces (imagine being able to go inside a shuttle in a museum), and could drive up the resources used to build alternatives. The SRBs have proven themselves to be lean, mean, heavy lifting machines, and as they are so reusable, we should go on reusing them.
As for the European Union building a new shuttle, good for them. They've been needing shuttle-like versatility. Perhaps it'll help spark a renewal in space technologies, along with the privatization of space technology, here in America. Competition is great until it stagnates, and we've proven that one time and again in our time honored tradition here in America.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
If this goes like other discussions on this and similar topics about advanced technologies appearing in various parts of the world, it will split into two camps. One camp that thinks it will be cool because new tech is always cool. The other camp will lament that North America is falling behind. To the latter I say that it is not North America falling behind, but rather the rest of the world is catching up. That's inevitable and that's good. Don't doubt that we don't have a new shuttle on the board somewhere too. The the other camp. I say this new shuttle will be cool. It will be interesting to see what approach they take in designing it based on years of observing the North American program.
Yeah but that would mean the entire crew would have to transfer their entire tape collection to CD.
You'd have thought that they would have learned enough not to deploy a reusable shuttle based on the bad experience of NASA with these things. It's just not a cost effective way to run a space program.
MAKS is a Russian airshow, not a defense program. It ends this sunday. For the third year in a row (I think), it features U.S. military aircraft as well.
The Paris, Farnborough and MAKS international airshows are premier events (the Paris and Farnborough international airshows are held on alternating years) for aerospace enthusiasts. It's fascinating to see such a blend of mega-corporations, politics and military might intertwined at extravagant affairs. Last year at Farnborough, Boeing and Airbus officials were at each other's necks.
Hasn't it been proven that a Shuttle type transport is not the most cost effective way of lifting heavy loads and even for things like simple manned space flight? Could this be a case of trying to copy the USA, just because, or is it viable. I seem to remember reading that making a temporary space station for experents say out of Apollo parts like skylab, when done today with other space parts we have lying around would be cheaper than a schuttle. Feel free to prove me wrong, but the one size fits all seems to be what NASA is getting away from, and specialization is the way to go.
Welcome to the Entropy Bar, may I take your order?
Why NASA is using a shuttle that is 20 years old is beyond me.
It may well be beyond you, but 20 year old equipment is commonplace for most aerospace equipment. 20 years is mid-life for passenger airliners. Airlines are routinely launched with no aircraft newer than 15 years. Military aircraft see 30+ years and more.
The fact that the orbiter is 20 years old is not relevant. The design intended that the vehicle last through many flights; that was the whole point. Unfortunately, the design ignored basic physics and presumed that some magic propulsion system would exist to get the plane into orbit without 90% of the launch weight being fuel. When the engineer's magic wand failed to create such an engine, they bolted on boosters and fuel tanks and left us with the present costly, low capacity and inefficient launcher.
NASA is on the road to fixing this. Griffin has a clear vision for the future launch platform; separate the cargo from the crew, put the payloads on top, reuse the high quality and well understood booster and shuttle main engine designs for propulsion, de-orbit the crew in a lifting body capsule, and do it quickly so we don't have to keep flying these space planes. It should be cheap, reliable and flexible.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
If they stuck to tried and true, The Saturn/Apollo would still be up and running. The shuttle is an insane contraption. Not the concept, the execution.
What?
It's called pride and it's certainly not limited to the United States. The difference is that the US is the only country in a position to really make decisions based on it.
It is official -- Netcraft confirms: NASA is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered NASA community when the EU confirmed that NASA space share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all space. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that NASA has lost more space share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. NASA is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Space Admin comprehensive launching test.
You don't need to be a Putin to predict NASA's future. The hand writing is on the wall: NASA faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for NASA because NASA is dying. Things are looking very bad for NASA. As many of us are already aware, NASA continues to lose space share. Red, blue and white ink flows like a river of blood.
The shutte department is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core scientists. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time NASA scientists Brooke "Deep Throat" Miller and Jose Maria "The American Adolf" Sanchez only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: NASA is dying.
All major surveys show that NASA has steadily declined in space share. NASA is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If NASA is to survive at all it will be among Open Source Spacecrafting dilettante dabblers. NASA continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, NASA is dead.
