Per the terrible accident in the news today I know the existing old shuttle warhorses are still serviceable, but they lead a hard and stressfull life. Why arenlt we working on delivering some newer and better space taxi hardware.
Are there any new shuttle designs ready to go?
As I understand it, the Space Shuttle was built with the promise that it would cut down payload cost by a factor of ten. It’s reusability was the reason why they thought the cost savings would be possible.
Turns out that it isn’t the case. I believe it’s cheaper to launch manned mission via ‘ordinary’ multi-stage rockets.
Interesting side note: We [Americans] apparently tricked the Soviets into spending millions of dollars they didn’t really have in developing their own space shuttle program. They didn’t want to get left behind
The curent shuttles were built to fly 100 missions each. This was Columbia’s 28th, so it was barely ¼ through its useful life. I have seen articles that state that the current fleet is expected to fly through 2040. Of course, each vehicle is overhauled and modified as necessary, so the actual age of each is considerably less than it seems.
This site (from April of last year) states that next generation plans are still just in the drawing board stage. The target is 2012 (though I’m sure that will be delayed now). It is darkly ironic that this is mentioned
I think that many people have been lulled into a false sense of security by the frequent successful launches and recoveries of the shuttle. People forget that space travel is right at the edge of technology, and can’t be made “routine” for quite some time.
Still, it is worth it, IMHO.
Yes, you are right, of course. Problem is, the only way so far to coax funding IS to pander to the unreasonable (for manned research spaceflight in our time) demand that you make the system foolproof OR capable of economic self-viability (the latter was the selling point of the shuttles in the 70s, remember?). That quoted requirement to move from a 1-in-250 fatal failure rate to a 1-in-10,000 fatal failure rate just about kills any progress, IMO
I have a friend who worked for Rockwell (now part of Boeing, so he’s now with Boeing), and he was part of the team putting together the proposal for the next generation of reusable spacecraft. Rockwell lost the bid to NASA. I forget who got it.
The real point is that, IIRC, NASA was looking for anmanned vehicle. I assume this was because of the extra costs of all the life support systems and safety factors built in that could be junked if only the craft and cargo would be lost.
Anyone read Richard Feynman’s book that included his account of investigating the Challenger explosion? He concluded that NASA had sold Congress a safety factor that was impossible, just because they didn’t know what do with themselves after the moon program stopped, and no organization likes to let itself be reduced in size or utility.
There have been several new unmanned rockets developed, which have had some interesting features. The Pegasus was an effort at a low-cost way to launch satellites by dropping the rocket from a B-52. I seem to remember hearing that the Conestoga rocket was built as a joint venture between several aerospace firms with very little NASA involvement. And several other rockets, such as the Titan series, continue to be refined and improved.
As I understand it, the (then-)Soviets saw our Shuttle program and thought it made sense. They decided to come up with their own, uniquely Russian, design. When the designers got down to it, they discovered the American shape was better than anything they could come up with. A simple case of form following function. They added turbine engines to theirs so that they didn’t have a one-shot glide on return. (Seems a little wasteful to me, carrying heavy engines and heavy fuel that you might need to use.) I believe a scale model of their Shuttle (whose name escapes me – starts with a “B”, I think) did fly in space and was flown to a landing by remote control. I don’t know if the real thing ever made it into space.
I think that’s right, but I’m not a student of the Soviet space program. Aologiesif I’ve misspoken.
It’s called the Buran. Only one full-sized orbiter was built, although several scale models were used for testing. The one orbiter did make one launch, consisting of two orbits.
I was surprised to find out Columbia was over 20 years old. I guess I never really thought about the fact that they’d want to buld those things to last a long time.
I do agree that we have become complacent with regards to the space shuttle program–the rlative success has lulled us into thinking it’s totally safe. I wonder if austronauts still join the program and decide to go into space thinking there’s a very good chance they won’t come back or if they think there’s a very small chance they won’t come back.
From The Right Stuff (as well as I can remember it):
“I went to my sorority reunion back east. All the other wives were talking about how ‘dog-eat-dog’ it is on Wall Street. I wonder how they would feel if every time their husband went into a boardroom, there’s a one-in-four chance he wouldn’t come out?”
The point is this: In the 1950s (when this scene from The Right Stuff was set), the test pilots knew the odds. They volunteered and flew anyway.