Soyuz or space shuttle?

[NTP2]

Like many of our space program vehicles, they were built to explore and test many new ideas….thus the obvious progression from mercury to Gemini to Apollo then Shuttle…all were building blocks for the bigger picture. Some professors should kept their biased opinions to themselves as it just makes them appear ignorant. I illustrated technical drawings for Space shuttle manuals many many years ago and I can definitely tell you it was no bicycle by any means.

It was not what it could have been you had to admit.

 

[techrat]

.thus the obvious progression from mercury to Gemini to Apollo then Shuttle…

not so fast there..... It's more like our efforts lurched from one extreme to another. For example, the Air Force was testing hypersonic flight and getting near the edge of space with the X-15 well BEFORE the government shifted gears and moved to the mercury program. We *could* have continued in the X-15 direction and have gotten a pilot into space before Gagarin, but because we changed to putting a man inside a ballistic missile, because that's what the Russians did, we fell behind.

And while you can draw a direct line between Mercury and Gemini, Apollo was designed before Gemini, and was not originally intended as the Moon rocket, but it wound up that way when NASA had to shift gears again because Kennedy gave the speech at Rice U (we choose to go to the moon).... Apollo started as heavy lift idea from Von Braun who cobbled the Saturn 1 from Redstone tanks.

Post Apollo, there were a zillion concepts being floated about, but the shuttle was the only program to survive the chopping block as the nation itself switched gears and was no longer interested in the space race. And the selling point of the shuttle was that it was going to be cheap to make and cheap to run. Whoo boy.

 

[b.wieting]

I've thought, in hindsight anyway, that mixing human and cargo transport is fundamentally wrong. Human transport (should?) demand the ultimate in reliability, nearly regardless of cost. Cargo transport is (mostly) just an insurable activity, amenable to rational cost/risk calculations.

 

[Alan15578]

The shuttle was supposed to be a taxicab that literally "shuttled" crews to a space station that was supposed to have been launched by Nova or some other heavy-lift vehicle. As originally designed, the shuttle had a small or no payload bay, the entire launch system was to be 100% reusable, and was supposed to be a vehicle that could launch again 1 week after returning from space. It was supposed to be essentially an X-20 Dyna Soar, that was launched by a larger space-plane type vehicle.

Well, the first failure of the Shuttle was when it failed failed to perform mission 1, reboosting Skylab.

 

[Astrobuf]

Despite the dead-stick landing, nobody ever died on landing. However, the Enterprise was sufficiently bent on landing that it was not refurbished onto a launch vehicle.

Enterprise was never bent on landing. I know this as I worked at JSC for all ALT flights.

Enterprise could never have been rebuilt to be a flight worthy shuttle as, amongst many reasons it was vastly overweight. OV-101 weighed 318,000# empty, while Columbia weighed 178,000#.

When Challenger was destroyed, structural spares from service inventories of OV-103 & OV-104 were used to construct OV-105, Endeavour.

 

[Antares JS]

Enterprise was never bent on landing. I know this as I worked at JSC for all ALT flights.

I had never heard of this and was wondering about it. Appreciate the confirmation.

 

[tfrielin]

not so fast there..... It's more like our efforts lurched from one extreme to another. For example, the Air Force was testing hypersonic flight and getting near the edge of space with the X-15 well BEFORE the government shifted gears and moved to the mercury program. We *could* have continued in the X-15 direction and have gotten a pilot into space before Gagarin, but because we changed to putting a man inside a ballistic missile, because that's what the Russians did, we fell behind.

And while you can draw a direct line between Mercury and Gemini, Apollo was designed before Gemini, and was not originally intended as the Moon rocket, but it wound up that way when NASA had to shift gears again because Kennedy gave the speech at Rice U (we choose to go to the moon).... Apollo started as heavy lift idea from Von Braun who cobbled the Saturn 1 from Redstone tanks.

Post Apollo, there were a zillion concepts being floated about, but the shuttle was the only program to survive the chopping block as the nation itself switched gears and was no longer interested in the space race. And the selling point of the shuttle was that it was going to be cheap to make and cheap to run. Whoo boy.

