Resurrect the Space Shuttle ???

[kirkster501]

Dangerous Heath Robinson that it was, do you think they could resurrect the shuttle program's orbiters, boosters and facilities if needed or are they all now torn down and dismantled?  Obviously they would never build new ones.

[Alien 13]

I always thought the shuttle was more of a PR exercise and too complex, it could be flown remotely now as a cargo launcher but cant imagine anyone brave enough to fly in one with the Soyuz around.

Alan

[Sunshine]

I suppose anything can be done given enough money and motive, but what motive? the shuttle program even though it was impressive was an overly engineered, money sucking program, space X and others are now achieving what the shuttle program did at a fraction of the cost, a fraction!.

The shuttle was never designed to do half the things a dedicated rocket could do, including sending probes on their way to other planets, the shuttle if anything hamstrung the american space program for over 20 years and tied up enormous amounts of resources, money, man hours to take a frog to the space station here and there lol. I think if some of the visionaries leading this new space race now were at the helm in 1980, they would have scrapped the shuttle program and we would have had humans on mars as of 2000.

[John]

I think one of the fundamental problems with the shuttle was that the crew compartment was alongside the fuel. I think the Americans want to move back to putting the crew compartment on top of the stack so that it can pop off the top to safety if there is a problem ?

 

 

[Alan White]

Two post up, read carefully:   I thought it took other nationalities too?   ?  Sorry I could not stop myself!

In answer to the OP, Why?

As James Bond as it was, other craft could have done similar jobs more readily and cheaply.
The Shuttle hit me as a Cold War weapon used to help break the USSR.
After all they built the Buran programme to be the Shuttles Foil and then only tested it and then parked it up.

The US space programme also in my view hogtied itself by its Shuttle exploits and the ISS and its lengthy build.

 

[DaveS]

We (ie, UK / ESA ) already have a reusable SSTO launcher in development

Skylon

Sorry, but the shuttle is old technology, evne when it was in development. As well resurect the Saturn V if you need a heavy lift to LEO.

[Danjc]

I can’t see it especially as things such as the X-37B has been around for a while with its last flight being just under 700 days iirc. 

It cant carry payloads as big as the shuttle but can carry and deploy things the USAF want up there. 

[wxsatuser]

Parts of the shuttle are resurrected for the Orion capsule, same type of tiles on it.

The SLS has two boosters and a large orange tank not unlike the shuttle at liftoff and uses the same RS 25 engines with uprated thrust.

[DaveS]

Hehe, anyone fancy resurecting the Orion Project?

[noah4x4]

....what about Cavorite and gravity shielding technologies?

Last used circa 1964..... remarkable British lunar achievement.....

[tomato]

6 hours ago, DaveS said:

 As well resurect the Saturn V if you need a heavy lift to LEO.

Yes please, I would love to witness 5 Rocketdyne F-1 engines at full chat.

[SIDO]

Watched a Pbs documentary on the shuttle program and according to that publication and NASA all the blueprints for the shuttle program have been lost to time so if indeed a new shuttle program where initiated it would be all new from the ground up and for that reason an extremely expensive undertaking, would love to see it's return though...Dumping it the biggest mistake NASA ever made in my opinion ? 

[Jbro1985]

The shuttle program was indeed expensive. 

However, most endeavours of that size are, and learning takes place, which is also expensive.  The key point is that unless there is a tangible financial opportunity for monetisation rather than a general investment in science, private capital is seldom interested.

Private companies are leading the way now but that is because the capital markets now see financial benefits and exploits.  Private businesses rarely engage in initial exploration prior to concepts being proved because investors typically don't want to fund such levels of uncertainty; and they're right from a financial standpoint.  From the government viewpoint, thousands of skilled engineers were produced who went on to build the foundation of US engineering not to many the mention complicated but real political and foreign policy benefits.  Recent regimes in the US have also been reticent to fund the space program when there are troops abroad, healthcare and welfare issues at home.

Notwithstanding that, this example of Government taking the lead in primary exploration is not narrow to space exploration and is shown over and over from the pre industrial tea routes through to what we see now.  