Fact: NASA is dying
A one-shot jet is what we need. Build it cheaply, fly it across the Atlantic once and then dump it. Smaller, faster, cheaper is the answer. We might lose the occasional load of passengers, but it's gotta be cheaper overall.
One-shot cars, too - I mean, look at all the rust buckets you see on the road these days, it's just begging for trouble. How many of all those annual road deaths could have been avoided if every car was brand new for its one & only trip? Ford & GM agree - buy a new car each day, fully guaranteed for its designed lifetime, then melt it down into scrap & recycle responsibly.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
It's the US that's broke: it's borrowing half a trillion dollars per year abroad to finance its lifestyle and military.
As for following through, the EU has completed several Mars missions and the Galileo satellites are being readied for launch at the end of 2005. Europe also has a commercial space program with considerable lift capacity.
So? What's wrong with that? As an American, I LIKE having a a bigger penis. I mean, seriously! What guy wouldn't want to have a bigger dick. When it comes to the race of innovation, Americans love showing off our dicks. I mean...it's dick-pride.
Speaking of balls. I really need to get a set of these for my car. http://www.trucknutz.com/bar.asp
Hey, gotta back up the big dick with some big balls...naturally.
Life is not for the lazy.
Hasn't it been proven that a Shuttle type transport is not the most cost effective way of lifting heavy loads and even for things like simple manned space flight?
It has only been demonstrated that the Shuttle, in it's half completed "still a prototype" design, is not an overly cost effective way of putting up payloads.
A number of additional steps in the program, cut by congress, would have significantly helped.
Rod Taylor
Despite the title, it's doesn't look like a replication of the NASA shuttle. The phrase "reuseable orbiter" used in the article seems closer. It looks more like a capsule to which they've added some semblance of "wings" to allow a little bit of maneuvarbility and more landing options. Hell some of the designs for the CEV look not dissimilar, and that is supposed to be NASAs next generation that they are seriously banking on.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
My memory could be (no, certainly is) shot these days, but I seem to remember the USSR launching an unmanned craft that looked almost identical to the space shuttle. I think they abandonded the entire program.
Anyone care to elaborate?
Although government funded/designed/managed/operated space project have a place, I argue that the future is in private hands. What will make space cheap is competition and mass production. In that regard, I, personally, have more faith in Scaled Composites or Blue Origin than in hand-wringing risk-averse bureaucratic organizations. As much as I love NASA, it's high cost structure breeds risk aversion and that risk aversion breeds higher costs in a very vicious cycle. Moreover, the constant political pressure to cut costs perversely raises the per-unit cost of space travel. Unless we can break that cycle, space will only become more and more expensive and launches less and less frequent.
One key is mass production -- amortizing all that costly engineering over a greater number of vehicles. Current commercial ventures may only be suborbital today, but competition to reach orbit and provide tourist services will probably lead to the development of ever more capable private launch systems.
Uless we can drammatically reduce the cost of access to space,
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
It's looking like there should be quite a bit of competition soon in human orbital spaceflight. Here are the various competitors I can think of off-hand:
* USA: Shuttle-derived system, probably with a CEV capsule on top. There's several downsides to a shuttle-derived system, but it keeps the constituencies happy and should have enough government momentum to keep on going.
* Russia and Europe: Kliper's been searching around for financial support for a while, and it looks like they finally got at least -some- funding from Europe.
* China: various iterations of Shenzhou spacecraft
In the private sector:
* t/Space: The (Rutan-affiliated?) company just completed a parachute drop test and water landing of a full-scale model of their proposed CXV space capsule. It's uncertain if they'll get more funding from NASA, but their concept seems sound and may get private investment. Oh, and their web page has some really spiffy videos.
* SpaceX: They've already announced their intent to compete for Bigelow's orbital prize, and their upcoming man-rated Falcon V will be large enough to carry a Gemini-style capsule.
Now what about destinations? Besides the ISS, we've got Robert Bigelow's inflatable space station modules, which should be up and operational by 2010, with several prototype launches before then. He's planning on selling these modules to various groups and countries, so hopefully we'll have several different space stations up there.
Between Shenzhou 8 and 9 China is planning on launching a small orbital laboratory, which Shenzhou 9 will be docking with. Various members of the Chinese space program have also been visiting Bigelow's facility, so perhaps we'll see them doing something with his modules.