It was Kennedy's speech to the Congress on May 25, 1961 that set us on the course to the moon.
The September, 1962 Rice U speech was just a rhetorical reiteration of same goal.

Von Bran's Saturn 1 pre-dated the inception of Apollo whose birthdate is July, 1960. Then Apollo was envisioned as an LEO spacecraft, with later circum-lunar trips.
Until the adption of the LOR mode, the CSM was going to land on the moon (Direct Ascent mode).

The "pre-history" of Apollo and the Saturn were a little more complicated than you indicate.

 

[techrat]

The "pre-history" of Apollo and the Saturn were a little more complicated than you indicate.

Which is exactly what I was trying to imply. You can't draw a straight line from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo and say that NASA had it all figured out. Our space history is a tangled, convoluted mess and frankly, the back story is even more interesting than the face presented to the public. You could make 100 movies about the space race and still not cover all the behind-the-scenes stories. Just the history of the Pressure Suit and how that evolved into a Space Suit could fill a book or two.

 

[NTP2]

You can't draw a straight line from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo and say that NASA had it all figured out.

I wander if the ussr had a more straight forward program?

 

[Sparky]

I have created the poll that did not transfer over when thread was moved. It is good for 7 days. Please check it out and vote your choice.

 

[tfrielin]

Which is exactly what I was trying to imply. You can't draw a straight line from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo and say that NASA had it all figured out. Our space history is a tangled, convoluted mess and frankly, the back story is even more interesting than the face presented to the public. You could make 100 movies about the space race and still not cover all the behind-the-scenes stories. Just the history of the Pressure Suit and how that evolved into a Space Suit could fill a book or two.

Yep, totally agree.
If one reads enough space histioy (and maybe I've read too much!) one realizes the pillar to post gyrations our space policy has been subject to given the politics it operates under.

Mercury, short-circuiting the X-15 route to space
Apollo, short-circuiting the incremental von Braun approach to developing space,frst in LEO via space stations
Shuttle, killing off Saturn/Apollo for the chimera of cheap and routine

I recommend reading John Logsdon's After Apollo (2015) for a great dissection of what a policy mistake the Shuttle was.

There's even a moment in August, 1971 where George Low has last minute doubts about whether NASA should keep pushing for the Shuttle and instead offer Nixon a program of Skylab, followed by the more permanent Space Station (as per AAP) and, eventually a manned lunar base later down the road. Both goals would have required keeping Saturn/Apollo infrastructure and certainly would have produced a more fruitful space program, as opposed to the detour the Shuttle took us on.

And before anyone disputes that the Shuttle wasn't a detour, then explain why over a decade after its retirement, no one is trying to re-create the Shuttle's capabilities, but instead, we're trying to re-create the Saturn/Apollo capabilities that we gave up fifty years ago.

 

[techrat]

And before anyone disputes that the Shuttle wasn't a detour

In the bastardized configuration we wound up with, yes, it's a detour. The "Spaceplane" concept is certainly not a detour, and I'll point out that Dreamchaser, which is soon to be flying is precisely what the shuttle was originally supposed to be.

Also, the British are continuing to develop "Skylon" an SSTO spaceplane concept, which, if the SABRE engine actually does what they claim, will revolutionize space access because you'll take off like a plane, from a runway, zoom into space, and land on a runway, ready to go again, which has been the holy grail of spaceflight since the 1940's.

 

[Antares JS]

I wander if the ussr had a more straight forward program?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

No.

The Soviet Union had different design bureaus doing different things, all competing for funding. Sergei Korolev's OKB-1 just became the most prominent for space activities, and Korolev still had to spend a lot of time convincing the Soviet bigwigs to give him funding over military programs.

 

[NTP2]

Also, the British are continuing to develop "Skylon" an SSTO spaceplane concept, which, if the SABRE engine actually does what they claim,

And that’s the trick, if they get that thing working at a economically viable number of reuses I will be very surprised.

