Soyuz or space shuttle?

[jqavins]

Late to the party again.

This is not even an Apples to Oranges comparison. It's an Apples to Chicken comparison.

Ah, but have you ever stuffed a chicken with apple pieces? Rolled in curry powder, with or without some onion pieces as well. Yum!

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.

And both of those sudden changes were about being in a hurry. "Gotta beat the Ruskies" so we ditched the X-15 successor path in order to use missiles that we already had. "Gotta gotta beat those damn Ruskies" so we switched gears again from progress following Gemini to something that was more or less in hand. If we hadn't been so bent on doing it before the d'cayd was out, we might have done it better; better in regard to the prospects for progress thereafter.

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.

But it doesn't sound any less far fetched than it did 45 or 50 years ago, despite our overreliance on missiles. It was further away from being accomplished, but accomplishing it was not so far fetched. And if not for the various decisions that left us with the STS so burdened by mission creep, we might well have been there 20 or 25 years ago.

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

I'd be somewhat surprised, and very excited and pleased. But yeah, surprised.

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.

But you have to look both ways. It's the old "Those who do not learn from history..." thing, but also if you do nothing but study history then you've done, well, nothing. You've got to do both to put the lessons of history into action.

You can thank the success of Musk and SpaceX for the fact we still have an indigenous manned spaceflight capability.

I'll let @Antares JS respond to that one (though I also had a little bit of a hand in it).

 

[NTP2]

Late to the party again.



Ah, but have you ever stuffed a chicken with apple pieces? Rolled in curry powder, with or without some onion pieces as well. Yum!



And both of those sudden changes were about being in a hurry. "Gotta beat the Ruskies" so we ditched the X-15 successor path in order to use missiles that we already had. "Gotta gotta beat those damn Ruskies" so we switched gears again from progress following Gemini to something that was more or less in hand. If we hadn't been so bent on doing it before the d'cayd was out, we might have done it better; better in regard to the prospects for progress thereafter.


But it doesn't sound any less far fetched than it did 45 or 50 years ago, despite our overreliance on missiles. It was further away from being accomplished, but accomplishing it was not so far fetched. And if not for the various decisions that left us with the STS so burdened by mission creep, we might well have been there 20 or 25 years ago.


I'd be somewhat surprised, and very excited and pleased. But yeah, surprised.


But you have to look both ways. It's the old "Those who do not learn from history..." thing, but also if you do nothing but study history that you've done, well, nothing. You've got to do both to put the lessons of history into action.


I'll let @Antares JS respond to that one (though I also had a little bit of a hand in it).

A perfect suming up of the thread.

 

[cwbullet]

Space shuttle every time.

 

[tfrielin]

Space shuttle every time.

You wouldn't say that if you understood what was lost when Saturn/Apollo was cancelled:

To wit----Apollo after ASTP instead of going the Shuttle route:

1976-78

Skylab B (1 Saturn V launch plus six manned visits of 90 day's duration each minimum on Saturn 1B/ApolloCSMs)

1978 Launch of Voyager to Mars atop a Saturn V (original Mars Voyager---not the actual outer planet Voyager of same name).


1980-1986

Begin post-Skylab station Saturn V-launched Space Station modules and occupation launches--Low's long-term space station. Probably requires 5 or 6 Saturn V launches to establish. Annual support: Four or five Saturn 1B/CSM launches in the decade, plus one Saturn V -launched logistics/new space station module every second or third year in the '80s.


1981

Launch of six Tracking and Data Relay satellites atop a Saturn V. These are up-sized TDRSs weighing 10,000 to fully utilize the Saturn V's capacity of placing 60,000 pounds into geosynchronous orbit. The TDRSS constellation consists of four operational satellites, plus two on-orbit spares. MSFN network and overseas tracking stations retired.


1989-early '90s


Manned lunar orbital flight with the Apollo Lunar Mapping and Survey System (LMSS) to gather high resolution photos for the upcoming unmanned Lunar Shelter LEM landings. 1 Saturn V/CSM plus LMSS.