That is not to say that the shuttle programme was well done (perhaps it was given our capabilities at the time?  Hindsight is a beautiful thing), but rather that no one else had the appetite or the gumption and, of course, there was a need for a feel good after Vietnam and the cold war provided additional catalyst.

The fundamental issue with the shuttle program in my view is that it stopped innovating.  The computers and software and general technologies being used to operate the shuttles and their launches fell behind the times.  The well earned patents were lost to time as computers developed beyond what the shuttle was holding and aerodynamics, engine building and processes innovated through leveraging the expanding capabilities of computers.

The technology drag in the shuttle programme is really well explained by Feynmen in "what do you care what other people think?" in which there is a lot of interesting things about the challenger shuttle investigation.  

Regarding Challenger, it is also evident that there was much grandstanding around the shuttle program that was perhaps unwise.

In summary, my view is that whilst the shuttle was expensive and not everything was done perfectly, and it probably overstayed its welcome, it also trod on ground others were not prepared to tread and paved the way for efficient and cost effective space exploration that we are now beginning to see is being exploited (rightly so) by private enterprises.

As to whether it should be resurrected...  Well, no, obviously.  However, that is not to say that as technology develops a reuseable vehicle that transports humans as well as goods will not be returned to.

[SIDO]

I think it is interesting that after the scuttling of the shuttle program the vacuum that resulted caused NASA to look for ways to compensate and do so as cost effective as possible, that change ushered in government contracts, tax subsidising and other lucrative incentives that sort of well blew things wide open for a then struggling private space industry. So indeed I think it is correct in some regards the shuttle program and it's demise where both a huge win for science.

It is a good thing that private industry is becoming a stronger player as they tend to more consistantly develope, retain and advance technologies better than a government institution. 

The shuttle program was mothballed right after the last vehicle was manufactured as only the mission funding and maintence and upkeep were permitted by congress, so it was to say a disposable program from the beginning with production research and development ending at it's beginning. Private industry would have been more interested in staying in business and advancing the shuttle technologically wich is why I'm so elated about the current participation by said.

Where would we be today with an advanced version of the shuttle  along side rockets both landing and launching vertically?

Would like to see us get there someday ?

 

[Jbro1985]

The main issue that NASA has in terms of undertaking large scale exploration or activity is the frequency in the change in government.  Programs take many years to come to fruition and when one government starts one the next is quick to stop it, be it 4 or 8 years later, wasting huge amounts of time and resources. 

The same isn't the case in the private sector and, whilst good money shouldn't be thrown away after bad, the decision to complete or mothball a project is taken on the basis of economics and whether or not the project is still likely to succeed rather than to appeal to or appease a particular demographic of voters that can't see beyond their own noses. 

[maw lod qan]

16 hours ago, Jbro1985 said:

The main issue that NASA has in terms of undertaking large scale exploration or activity is the frequency in the change in government.  Programs take many years to come to fruition and when one government starts one the next is quick to stop it, be it 4 or 8 years later, wasting huge amounts of time and resources. 

 

Well said!

The Space Shuttle was a beautiful incredible piece of equipment, that with what we know now, was blessed to have only had two accidents.

I was born in '55. As a young child I remember first Sputnik, and the associated fears that came with it. Then the pride and joy when we succeeded in putting our own satellite in orbit. And if my memory serves me now, I believe it's still up there along with the rest of the nonworking garbage.

I watched as the dream of a "space plane" became a reality. Then I suffered through its losses. And even knowing it's cost was too much per pound of material, I shook my head in disbelief when we parked our only way to put men into space.

If humanity in general had looked at the cost and the loss of lives everytime the next step towards the unknown was taken, where would we be now?

If JFK had lived, would we have lost the focus and dedication that ended with humans walking on the moon, when the next President took office?

We (Americans) need to regain our focus, stop wasting funds just to assure another vote.

Sorry. I guess you can tell I'm a little passonate when it comes to what truly is mankind's last frontier.