The future should be interesting.
To call it a shuttle is almost a misgnomer... it's not a shuttle like a space shuttle: there's no cargo bay. It's not a space truck like the US Shuttle was. It's basically a reusable one piece Soyuz. Yes, it's re-engineered and it can take seven to station with minimal payload, but it launches like a capsule - on the front of the rocket - and it should reenter like a capsule, unless they opt for the wings and thermal tile TPS. That part isn't clear at this point.
-everphilski-
Billions upon billions of dollars. That's why.
Turgidson:
Is that the Russian Ambassador you're talking about?
Muffley:
Yes, it is, General.
Turgidson:
Ahh, am I to understand the Russian Ambassador is to be admitted entrance to the War Room?
Muffley:
That is correct. He is here on my orders.
Turgidson:
I... I don't know exactly how to put this, sir, but are you aware of what a serious breach of security that would be? I mean... begins closing his notebooks he'll see everything. He'll see the big board!
Muffley:
That is precisely the idea, General. That is precisely the idea. Stains, get Premier Kissov on the Hotline.
Apologies to George C Scott and Peter Sellers.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
It isn't really a shuttle. If your definition of "shuttle" is reusable then OK it's a shuttle. But the reason the US space shuttle was called "the shuttle" is because of the payload bay. The space shuttle was to be used to routinely shuttle stuff to and from space.
The Kliper can't do that.
The Kliper is basically an upgraded resuable Soyuz that can host 7 people (good for station) and a basic amount of payload. A Soyuz is a three part contraption of which only 1 module returns to earth and none is resued. The Kliper is just a single piece reusable capsule that's stretched. It launches like a capsule - on the tip of a rocket. It reenters like a capsule (unless they opt for wings... the judges are still out on that one). It's not a shuttle.
-everphilski-
I know that this will be considered to be flame bait, but in my opinion it is the truth. The Russians and Europeans collaborating without the US is a direct response to the Bush administrations contempt of international cooperation. The Bush administration has make it clear in every possible way that that the only correct position on any subject is the US position. When the rest of the world disagrees the response is a mix of anger, contempt and disdain.
This is true from the war in Iraq to the Koyoto treaty to appointing Bolton to the UN. After that kind of treatment it is only natural that everyone else will decide that they don't need the US and will go about building the future without US involvement.
This is a very bad development for everyone. The big problems like space, global warming and war need cooperation from all the international community, and splitting into competing factions will only lead to failure.
I'm very upset over this, because we all loose.
I'd like to add that the 25,000 ground crew personnel positions required to keep the shuttle operations going... rain or shine, lanuch or no launch, certainly add a huge portion of the cost to launch a single shuttle mission. If an airplace going to Europe from America would require 25,000 people to get it there and only flew once every six months, with safety reports and equipment tests that the paperwork alone would make a pile of debris in a landfill larger than the plane + "launch system" on each flight, those flights to Europe would cost about $20-$100 million each as well and would only be done as a congressional junket.
Most private initives are to try and cut the ground crew for launches down to a very manageable number, like 5-10, and to try and increase the number of launches to keep that ground crew busy. Assuming the rest of the cost of manufacturing is kept the same for private launches, that savings alone makes a huge difference. The CEV (and other designs at NASA) mainly try to keep that same 25,000 support personnel in their jobs.
I know this is slightly OT, but years and years ago there was a sci-fi book that has always stuck with me. The book was about a guy who was essentially the first EMT in space. But, the really interesting part was the simple space-station technology. basically, they stuck a really simple box-car sized tube on the top of a booster and shot it up there. The astronauts came back in some kind of capsule (lifting body?, reusable?) but left the big tube (sort of like a tank) up there. These tanks had basic standard life support systems and standard airlocks on each end and on two sides. Each launch put a new one up there, they'd strap 'em together and eventually they had a space station. Need more solar power? send one up with a bunch of panels inside it. Deploy them over the surface of existing modules already in orbit. Need more computers? life-support? water treatment? whatever, just send another one up with the gear crammed in and depoy it as needed throughout the standardized compartments. neat concept. love to see it. prolly never happen. ho hum.
man, I feel like mold.
