End of the Space Shuttle - Overall verdict

[SpaceMarine93]

As I write, on 9th July 2011, the Space Shuttle Atlantis embarks on the 135th and final voyage of the Space Shuttle fleet. After this mission is over, the Space Shuttles would be officially retired, and hopefully, though I doubt it would happen, be replaced with a new space delivery system.

To be frank though, what are people's verdicts on the Space Shuttle program? In terms of its technology, achievements, reliability, performance and its career I want to know how well the Space Shuttle did and its impact on American science, history and society.

If good, please state reasons why, and if bad, please state why as well, and suggest how it might had been, and room for improvement.

[Stark]

Half an hour later is stretching it for an 'accidental' double post.

[Flagg]

The SS was a piece of shit and never did what they said it could do. Good riddance. Overpriced, over complicated, and overrated. Disposable capsules are far cheaper than a "reusable" vehicle that in reality had to be taken apart and rebuilt after every mission.

[K. A. Pital]

The program failed desired specifications by a very large margin. Calling it anything but a failure would be too generous. However, some good technology may come out of it for the SLS (except, of course, one could've developed it even without the Shuttle). Also, the booster wasn't universal and only suitable for the Shuttle - not good.

[bz249]

NASA learned in a hard and costly way, that heavy duty trucks are not really economical as family cars... so the personal and freight transport should be separated IN SPAAACE also.

[PeZook]

The SS was a piece of shit and never did what they said it could do. Good riddance. Overpriced, over complicated, and overrated. Disposable capsules are far cheaper than a "reusable" vehicle that in reality had to be taken apart and rebuilt after every mission.

Really, a "piece of shit"?

The program failed to accomplish the goals it set to do, that is true, but it had tremendous achievements as well. For example: 98,5% reliability rate - better than the Soyuz! ; Saved the Hubble Space Telescope ; Performed on-orbit science on their own and with space stations ; Pioneered and flight-tested several new rocket technologies (like man-rated solid fuelled boosters).

Sure, NASA could've done most of that save perhaps the Hubble repair with something else, but the vehicle was built really well and served admirably, despite its shortcomings.

[Broomstick]

In addition to what PeZook list as accomplishments, I think people consistently undervalue learning what NOT to do. The space shuttle seemed to be a good concept, but was lacking execution. For instance, as bz249 points out, NASA has learned that it might be economical to separate human and freight transport, and that "one-size-fits-all" vehicles are never really the best size for a mission. This is a valuable lesson(s) to learn.

I don't view it as a total failure or a piece of shit, but it was in ways a disappointment.

[PeZook]

Yes, disappointment would be a better judgement. It promised to make access to space super-cheap, and it turned out it wasn't very good at that mission at all.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a disposable capsule that could carry seven astronauts for two weeks with so much internal space for living or experimentation that was much cheaper

For ISS passenger access the Shuttle was certainly a waste: Soyuz + ATV combo is a way better and vastly cheaper solution. For construction work, though, Shuttle had some unique capabilities not easily replicated.

[bz249]

In addition to what PeZook list as accomplishments, I think people consistently undervalue learning what NOT to do. The space shuttle seemed to be a good concept, but was lacking execution. For instance, as bz249 points out, NASA has learned that it might be economical to separate human and freight transport, and that "one-size-fits-all" vehicles are never really the best size for a mission. This is a valuable lesson(s) to learn.

I don't view it as a total failure or a piece of shit, but it was in ways a disappointment.

One size fits for all might not be a bad idea (for example having a heavy lift rocket for both humans and freight... that would save costs), what was problematic with the shuttle, that the end result was an extremely rigid system, which can not really be configured for the different missions. Because the thing was a mini space station, human transport system, freight transport system... etc. The problem was, that:
- in freight mode, one had to lob the Orbiter (something way heavier than a standard rocket end stage) to orbit and doing it on a man rated rocket with humans onboard with a net capacity was roughly on par with a Delta IV-> if for example the booster stage for the Shuttle would have been an Atlas V/Delta IV or the SRBs could fly alone this would have given flexibility
- as a mini space statition it really lacked endurance... so that capacity was totally unneeded, on the last missions the Shuttle was nothing but a glorified LEO taxi transporting crew to ISS, something which a Gemini could have done... although not with 7 person onboard, but since the ISS has a capacity of 6 a Gemini would fit even better
- as a human transport system... well it can not got beyond LEO, so it was a glorified LEO-taxi, but for that there were too many compulsory add-ons so a mission was way too expensive

[PeZook]

Dude, Gemini?

Even in the 1970s it was no longer in production and mostly obsolete by then anyways. Right now,you can swap out the entire ISS crew with just two Soyuz launches (about 200 mil in total)...

[bz249]

Dude, Gemini?