[Paul M]

I think mankind's final frontier is right here on Earth: to survive our own vulgar excesses.

Our only functional reason to escape this Earth is to escape ourselves

[maw lod qan]

We do desperately need to get our house in order.  But I'll always be one who stands on the shoreline, looking out at the horizon and dream of what awaits us.

Hopefully, they're vegatarians.?

[Ags]

The space shuttle was an expensive mistake that held back progress for decades and cost too many lives. I was relieved when it was finally junked.

But then they started work on the SLS, which is even worse. It is not even meant to fly, just be developed - ad infinitum.

[Jbro1985]

11 hours ago, Ags said:

The space shuttle was an expensive mistake that held back progress for decades 

The shuttle was expensive, there's no denying that, but to purport that it was a mistake and held back progress for decades is an assertion that requires a little more explanation in my view. 

Care to elaborate?

[Paul M]

I loved watching shuttle launches. A magnificent sight to behold. But as time went on I struggled to see any purpose for it.

It took huge swathes of space budget to operate for little if any progress. 

Servicing the ISS wasn't justification in my view. Just an excuse to keep the US's only manned launch vehicle active. Oh and to provide a lab to demonstrate that carrots would grow in LEO.

The unimaginable stack of cash it swallowed was money not being spent on developing new technology. It was a cul-de-sac. Perhaps it didn't matter because NASA had no better ideas or purposes to spend that money on?

What could Elon Musk have done with that money?

[Macavity]

At Christmas time, I recall standing outside in 1968(!) and contemplating
humanity's "mind-blowing" future in space... Mars Landings and beyond!
Every year since, I reluctantly learned how unlikely this was to materialise. ?

I do still admire the achievements of the "space program"... in adversity!  ?
I admire their dogged persistence in the face of the "Fake News" types.
 

[Ags]

3 hours ago, Jbro1985 said:

The shuttle was expensive, there's no denying that, but to purport that it was a mistake and held back progress for decades is an assertion that requires a little more explanation in my view. 

Care to elaborate?

The shuttle was so expensive there was hardly any money for any other projects. With a less expensive launch vehicle, the ISS could have been built in half the time for half the cost. And don't forget the wasted time and delayed projects for the inevitable accident investigations.

[Jbro1985]

In terms of the money, the shuttle potentially was over prioritised but that isn't a certainty and is a coulda, shoulda, woulda position.  You can say the same of most things with the benefit of hindsight.  Whether, at the time and with the information available, this was the case is uncertain.

Now, whether the ISS could have been built in half the time is pure speculation and ignores the engineering of the station itself but one must concede that it would have been cheaper to build if the cost per kg of getting stuff up there was minimised... But that's as obvious as saying that if they had used lesser materials or only built half the ISS it would have cost less.  What is important is a balance between cost and effectiveness and in my experience, cheap and fast rarely pays off in relation to anything of importance (though I'm sure those with the the new 8" RASA might disagree! ).  Whether or not a different method of getting payload to space for the purpose of the ISS would have been as effective is unknown.

Regarding the accident investigation, you're asserting that failings would not happen elsewhere giving cause for investigation.  Every method of terrestrial transport we have is subject to accident and accident investigations...  Naturally, extra terrestrial will be too.  We're humans, we get stuff wrong, right?

I don't want to get into this much further really as it's not in the spirit of the forum but all I will say is that criticisms are levelled at all projects, regardless of the ultimate subject matter, and they are a necessary thing in order to maintain accountability.

Notwithstanding that, it's easy to stand on the sidelines and look in and much harder to be doing the stuff that invites criticism and in the (paraphrased) words of Rocky Balboa:

"It's not about how hard you can hit it's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.  That's how winning is done!"

In the case of the shuttle, I didn't see anyone else having a crack at non-ELV methods of getting payload into orbit.  

Nb.  Setting any disagreements aside, I've been fortunate enough to have been in a shuttle and, frankly, what an incredible and beautiful thing it is.

[Alan White]

6 hours ago, Paul M said:

What could Elon Musk have done with that money?

Smoked it?