NASA is on the road to fixing this. Griffin has a clear vision for the future launch platform; separate the cargo from the crew, put the payloads on top, reuse the high quality and well understood booster and shuttle main engine designs for propulsion, de-orbit the crew in a lifting body capsule, and do it quickly so we don't have to keep flying these space planes. It should be cheap, reliable and flexible.
But this fails to address the one place that the shuttle was good at: maintance of satellites. While for most mid-term projects we can get away without a shuttle, long term we need one, but only if we can get it to be single stage.
The problem at the moment is that we are having to build new launch vehicles for every satellite that is launched, and then we have problems when the satellites arrive at the end of their life. Also, without a way of maintaining them the satellites in some cases have to be decomissioned before their the end of the expected lifespan if just one thing fails. Maybe the ideal future shuttle would be a hybrid manned-unmanned vehicle, wherein a crew is not required for all flights.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
... must be KDE.
thank you, thank you. please tip the waitresses
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times"
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Now, back on topic, I thought it interesting that one of the bonuses for Russia here was the fact that they could launch from closer to the equator. I feel like I should know this, but I don't:
Can someone explain to me why that is so vital? I mean, why can't they launch straight up in the air and assume a tilted orbit? Why does it make such a difference when they launch closer to the equator?
I feel like the answer should be obvious to me, but it isn't. What am I overlooking?
Okay, never mind. I just looked it up. It really amazes me that the Earth's spin makes that much of a difference.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Klippy: I see you are building a space shuttle. Would you like me to overrun the budget?
There is truth in humor.
Apollo died because people stopped seing the use of sending people to hop around on moon dust. Saturn died because we ran out of large payloads after Skylab to loft until Freedom/ISS, and by then it was too late. It has nothing to do with the Shuttle.
The shuttle is not an "insane contraption". It's a machine that, due to its completely different design from most rocket systems, exposed a lot of problems that we didn't even know existed. That happens with first-gen systems. Success and failure of innovative designs can't really be tested.
Case in point: US vs. Soviet rocket programs. Even with the US importing of German rocket scientists and incorporating them into the heads of projects (compared to Soviet importing of small numbers of technicians, who weren't relied on much), the early Soviet program was full of staggering successes, and the early US program full of staggering failures.
However, the lunar programs reversed this. Try as they might, they just couldn't get the N1 rocket to work. It kept blowing up on them. Meanwhile, the Saturn V was an amazing success overall. The US stole the world show.
Then comes the shuttle (we can't really analyze Buran since it only flew once, unmanned). The continued Russian reliance on Soyuz, while preventing much innovation, allowed them to refine the system. The US's adoption of a radically new system led to radically new problems. Suddenly, the Soviets seemed again like the more reliable choice**.
I guess the moral of the story is: Fortunes change, and innovation can't be scheduled.
** - I'd still rather take a Shuttle. It's had a slightly lower ratio of casualties to human launches and slightly lower total manned failure rate. Most significantly, however, is that Soyuz has lost a lot of unmanned launches recently (including many ground crew deaths). It's reentry is also quite rough and dangerous; one Soyuz broke through a frozen lake and nearly froze its cosmonauts; another, on a launch abort mode, nearly rolled off a cliff. But there's no disputing that Soyuz is cheaper per kg, even if it has far less capabilities (trash/payload return, length of time for crew support, orbital options, etc).
Kneel Before Christ!
But what do any of those have to do with the Shuttle? Let's talk about the Hindenburg, the Titanic, and the Chevy Corvair.
I believe you're wrong and here is why;
Your premise is that people won't be going to orbit and that, lacking a Shuttle, they won't have the facilities. They will go to orbit and they can have better facilities when they arrive.
Separate the people from the cargo:
1.) Launch your 100+ ton satellite garage(s) into orbit on large, risky, unmanned launchers. If it blows up it might make the news.
2.) Maneuver the garage into position. Simple orbital mechanics performed from terra firma by hundreds of people every day.
3.) Launch a crew on a small, reliable, inexpensive rocket. Rutan may eventually do this for millions, as opposed to hundreds of millions.
4.) Link up your capsule with your garage and go fix your satellite. We've been docking things with other things is space for decades and no one has yet been killed doing it.
5.) Undock your capsule and use your undamaged, expendable, ablative heat shield to glide back to a runway. Leave the garage in orbit because we'll need it again soon.
Any auto mechanic could have devised this. I've yet to meet one that hauled his tools between home and shop every night. How is the Orbiter better than this?