1991-c.early 2000s

On-going Space Station operations is followed in the '90s with the resumption of the Dual Launch AAP lunar missions with fourteen day surface stay times and multiple moonwalks. With launch centers of 18 months to two years between these greatly extended missions, this program alone would have gainfully occupied NASA for a decade or two, assuming a program of ten Dual Launch missions. Potential landing sites: Maurius Hills, Copernicus crater, Tycho crater, lunar far side, lunar poles (ice!).

FLO...

All lost to the false promise of the Shuttle.

 

[techrat]

All lost to the false promise of the Shuttle.

Well, if you really want to mourn what could have been.... At the end of the Apollo program, we still had two complete and workable Saturn V's which could have launched *something* into space, like an upgraded Skylab. But there wasn't the money for this and we had no way to get a crew to this Space Station until the shuttle was completed, by which time, we didn't have the launch facility for the Saturn V any longer and the Saturns had been scuttled or given away to museums, where they rot out in the open to this day.

Basically there was poor planning and complete lack of vision, and again once you go with "plan A", there's never any use of "Plan B" assets at all, just scrap everything. Nothing is ever a "lean and mean machine", especially when designed by committee.

 

[jqavins]

You wouldn't say that if you understood what was lost when Saturn/Apollo was cancelled:

To wit----Apollo after ASTP instead of going the Shuttle route:

1976-78

Skylab B (1 Saturn V launch plus six manned visits of 90 day's duration each minimum on Saturn 1B/ApolloCSMs)

1978 Launch of Voyager to Mars atop a Saturn V (original Mars Voyager---not the actual outer planet Voyager of same name)...
[snip]
All lost to the false promise of the Shuttle.

A very compelling argument, if the subject had been Apollo or Space Shuttle. But it has no bearing on Soyuz or Space Shuttle.

 

[Antares JS]

(...) where they rot out in the open to this day.

All three Saturn V's (The two remaining flight ones mentioned plus 500F) now reside in climate-controlled, permanent structures and have since the Davidson Center was completed in Huntsville in 2008.

 

[tfrielin]

Well, if you really want to mourn what could have been.... At the end of the Apollo program, we still had two complete and workable Saturn V's which could have launched *something* into space, like an upgraded Skylab. But there wasn't the money for this and we had no way to get a crew to this Space Station until the shuttle was completed, by which time, we didn't have the launch facility for the Saturn V any longer and the Saturns had been scuttled or given away to museums, where they rot out in the open to this day.

Basically there was poor planning and complete lack of vision, and again once you go with "plan A", there's never any use of "Plan B" assets at all, just scrap everything. Nothing is ever a "lean and mean machine", especially when designed by committee.

Tell me about it.

See: Skylab B: Unflown Missions, Lost Opportunities
Thomas J. Frieling
Quest Magazine

file:///C:/Users/tfrie/Downloads/skylab%20B%20(8).pdf

(Not sure if the link will work---But you can google the title/author and get a copy---or email me and I can send you a copy.)

 

[cwbullet]

Well, if you really want to mourn what could have been.... At the end of the Apollo program, we still had two complete and workable Saturn V's which could have launched *something* into space, like an upgraded Skylab. But there wasn't the money for this and we had no way to get a crew to this Space Station until the shuttle was completed, by which time, we didn't have the launch facility for the Saturn V any longer and the Saturns had been scuttled or given away to museums, where they rot out in the open to this day.

Basically there was poor planning and complete lack of vision, and again once you go with "plan A", there's never any use of "Plan B" assets at all, just scrap everything. Nothing is ever a "lean and mean machine", especially when designed by committee.

I agree. I am only taking the bird itself. I would take the shuttle over the Russian system. I would take the Saturn V over the shuttle.

 

[jqavins]

file:///C:/Users/...

The link will certainly not work, since it's to a local file (on your computer, I presume).

Here's the article.

Here are some other links:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_B
• https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/ch9.htm
• https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch5.htm
• https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13040.0

I mined those from here. (TRF isn't the only forum on the internet. Wow, who knew!)

 

[NTP2]

All I am going to say is that if someone offered me a ride to space and gave me a choice between shuttle or Soyuz I’d take the Soyuz.

 

[tfrielin]

The link will certainly not work, since it's to a local file (on your computer, I presume).

Here's the article.

