Shuttle ‘Oversold’–Even According to Astronauts

The shuttle wasn’t oversold – it was underdesigned because of budget cuts early on.

Ha! I’ve been saying this for years. There is one really worthless poster who will attack anybody who says the truth about costs, dependability, and safety.
Now it’s official. The shuttle will be remembered as an operational failure. I was right.
Now America can build the Aries and Orion launch systems and forget the lost years of 1976 until 2010 that was spent on the Shuttle, the most expensive and dangerous spacecraft ever made.
I was right. I told you so.

Bob,
We HAD an atomic engine designed, built, and ready to test, a long time ago. If you’ll pardon the expression it never got off the launch pad because of flak from the Soviet Union about “testing nuclear devices in the atmosphere”. It was called Project Orion, and it could and should be revived immediately as it showed great promise. This is a technology that could get us to Mars, the asteroid belt, and beyond without taking the ghastly amount of time that a chemical engine would entail.

Keep the Shuttle – Get rid of Republicans.

If you get rid of the republicans, then the democrats will really waste the money…. ON PEOPLE!!!! We learned alot from the shuttle. If it was properly funded, the next gen shuttle was being developed by the Skunkworks at Lockheed. I am also sure they said the same things about air travel. The shuttle is a stepping stone to the future. I actually believe, with some redesigning, that we could use a platform like that for the Mars Missions, or even just moon missions. I think time will tell.

I think they just need to think ahead, why not leave the robotic arm in space so they can use it instead of back and forth with the. The project cost to much so why not try to get the most out of it. They should go up with full loads and store stuff for the future. They just don’t do a good job planning the missions.

Nixon,
So you are saying that NASA has a say in what is and is not cancelled in the space exploration budget? I always thought that it was Congress. The Venture Star would have worked with a little more time invested in research and development. The shuttle was initially concieved in 1972, but had to wait 9 years to actually fly. This was becuase it took that long to develop alot of the technology to allow such a big bird to come home from a space mission. The tiles that are held on with glue. Those tiles are 98 percent air. Nothing else will hold them on. There is no metal strong AND light enough to withstand the heat of re-entry.
I am an Engineer and I have watched probably every shuttle launch and return that has ever aired. Getting to space is a very complex task, but is simple compared to actually coming back home. That deflection you see while watching the shuttle before a launch is approximately 3 million pounds of thrust pushing the shuttle until the SRB’s are fired. You are right, the shuttle is not space exploration, but the Hubble telescope and the ISS are. They both have increased the knowledge of humans about space beyond what anybody dreamed possible 100 years ago. How did the Hubble and the space station get there? Oh yea, they were both lifted into space onboard the space shuttle and both have been serviced/repaired by, yep, you guessed it, that very same shuttle. Of course flying the shuttle is not space exploration. It provides the means to explore space much the same way your car provides the means for you to work and explore your surroundings.

Shuttle Supporter,
I suspect you were the defender who used to post at the other sites defending the shuttle against all detractors.
Well, I work as a software development programmer leader and can read a PERT and other management charts as well as any engineer. It’s my job. Also, my degree is in accounting and my masters is in history.
Venture Star program blew it. There was no way the adjustable rocket engines were working with consistent reliability. There is a point where your managers had to appear before the House subcommittee and say the truth on their analysis. You’re lucky. In private business you’d be fired.
I like the shuttle hardware. I think the engines are extremely efficient. The SRBs would be extremely safe if they were not subject to an off centerline deflection on the initial ignition of the Shuttle Stack. I think the Ares heavy launch rocket will rival the Saturn V.
I view the shuttle program as something like the huge but fragile large aircraft of World War One. They were never practicable. It was not until the 1930s era that aircraft became reliable, safe, and profitable. The shuttle could never do two of the former and – since it was government funded – had no reason to ever be cost effective.
I told you that history would judge the Shuttles harshly. I was bitterly attacked. Yes, they were like the giant Russian Sikorsky bombers of World War One, big, beautiful, and way ahead of their time.
I’m one of those kids who grew up with Apollo. Then there was Skylab, still the biggest living module ever put into space (and why did NASA give up on the inflatable module?). Then the shuttle came along. NASA could not get the funding for it until they agreed to build the cargo bay large enough to hold a USAF Keyhole spy satellite. Your troubles in life started after that. Also, you stuck to your plans of just having the NASA being a large scale up of the canceled X-20 Dynasoar.
But all of that is gone now. You lost. I’m not happy about this either. But you got paid to properly manage a program. We could have had a dozen or so mid-sized space planes instead of a DC-9 sized cargo trucks. We’re back to the neo-Apollo because NASA was quickly trending to only being able to do two or three launches per year.
And history will judge you harshly.