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
The Shuttle has exactly the same level of reliability and safety as the Russian system, ie, it's not fantastic, but this is a dangerous activity.
Continuing the comparison, Shuttle can carry a higher payload, more people per flight, requires less training for passengers, exposes them to lower G loads, and can carry freight back to Earth.
There are many other advantages. Based on this the Shuttle is the best system flying to space today.
Of course, future systems should be safer.
For apollo thing Wright Flyer. For shuttle thing about an aircraft from 1930.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
That's was one of the shuttle's original selling points. Unfortunately, the cost of the shuttle flight is more than the cost of simply replacing the satellite in almost every case (Hubble being the one exception). And yet there's a more fundemental problem.
The shuttle doesn't go high enough. It can only get to low earth orbit, which is thousands of miles below the fast majority of satellites (in geosynchronous orbit). It was supposed to go to GEO orignally, and when they realized that wouldn't be possible they proposed a "space tug" to ferry the satellite back and forth. That never materialized. So we're stuck with a ship that, even if it could be operated cheaply enough to be worthwhile, couldn't actually get to the repair job for most satellites.
I don't think most people realise just how low the ISS flies. It flies at an altitude of up to 354.1 km. As a comparison, the diameter of the earth is about 12700 km. Look at those numbers again. It so low that you'd be hard-pressed to even call it "space".
The reason for this very low orbit is that the space shuttle is unable to travel any further out. It a rocket-boosted aircraft that just happens to be able to reach orbit altitude. Well, orbit altitude as long as you boost the altitude once in a while. Remember that the ISS loses 100 metres of altitude every day.
The OP's idea sounds a bit wild, but I just needed to correct you on the orbit decay thing.
"Yeah, it was cooperation and not competition that put a man on the moon!"
Y'know, I'm gonna burn some karma here. But there are times I really hate this attitude.
When I was a kid, say, early 1970s, I picked up an old book on the planets and the "future" of space flight. This book was written probably around 1959 or 1960. It talked about Sputnik and Explorer I. And it talked about how man would get into space. The book started with the "space plane" (what I learned in later years would be considered the X-20). It sat at the top of a rocket, was launched into orbit, and landed again like a normal airplane. The book then talked about the next big step--a space station constructed in orbit. This looked remarkably like the space station shown in 2001. The book ended with what would be the next big step--probably sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s--of an expedition to explore the moon.
Well, of course, we beat that by 20 years! We landed on the moon in 1969! But what did we get out of it? Are we on the moon now? Could we do more with the moon now, if we were to land on it again, than plant some flags and play some golf?
Your vaunted "competition" to get us to the moon gained us very little in the long run. Yeah, we made it and we developed some pretty impressive technology to do it, which had all sorts of commercial benefits. But we didn't go to the moon to explore. We didn't go to the moon to expand humanity. We went to the moon to beat the Commies. And once that was accomplished, we were done.
I liken it to a 240,000 mile race. We're all excited at the approach of the race. We discuss, debate, and argue about who we think will win. When the race starts, we are glued to our seats. Whoever wins, we cheer, we applaud, slap them on the back and say what a great job they did. But a week after the race, it's business as usual. The winner's name is written in the history books and that's it.
The American Public wasn't behind the Apollo program in order to broaden mankind's knowledge of the universe. We were behind it to whoop some Commie butt and show the world how great the U.S. of A was. And so, when the race was won, the banners were taken down, the streets swept clear of the ticker tape from the parades, and people went back to their own business secure in the knowledge that their country was #1.
That, to me, is what our "competition" to get to the moon got us. Getting to the moon was sold to the people as a race which we had to win. The money spent on Apollo was taken from programs like the X-20. It short-circuited plans for a permanent space station. It put all our resources behind one big "show"--get to the moon. We're only now starting catch up to where we might have been in the late 1970s, if only we had hadn't gotten distracted by beating the commies to the moon.