Even in the 1970s it was no longer in production and mostly obsolete by then anyways. Right now,you can swap out the entire ISS crew with just two Soyuz launches (about 200 mil in total)...

A Gemini level stuff fits nicely as an ISS crew transport. A cramped two man spacecraft lofted by a medium lift vehicle, but equipped with maneuvering thrusters and capable of carrying out a docking operation.

Soyuz is afterall a derivative of a Moon-capable spaceship, so it is way above the mission profile.

[PeZook]

A Gemini level stuff fits nicely as an ISS crew transport. A cramped two man spacecraft lofted by a medium lift vehicle, but equipped with maneuvering thrusters and capable of carrying out a docking operation.

Not really, the same vehicle can comfortably loft a three-person capsule just as well, saving you an extra launch.

Soyuz is afterall a derivative of a Moon-capable spaceship, so it is way above the mission profile.

Not the Sozuy that flies to the ISS. The capsule is nearly identical, yes, but the service module and engine is completely different from what you'd need for a Moon mission. And it has the distinct advantage of being here and being really cheap

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Dude, Gemini? :)

Even in the 1970s it was no longer in production and mostly obsolete by then anyways. Right now,you can swap out the entire ISS crew with just two Soyuz launches (about 200 mil in total)...

He might've been thinking of the proposed 'Big Gemini,' which would've launched 9 to 12 astronauts into LEO and landed via paraglider(!).

[Alyeska]

The Shuttle was a disappointment, and an expensive one at that. But we still learned from it. I like how the Shuttle Replacement is looking at utilizing shuttle derived technology. The SRBs are perfectly usable pieces of technology. It only makes sense to use what you already know. Remove the shuttle itself and design around a rocket launch, use the SRBs as necessary for extra load capacity. Improve on the design as you learn more about it.

The interesting thing is we might eventually see another space plane on top of the rocket NASA is working on. There are some interesting concepts. Part of the disappointment from the shuttle was combining crew and freight. Designing just a space plane is far easier and smaller. We already have proofs of concept that could potentially be adapted and used.

Crew Return Vehicle

I would think it would not require significant changes to make that fully space capable. Give it enough fuel to maneuver in space while the rocket itself puts it up there.

There is also the X37B

Single Stage to Orbit is a fantasy. Even back in the Apollo program they realized this with the Moon lander. You have to carry enough fuel to get the entire vehicle in orbit, which adds weight which requires more fuel that adds more weight. Its a vicious cycle, and look what the Shuttle did in an attempt to get around that, while still not being single stage. Multi purpose ships are also bad because it won't have enough capacity to do either very well. Ironically a rocket works great because you can put whatever cargo you need on top and if you utilize extra boosters like SRBs you can customize fairly cheaply.

[erik_t]

A very ambitious attempt to satisfy mission requirements that were, in retrospect, both ill-conceived and arguably beyond the reasonable limits of the state of the art. Viewed in that context, it was a very successful design and engineering effort but not a terribly successful space launch program.

[PeZook]

He might've been thinking of the proposed 'Big Gemini,' which would've launched 9 to 12 astronauts into LEO and landed via paraglider(!).

Well, Big G was proposed a bit early and fell by the wayside, but yeah, it was a really good idea. But in 1969 NASA was still doing Apollo, and preferred to go with it for the later programs like Apollo Applications.

The problem was also that Big G would require a substantially redesigned crew capsule with a huge heat shield - not a cheap solution by any means. The spacecraft would have very little in common with the Gemini and would NOT have been cheap.

[U-95]

I grew with them and I have great respect for the Space Shuttle -I even still have a die-cast model of her... memories-. They were an icon both of NASA and the 80s and 90s, especially of when NASA still had that futuristic, red logo- and will have a deserved place in the history of space exploration.

They made both headline successes -build of the ISS, the launch, repair, and updates of the HST and even some deep-space probes (the Galileo mission to Jupiter, for example), etc.- and headline tragedies (the accidents of Challenger and Columbia), and while although a great deal of science was learn of their in-orbit experiments they failed to accomplish what was expected of them.

Supposedly, they were to make so many launches that the high costs of launch, etc. would be amortized; unfortunately, that didn't happen as we know, and later their age started to be a problem -remember in 2005, when they started to lose tiles of the heat shield during launch-.

I'd give them a "5 over 10".

[PeZook]

Shuttles always shed tiled during launch ; The TPS is just designed with a lot of redundancy in it.

Columbia had the problem of having a HOLE IN THE WING, which was a different piece of cake altogether

Anyway, I think you make a good point about the Shuttles being iconic. For thirty years they have been a symbol of manned spaceflight throughout the world, for better or for worse.

[U-95]

Shuttles always shed tiled during launch ; The TPS is just designed with a lot of redundancy in it.

Anyway, I think you make a good point about the Shuttles being iconic. For thirty years they have been a symbol of manned spaceflight throughout the world, for better or for worse.