 

[techrat]

Sergei Korolev

Actually his true genius was that he was quite the salesman, convincing the upper management in the USSR that this would not just be good to be ahead of the Americans in missile technology, but as a Public Relations bonanza that the Soviet way was the way to better technology. And he wasn't totally wrong; we all know Sputnik, Laika, Gagarin and Tereshkova as a result.

 

[Antares JS]

Actually his true genius was that he was quite the salesman, convincing the upper management in the USSR that this would not just be good to be ahead of the Americans in missile technology, but as a Public Relations bonanza that the Soviet way was the way to better technology. And he wasn't totally wrong; we all know Sputnik, Laika, Gagarin and Tereshkova as a result.

The same can be said of Von Braun and the TV specials he made with Walt Disney.

 

[cls]

The Soviet Union had different design bureaus doing different things, all competing for funding.

That's the essential contrast: USA, champion of the free market, ran a top down administered program: the USSR, champion of the planned economy, ran 3 competitive programs at the same time...

And the one that didn't use metric system is the one that actually got men on the moon. Ha.

 

[NTP2]

And the one that didn't use metric system is the one that actually got men on the moon. Ha.

But the metric did get them to space.

 

[icyclops]

not so fast there..... It's more like our efforts lurched from one extreme to another. For example, the Air Force was testing hypersonic flight and getting near the edge of space with the X-15 well BEFORE the government shifted gears and moved to the mercury program. We *could* have continued in the X-15 direction and have gotten a pilot into space before Gagarin, but because we changed to putting a man inside a ballistic missile, because that's what the Russians did, we fell behind.

And while you can draw a direct line between Mercury and Gemini, Apollo was designed before Gemini, and was not originally intended as the Moon rocket, but it wound up that way when NASA had to shift gears again because Kennedy gave the speech at Rice U (we choose to go to the moon).... Apollo started as heavy lift idea from Von Braun who cobbled the Saturn 1 from Redstone tanks.

Post Apollo, there were a zillion concepts being floated about, but the shuttle was the only program to survive the chopping block as the nation itself switched gears and was no longer interested in the space race. And the selling point of the shuttle was that it was going to be cheap to make and cheap to run. Whoo boy.

Concepts can be proven which just confirms my statement of progress….each of these programs could be in concept phase and out of sequence…but the steps are still there to get to the results you need for advancement….I’m sure there were concepts for mars travel long before the shuttle was ever completed…and I’m sure plans change due to political climate like the Apollo/moon program….but the stepping stones are still there That need to happen before further advancement, especially if you want to try and do things safely. The Russians learned that lesson the hard way. Usually in technology you do not skip from 1 to 10 in a single bound…

 

[icyclops]

It was not what it could have been you had to admit.

Sometimes technology is like that….but here we are closer to going to mars than ever….doesn’t sound as far fetched as it did 20/30 years ago. Sure there are always slowdowns due to political/worldly factors just like we experienced in the 60s/70s, but we seem to get by most one step at a time. I for one don’t like to look back and say shoulda, coulda, woulda….but say what do we do next to get to where we want to be.

 

[NTP2]

I for one don’t like to look back and say shoulda, coulda, woulda….but say what do we do next to get to where we want to be.

We need to look at what we did wrong to see what we need to do to do it right. That is the point of the thread the STS was not bad it was just not good.

 

[techrat]

We need to look at what we did wrong to see what we need to do to do it right. That is the point of the thread the STS was not bad it was just not good.

Well, leaving things in the hands of Congress is a bad idea, as every 2 years the nature of Congress can shift depending upon who gets voted out and in. Space isn't something that can shift with the wind every 2 years. Ironically, Obama had it right when he retired the shuttles and said it was up to private companies now to provide access to space. And now we have at least 6 companies doing just that, with more on the way as they get their respective acts together.

The nice thing is: Space technology used to be so expensive that only superpowers could afford it. But now with innovations such as 3D printing and very fast powerful and cheap computing, it's now within the reach of just about anyone with a few million dollars of investment. Just count the number of startups in this technology field, it's quite exciting that with a relatively modest investment you can be part of the aerospace industry.