Consider the concept of "competition": You have an objective--a thing you have to accomplish. If you reach the objective before the others, you win. If you don't, you lose. I'm not interested in that. I'd like to see colonies on the moon. I'd like to see manned exploration of Mars. But these are long-term things--there is no "competition." And if we waste the money on "flags and footprints" kinds of missions so we can thrust our collective index fingers in the air and yell "We're #1!", the long term goal of having my children or my children's children live and work on the moon will never be realized.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Apollo wasn't an amazing achievement. But everyone complains about the fact that we didn't follow-up Apollo with more and better trips to the moon. But as I said, this wasn't how Apollo was sold to the people. It was sold as a competition. And competitions are over when somebody wins. I want the follow-up. And the only way we'll get it is to stop thinking about "beating" other countries and start thinking about how we can do this "for all mankind."
Isn't that what the plaque says it's all about?
--"Apollo died because people stopped seing the use of sending people to hop around on moon dust."
Not exactly. It just wasn't what the US military wanted. The current shuttle design suffers a lot from this, since early NASA tried playing politics but got eaten alive by the more experienced groups they were trying to use.
Unfortunately, the shuttle is a far less capable launch vehicle. Yes, it really is. The Saturn V can put bigger cargos, including humans, into LEO than the shuttle can. And the shuttle can't put any significant cargo into GEO at all; the additional booster ring they have to use to launch from the cargo bay is too bulky, heavy, and risky to make it worthwhile much.
It wouldn't be that big a deal to recreate the Saturn Vs. We've got the plans, just not the tools and dies (never have figured out why standard military policy is to destroy these when the project ends, like they did with the SR-71). With an upgrade for modern materials and avionics, these Saturn VIs would outstrip anything else around right now. And still be cheaper than Shuttle launches...
--"The shuttle is not an "insane contraption". It's a machine that, due to its completely different design from most rocket systems, exposed a lot of problems that we didn't even know existed."
What makes it an insane contraption is the fact that we've never bothered/managed to address most of those problems.
Even worse, there were a number of problems with the design we knew about in advance, but we went with it anyway because (wait for it) it was the low bid.
What am I talking about? Segmented SRBs for a starter. Instead of building a single big rocket, we build it in sections, ship the sections, and then put them together later. Why? To spread the pork around. Unfortunately, this is what killed Challenger.
Heat tiles for another. Custom-made for each location, meaning absolutely zero economy-of-scale. Very stupid thing to do for such a fragile, expensive and necessary piece of the project. Lost two to this one.
And there's other problems we've lucked out on so far. Like the SSMEs. Sure, they're powerful. They're also finicky, and have never had the multi-flight capacity they were supposed to have. They have to be completely rebuilt every flight to be inspected and repaired. Why? Lots of little, medium, and even big problems with them that we've never been able to fix completly. They were just flat out designed with the wrong methedology.
So we've got three major components of the system that are flat out bad ideas to be used in something like this. Stuff like avionics hasn't ever been a problem; it was properly designed, and it's something that can be upgrades as we go even if it wasn't. We managed to get all the major, high-cost-to-fix items wrong. So why keep using it?
strictly speaking, the shuttle's safety record: ~98% is the highest of any launch system (soyuz is 98-.1% or something like that). The difference is that the shuttle's record is declining with disasters lat in the projects lifetime whereas those other systems are improving with each successful launch: their disasters all occured during development or at the begining of the life cycle of those systems.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I would also note that the current shuttles are not first rev hardware. The Columbia was the last of the first generation. Designed to schematics that predated those of Challenger, it had the disadvantage of being both the smallest and heaviest shuttle in the fleet. It blew up in large part because of that. Had the Atlantis or Discovery been in its place, I think there's a very good chance that the reduced descent heating would have been enough for it to get down in one piece, or at least to get far enough down for emergency egress to be possible.
A lot of people said that Columbia should have been retired when they announced their plans to retrofit it. They were right. It should never have been retrofitted with new electronics. It should have been put in a museum or scrapped. It was an old fossil with plenty of design mistakes.
But the current shuttles are third-generation tech, IIRC. The Challenger was significantly upgraded from the first rev, and the ones that are still intact are all significantly larger, lighter, and have larger payload capacity. Even in the third generation, though, all the things the parent poster mentioned still haven't been fixed, making the shuttle launches obscenely expensive relative to their payload capacity and general scientific usefulness.
Frankly, this is the best news I've heard in a long time. The ESA and the Russians should be able to learn from the mistakes of the shuttle and get things right, assuming they can get past all the politics and corner-cutting. It's like I've always said: build it right to begin with and you won't have to keep rebuilding it....
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.