I remember how when that things happened, some news programs presented that as that something bad could happen to the Shuttle, that NASA was using the equivalent of a truck that should have been sent to the wrecking yard long ago, and the like, more when once in orbit and close to the ISS the shuttle was inspected to see if there was damage that could compromise her return to Earth.

The pity is that the replacement for the SS will need some years to be ready and until them, we'll have just the Soyuz, despite their great quality and service.

[PeZook]

NASA isn't actually thinking about a straight-up replacement for the Shuttle as much as a series of systems to replace the Shuttle's mission.

There's Dragon (with Soyuz as a stopgap) as the outsourced low-orbit passenger taxi, the Space Launch System medium/heavy lifter for cargo, the European ATV as a replacement for Progress and MPCV as a command module for long-range ships to be based upon.

These are mostly concepts right now (only the Dragon and ATV is in a useable state, though the Dragon still has a couple years to go and IIRC still hasn't got a docking mechanism?), but they do show NASA learned their lesson from the Shuttle.

You know, I was really sad when Constellation was cancelled, but it does look like we may yet see an entire new generation of manned spacecraft in our lifetimes, with exciting new prospects for manned spaceflight still there. We may see humans land on an asteroid, for example.

Future historians might see our era, including the early XXIst century as the teething stage of manned space exploration, where we did some amazing things with primitive technology and learned valuable lessons from our mistakes.

Who knows. It may be that Chris Fergusson will be vindicated: as he put it right before STS-135 launched, it is merely another chapter in a journey that will never end.

"If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred.The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space."

[U-95]

What you say is the positive part of this, and now you say it, sending astronauts to an asteroid seems to be a closer (and easier and cheaper) goal than sending them to Mars, so perhaps we'll see it in our lifetimes.

If everything goes well, we may see as you comment not just a single ship type but several, and this without what will design and launch other countries; still, it's quite sad Clarke's prophecies in 2001 had not become true (as well as alike ones of the 50s and 60s): no large cartwheel-like space stations, no moonbase, and no Discovery en route to Jupiter or Saturn . At least, the space probes have boldly gone where no one has gone before (yet)

[Uraniun235]

He might've been thinking of the proposed 'Big Gemini,' which would've launched 9 to 12 astronauts into LEO and landed via paraglider(!).

Well, Big G was proposed a bit early and fell by the wayside, but yeah, it was a really good idea. But in 1969 NASA was still doing Apollo, and preferred to go with it for the later programs like Apollo Applications.

The problem was also that Big G would require a substantially redesigned crew capsule with a huge heat shield - not a cheap solution by any means. The spacecraft would have very little in common with the Gemini and would NOT have been cheap.

Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz rendezvous used Apollo hardware because much of it had already been purchased and built for (and not insignificantly, proven by) the Apollo program.

Incidentally, there was a five-man Apollo module built, intended as a rescue craft to retrieve a stranded crew from Skylab.

[Simon_Jester]

What you say is the positive part of this, and now you say it, sending astronauts to an asteroid seems to be a closer (and easier and cheaper) goal than sending them to Mars, so perhaps we'll see it in our lifetimes.

If everything goes well, we may see as you comment not just a single ship type but several, and this without what will design and launch other countries; still, it's quite sad Clarke's prophecies in 2001 had not become true (as well as alike ones of the 50s and 60s): no large cartwheel-like space stations, no moonbase, and no Discovery en route to Jupiter or Saturn . At least, the space probes have boldly gone where no one has gone before (yet)

Many of those projections were based on the idea that people would throw unlimited resources at the problems involved- the Apollo program involved a great deal of 'forcing the learning curve' in terms of space technology design, and was extremely expensive for that reason.

We learned a lot, but it really shouldn't be a surprise that at some point an effort like that would become unsustainable.

[SpaceMarine93]

Future historians might see our era, including the early XXIst century as the teething stage of manned space exploration, where we did some amazing things with primitive technology and learned valuable lessons from our mistakes.

Of course, that still depends on whether the public is still willing to fund them. And in a world where the masses still believe in Creationism, under an economic depression, wasting money on wars, without a cold war style enemy to compete against, I don't think we are going to make much progress in the near future.

[Alyeska]

Future historians might see our era, including the early XXIst century as the teething stage of manned space exploration, where we did some amazing things with primitive technology and learned valuable lessons from our mistakes.

Of course, that still depends on whether the public is still willing to fund them. And in a world where the masses still believe in Creationism, under an economic depression, wasting money on wars, without a cold war style enemy to compete against, I don't think we are going to make much progress in the near future.

Do you completely ignore Europe? Are you a complete F*cking idiot? All you do is post inflammatory material or grossly over simplified details.

Europe does not spend nearly so much money on War and they certainly do not have a significant worry about Creationism. So why the hell would they have the problems you describe?