Here are some other links:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_B
• https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/ch9.htm
• https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch5.htm
• https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13040.0

I mined those from here. (TRF isn't the only forum on the internet. Wow, who knew!)

Yeah---sorry, I was using my local computr file for this article.

I think this file--attached---is readable:

 

[Alan15578]

I agree. I am only taking the bird itself. I would take the shuttle over the Russian system. I would take the Saturn V over the shuttle.

Well, the Energia was a more complete space transportation system than the Shuttle. It was too bad that they could not afford to keep it going. The Buran was like a Shuttle 2.0, except that the thermal protection did not work.

The Saturn V was designed and built from scratch for one clearly defined mission, and it did so efficiently. The Shuttle was designed to fly every mission, especially those driven by the US AF, and as such was poorly designed for most missions.

 

[cwbullet]

The Buran was like a Shuttle 2.0, except that the thermal protection did not work.

That could be an exciting ride for a few seconds.

 

[jqavins]

That could be an exciting ride for a few seconds.

Tell that to the crew of Columbia.

 

[icyclops]

Late to the party again.



Ah, but have you ever stuffed a chicken with apple pieces? Rolled in curry powder, with or without some onion pieces as well. Yum!



And both of those sudden changes were about being in a hurry. "Gotta beat the Ruskies" so we ditched the X-15 successor path in order to use missiles that we already had. "Gotta gotta beat those damn Ruskies" so we switched gears again from progress following Gemini to something that was more or less in hand. If we hadn't been so bent on doing it before the d'cayd was out, we might have done it better; better in regard to the prospects for progress thereafter.


But it doesn't sound any less far fetched than it did 45 or 50 years ago, despite our overreliance on missiles. It was further away from being accomplished, but accomplishing it was not so far fetched. And if not for the various decisions that left us with the STS so burdened by mission creep, we might well have been there 20 or 25 years ago.


I'd be somewhat surprised, and very excited and pleased. But yeah, surprised.


But you have to look both ways. It's the old "Those who do not learn from history..." thing, but also if you do nothing but study history then you've done, well, nothing. You've got to do both to put the lessons of history into action.


I'll let @Antares JS respond to that one (though I also had a little bit of a hand in it).

\What can I say about your responses to my statements….I agree to disagree with you on many points….but hey, no big whoop….everyone has an opinion to express.

 

[Astrobuf]

You wouldn't say that if you understood what was lost when Saturn/Apollo was cancelled:

To wit----Apollo after ASTP instead of going the Shuttle route:

1976-78

Skylab B (1 Saturn V launch plus six manned visits of 90 day's duration each minimum on Saturn 1B/ApolloCSMs)

1978 Launch of Voyager to Mars atop a Saturn V (original Mars Voyager---not the actual outer planet Voyager of same name).


1980-1986

Begin post-Skylab station Saturn V-launched Space Station modules and occupation launches--Low's long-term space station. Probably requires 5 or 6 Saturn V launches to establish. Annual support: Four or five Saturn 1B/CSM launches in the decade, plus one Saturn V -launched logistics/new space station module every second or third year in the '80s.


1981

Launch of six Tracking and Data Relay satellites atop a Saturn V. These are up-sized TDRSs weighing 10,000 to fully utilize the Saturn V's capacity of placing 60,000 pounds into geosynchronous orbit. The TDRSS constellation consists of four operational satellites, plus two on-orbit spares. MSFN network and overseas tracking stations retired.


1989-early '90s


Manned lunar orbital flight with the Apollo Lunar Mapping and Survey System (LMSS) to gather high resolution photos for the upcoming unmanned Lunar Shelter LEM landings. 1 Saturn V/CSM plus LMSS.

1991-c.early 2000s

On-going Space Station operations is followed in the '90s with the resumption of the Dual Launch AAP lunar missions with fourteen day surface stay times and multiple moonwalks. With launch centers of 18 months to two years between these greatly extended missions, this program alone would have gainfully occupied NASA for a decade or two, assuming a program of ten Dual Launch missions. Potential landing sites: Maurius Hills, Copernicus crater, Tycho crater, lunar far side, lunar poles (ice!).

FLO...