I think great things are going to happen within the next 30 years.

 

[NTP2]

Well, leaving things in the hands of Congress is a bad idea, as every 2 years the nature of Congress can shift depending upon who gets voted out and in. Space isn't something that can shift with the wind every 2 years. Ironically, Obama had it right when he retired the shuttles and said it was up to private companies now to provide access to space. And now we have at least 6 companies doing just that, with more on the way as they get their respective acts together.

The nice thing is: Space technology used to be so expensive that only superpowers could afford it. But now with innovations such as 3D printing and very fast powerful and cheap computing, it's now within the reach of just about anyone with a few million dollars of investment. Just count the number of startups in this technology field, it's quite exciting that with a relatively modest investment you can be part of the aerospace industry.

I think great things are going to happen within the next 30 years.

Agreed

 

[Alan15578]

Enterprise was never bent on landing. I know this as I worked at JSC for all ALT flights.

Enterprise could never have been rebuilt to be a flight worthy shuttle as, amongst many reasons it was vastly overweight. OV-101 weighed 318,000# empty, while Columbia weighed 178,000#.

When Challenger was destroyed, structural spares from service inventories of OV-103 & OV-104 were used to construct OV-105, Endeavour.

Your credentials are certainly better than my, "something I read a long time ago and do not remember where.." I am aware that there were many other reasons why the Enterprise was never made launch capable.

 

[icyclops]

We need to look at what we did wrong to see what we need to do to do it right. That is the point of the thread the STS was not bad it was just not good.

And by looking forward and asking that question you accomplish just what I said…..if all you look at is what is wrong you may find it hard to see what can make it right…thats all I’m saying.

 

[tfrielin]

In the bastardized configuration we wound up with, yes, it's a detour. The "Spaceplane" concept is certainly not a detour, and I'll point out that Dreamchaser, which is soon to be flying is precisely what the shuttle was originally supposed to be.

Also, the British are continuing to develop "Skylon" an SSTO spaceplane concept, which, if the SABRE engine actually does what they claim, will revolutionize space access because you'll take off like a plane, from a runway, zoom into space, and land on a runway, ready to go again, which has been the holy grail of spaceflight since the 1940's.

I used to read about Skylon decades ago in the BIS Spaceflight magazine.
I'm still waiting for it to take off from that runway, fly into orbit, and return to the runway.
They better hurry up, as I don't have decades more to wait on its promised success.
DX-A SSTO's not flying any more either.
X-33, never got past the troubled fabrication of those pesky fuel tanks that cancelled the program.

Again, still waiting for the promise of SSTOs.

 

[Antares JS]

I used to read about Skylon decades ago in the BIS Spaceflight magazine.
I'm still waiting for it to take off from that runway, fly into orbit, and return to the runway.
They better hurry up, as I don't have decades more to wait on its promised success.
DX-A SSTO's not flying any more either.
X-33, never got past the troubled fabrication of those pesky fuel tanks that cancelled the program.

Again, still waiting for the promise of SSTOs.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

I am unconvinced that a practical space plane is even possible at this point. Maybe it could work if Earth was smaller and there was less gravity, but taking off horizontally to get into space seems grossly impractical. You basically have to do a re-entry in reverse, under power.

 

[tfrielin]

Well, leaving things in the hands of Congress is a bad idea, as every 2 years the nature of Congress can shift depending upon who gets voted out and in. Space isn't something that can shift with the wind every 2 years. Ironically, Obama had it right when he retired the shuttles and said it was up to private companies now to provide access to space. And now we have at least 6 companies doing just that, with more on the way as they get their respective acts together.

The nice thing is: Space technology used to be so expensive that only superpowers could afford it. But now with innovations such as 3D printing and very fast powerful and cheap computing, it's now within the reach of just about anyone with a few million dollars of investment. Just count the number of startups in this technology field, it's quite exciting that with a relatively modest investment you can be part of the aerospace industry.

I think great things are going to happen within the next 30 years.