Boy the pointy heads get really angry
about this topic.
I’m a NASA freak from the beginning.
Both sides have good/bad points to make
but we should not get personal or attack
each other.
Here’ my opinion, The X-15 the fastest aircraft ever to fly and could have been used to get a man into space was killed by the space race(politics) with the USSR. They used a rocket so we had to use a rocket. We won the race to the Moon and we could have been on
Mars with a manned crew in the 1980′s but Nixon(R) nearly killed NASA. Does anyone remember the NOVA launch vehicle? Politics vs. budgets vs. wars vs. public apathy. We are lucky we were able to get the Shuttle. Flawed yes, death trap…only when humans fail and schedules prevail(Reagan(R)wanted to talk to the Challenger astronauts during the State of the Union speech..which meant they had to do an early launch… more politics). The US has slipped on so many levels, if we lose the edge in space flight we will truely become a 2nd rate nation. Letting Bush decide to kill the shuttle(politics) is like a blind man picking out wallpaper. So what do we do? I want to see us back on the moon and then to Mars before I die(I’ll be 50 soon). What happen to the idea of using the SRB’s with some form of heavy lift vehicle in an unmanned config? A Trillion dollars to
Irag and to hell with our technological
superiority. Bad choices Bush. Politics AGAIN.
Sorry to ramble but it late in the day.
PS..Remember the Manned/Unmanned debate.
there’s another topic to get the bloggers arguing. Bye:-)

I agree whole-heartedly that the shuttle was way ahead of it’s time even back in the 1970′s.With advances in technology since then,we could make an even better version(using the old one as a template to go by).We could probably even come-up with a better heat shield than the tiles.
I also agree that it was NOT oversold,but underfunded.It would have lived-up to it’s promise of cheap,reusable space flight if it had been done correctly in the first place…. according to the original plan….before budget cuts by Congress(not NASA.If you blame them,it shows you don’t know what you’re talking about).There was a common denominator to both the Challenger and Columbia disasters.In both cases,the shuttle orbiter itself had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.It has still been a very reliable flying machine in spite of it all when considering the tremendous number of sucessful flights it has racked-up.Instead,it was the dangerous external “strap-on” paraphernalia of solid fuel rockets and external tank.This was NOT in the original plan….the result of cutting corners due to budget constraints imposed by Congress.So blame Congress,not the most advanced flying machine ever built.If NASA could have stuck to the original plan,the shuttle would have rode piggy-back ontop a larger reusable rocket-plane(much safer)and these disasters would never have happened in the first place.
The result:cutting corners in the short-run cost far more in the long-run.
Of course,in order to have the ideal space program,we need BOTH large expedable boosters(one-time use)and reusable craft.The large boosters could launch bigger payloads and space stations in a single launch.Then the smaller reusable shuttles could supply,repair and sevice them.It was a big mistake for President Nixon to throw away the big Apollo Saturn-5 workhorse and all the development money that went into it.
But America made a double mistake to have done thrown away the means to build any more shuttles.As a result,it will mean that we will eventully have to re-do two space programs all over again….if we want to have the most ideal space program.But when we keep on swapping horses in mid-stream all the time….instead of sparing no expense to do it right the first time….we wind-up tossing away even more money without getting much accomplished.