All lost to the false promise of the Shuttle.

Watch "For All Mankind" on Ape TV to see another path not taken building further on Apollo. As a former STS era JSC FCD employee, I found the future told in this drama to be fairly reasonable....

Astrobuf

 

[cwbullet]

Tell that to the crew of Columbia.

Unfortunately, we knew about that potential issue and never corrected it.

 

[Astrobuf]

Unfortunately, we knew about that potential issue and never corrected it.

The issues of the Shuttle were baked in the basic design. The decision to use strap on srb's increased the risk to the vehicle many times over a crew module on top design. The TPS was an untested or at least well recognized as not robust subsystem. These risks were well.understood b4 OFT-1 left the pad.

 

[Alan15578]

That could be an exciting ride for a few seconds.

To be clear, the Buran launched and landed safely, once, unmanned. However, they did not copy the Shuttle ceramic and carbon-carbon TPS system, but rather used titanium plates. This was robust in sense that it could fly through hail storms, but a failure in terms of being capable of multiple spaceflights.

 

[tfrielin]

To be clear, the Buran launched and landed safely, once, unmanned. However, they did not copy the Shuttle ceramic and carbon-carbon TPS system, but rather used titanium plates. This was robust in sense that it could fly through hail storms, but a failure in terms of being capable of multiple spaceflights.

Plus, Buran was not completely outfitted for that single flight----It lacked rather important systems like the environmental control system for one (If I'm remembering correctly the AWST coverage of it). Its condition was not like Columbia on April 12, 1981 which, of course, was fully man rated.
Well, man rated except for actually launching it! Fully outfitted, for sure...
Buran wasn't even that far along.

With hindsight, the more impressive thing here was the Energia launch vehicle---the Soviet's first experience with liquid hydrogen. Too bad for them it only flew twice.

Hmm, wonder how many flights SLS will end up getting???

 

[cwbullet]

Hmm, wonder how many flights SLS will end up getting???

Hope more than the Saturn.

 

[NTP2]

Hmm, wonder how many flights SLS will end up getting???

Don’t even think about it, it makes the shuttle look well planned.

 

[tfrielin]

Don’t even think about it, it makes the shuttle look well planned.

Yeah----It's enough to make grown men weep.

Here we are, fifty years after foolishly scrapping the Saturn/Apollo infrastructure and what is NASA trying to do? Yeah, re-create the Saturn/Apollo capabilities, except with Shuttle hardware, re-packaged. And at a glacial pace to boot.

NASA had the chance to keep Saturn/Apollo if it had only proposed a sensible, smaller program to Nixon (see my post above---based on extant AAP plans).

Nixon said more than once he wouldn't countenence the end of the US manned spaceflight program on his watch---he just didn't want to spend at the crash program levels of the '60s.

Nixon may be every space fan's Main Villan ("He killed Apolo because he hated JFK" being the short version) but it was really NASA who blew the chance to advance, albeit, at a slower pace with what it worked so hard to obtain from the '60s investments in our space infrastructure.

Again, see John Logsdon's insightful study, After Apollo, 2015, for more on this.

 

[techrat]

Here we are, fifty years after foolishly scrapping the Saturn/Apollo infrastructure and what is NASA trying to do? Yeah, re-create the Saturn/Apollo capabilities, except with Shuttle hardware, re-packaged. And at a glacial pace to boot.

To be fair; this is not *entirely* NASA's fault, it's really more Congress' mandate that SLS use as much existing shuttle hardware as possible, to keep everyone employed in all 50 states, so every Senator can say they created jobs in their state.

Remember that Bill Nelson used to be a member of Congress and was responsible for that fiasco, and then he used his position to make sure he'd become head of NASA, where he oversees the boondongle he created.

 

[NTP2]

To be fair; this is not *entirely* NASA's fault, it's really more Congress' mandate that SLS use as much existing shuttle hardware as possible, to keep everyone employed in all 50 states, so every Senator can say they created jobs in their state.

Remember that Bill Nelson used to be a member of Congress and was responsible for that fiasco, and then he used his position to make sure he'd become head of NASA, where he oversees the boondongle he created.

Oh congress committee, can we please make a rocket that actually works?