Bush retired the Shuttles and initiated the Constellation Program to replace the Shuttles.
Obama then cancelled the Constellation Program and turned to COTS (also a Bush era initiative) to develop the replacement rockets and spacecraft---a real crap shoot that against all odds paid off thanks to Musk.

Obama didn't really care which way it went---If COTS worked, he gets the credit.
If it didn't, then his decision finally extinguished the US manned spaceflight program, something he and most Democrats weren't all that interested in and wouldn't care if it went away.

You can thank the success of Musk and SpaceX for the fact we still have an indigenous manned spaceflight capability. Not Obama.

 

[techrat]

Again, still waiting for the promise of SSTOs.

Yes, well, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum.

When I was a kid, I got Popular Science. This was probably the mid-1970's, so you can keep perspective. One of the covers of the magazine showed a "flying car", and the inside story was about one Paul Moller, a man claiming that he was going to develop a flying vehicle that could sit in your driveway, take off vertically, fly to your destination and then land vertically, without taking up much more space and your average Buick.

Well, for the next 35 to fourty years, this guy was considered a Kook. A loony, a dreamer. It'll NEVER work, they all claimed. And yes, he ran into many engineering walls, but you know what happened? We got lithium-ion batteries and powerful electric motors during this period.

Suddenly the drone-craze starting inspiring other people to build drones capable of carrying a person. Now we have the Jetson and a host of other firms building what they are also calling "flying cars", and the Chinese are investing heavily in this tech.

But yes, it started with Moller. And frankly, after 50 years, he still hasn't built a flying car, but the tech is getting us there. Popular Science was essentially right, but they just couldn't predict the timeframe. Everyone thinks it takes 10 years of dedicated engineering to make a breakthough, but sometimes it takes a lot more than that. We still don't have, and likely for another 30 years, won't have our skies buzzing about with flying cars, but, it still might happen because the technology is getting there. We'll need AI pilot software to manage it without catostrophic crashes, so, we're still not there.

So, just be careful when you think it ain't gonna happen -- ever, as sometimes, all you need is a just a couple of other advancements. For the Skylon, it might be a materials science thing where we can make entire airframes with carbon fiber that can survive re-entry, and make the whole thing so light that it doesn't require as much fuel as we think. I don't know what it's going to take, as if I knew the future, I'd be doing better in the stock market. ;-)

 

[NTP2]

Yes, well, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum.

When I was a kid, I got Popular Science. This was probably the mid-1970's, so you can keep perspective. One of the covers of the magazine showed a "flying car", and the inside story was about one Paul Moller, a man claiming that he was going to develop a flying vehicle that could sit in your driveway, take off vertically, fly to your destination and then land vertically, without taking up much more space and your average Buick.

Well, for the next 35 to fourty years, this guy was considered a Kook. A loony, a dreamer. It'll NEVER work, they all claimed. And yes, he ran into many engineering walls, but you know what happened? We got lithium-ion batteries and powerful electric motors during this period.

Suddenly the drone-craze starting inspiring other people to build drones capable of carrying a person. Now we have the Jetson and a host of other firms building what they are also calling "flying cars", and the Chinese are investing heavily in this tech.

But yes, it started with Moller. And frankly, after 50 years, he still hasn't built a flying car, but the tech is getting us there. Popular Science was essentially right, but they just couldn't predict the timeframe. Everyone thinks it takes 10 years of dedicated engineering to make a breakthough, but sometimes it takes a lot more than that. We still don't have, and likely for another 30 years, won't have our skies buzzing about with flying cars, but, it still might happen because the technology is getting there. We'll need AI pilot software to manage it without catostrophic crashes, so, we're still not there.

So, just be careful when you think it ain't gonna happen -- ever, as sometimes, all you need is a just a couple of other advancements. For the Skylon, it might be a materials science thing where we can make entire airframes with carbon fiber that can survive re-entry, and make the whole thing so light that it doesn't require as much fuel as we think. I don't know what it's going to take, as if I knew the future, I'd be doing better in the stock market. ;-)

That guy has wisdom.