/n/ - Transportation » Thread #1470001

[342 / 111 / ?]

7KiB, 275x183, 4E9F4272-5932-4FBA-B8DF-5E5F056F88BF.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Spacecraft

Anonymous Thu 09 Apr 2020 23:18:37 No.1470001 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>1470012 >>1470042 >>1470474 >>1473302 >>1473570 >>1474489 >>1474878 >>1479320 >>1479945

For me, it’s the space shuttle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 00:00:18 No.1470012 Report

Quoted By:

>>1470001
What's this? OP has shit taste

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1586018309875.jpg, 406KiB, 1615x622

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 00:14:52 No.1470021 Report

Quoted By: >>1470068

For me, it's the Excelsior

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg, 382KiB, 1140x904

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 00:35:44 No.1470031 Report

Quoted By: >>1470036 >>1471595

For me, it's the Apollo CSM.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 49D02554-E91C-41C1-AF0C-AF1E93B1 (...).jpg, 36KiB, 800x450

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 00:43:44 No.1470036 Report

Quoted By:

>>1470031
Yep, now that’s a spacecraft. Don’t make ‘em like they used to.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Dream_Chaser_pre-drop_tests.7.jpg, 130KiB, 1024x770

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 00:58:35 No.1470042 Report

Quoted By: >>1470044

>>1470001

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO lossy-page1-558px-Dream_Chaser_A (...).jpg, 141KiB, 558x1024

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 00:59:39 No.1470044 Report

Quoted By:

>>1470042

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO saturn-V.png, 2MiB, 863x1125

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 01:35:05 No.1470055 Report

Quoted By: >>1471610

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 50D7537D-A472-4196-B514-F573B6DF (...).jpg, 40KiB, 260x400

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 01:44:17 No.1470058 Report

Quoted By: >>1471610

Outta my way rocketlets

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 02:30:45 No.1470068 Report

Quoted By:

>>1470021
Based

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Virgin_Galactic_SpaceShipTwo_&qu (...).jpg, 174KiB, 1280x684

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 23:14:28 No.1470474 Report

Quoted By: >>1470475

>>1470001

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO SS2_and_VMS_Eve.jpg, 3MiB, 5392x3448

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 23:15:49 No.1470475 Report

Quoted By: >>1474110

>>1470474

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1-hitchhikingt.jpg, 2MiB, 3648x2736

Anonymous Sun 12 Apr 2020 17:40:31 No.1471195 Report

Quoted By:

For me, its a balloon

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 9A4D679F-F6FF-4B59-80AC-6FB4F48C (...).jpg, 291KiB, 1638x2048

Anonymous Sun 12 Apr 2020 19:26:46 No.1471242 Report

Quoted By: >>1471268

Get in here Deltachads!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 3ED41CAA-7A58-4A5B-8FB2-8CE3F3B4 (...).jpg, 247KiB, 1536x1152

Anonymous Sun 12 Apr 2020 20:22:59 No.1471268 Report

Quoted By:

>>1471242

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tachi.jpg, 61KiB, 1192x670

Anonymous Mon 13 Apr 2020 09:28:46 No.1471595 Report

Quoted By:

>>1470031
That's a big engine.

But if we're going imaginary, MCRN vessels have that Nazi aesthetic and efficiency quality.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO images (3).jpg, 38KiB, 542x565

Anonymous Mon 13 Apr 2020 10:43:48 No.1471605 Report

Quoted By: >>1472261

>shuttle

Not only does it look like dogshit, it was objectively the shittest spacecraft ever made.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Apr 2020 11:12:47 No.1471610 Report

Quoted By: >>1471681 >>1472116 >>1472261

>>1470055
>>1470058
I want to visit the US just to see that museum with the Saturn

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Apr 2020 11:34:11 No.1471612 Report

Quoted By:

The shuttle is why the Yanks seemed to always Need Another Seven Astronauts .

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO closed.png, 133KiB, 394x373

Anonymous Mon 13 Apr 2020 15:02:51 No.1471681 Report

Quoted By:

>>1471610
America's closed due to bat AIDS

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Nautilus-X Extended duration exp (...).png, 438KiB, 726x614

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 10:24:38 No.1472114 Report

Quoted By: >>1472403 >>1473905

Pls build me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 10:26:21 No.1472116 Report

Quoted By: >>1472261 >>1472401

>>1471610
Me too, they have nothing besides the space program and nature reserves worth visiting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 17:05:38 No.1472261 Report

Quoted By: >>1472274 >>1472412

>>1471605
>it was objectively the shittest spacecraft ever made.
Not even close

>>1471610
>>1472116
Go to the one in Huntsville, Alabama. They have one laid out horizontally inside the museum and a full-size mock up standing upright outside (plus other rockets like a Saturn 1B). Haven't been to Kennedy Space Center in a long time but I remember the museum and rocket garden being unimpressive compared to the US Space & Rocket Center. Haven't been to the one in Houston.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 17:20:41 No.1472274 Report

Quoted By:

>>1472261
Yeah thanks man, I've been making a list of these machines. Also thinking about visiting a SR71 as well, there's one of those in Huntsville as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 21:41:47 No.1472401 Report

Quoted By:

>>1472116
if you dont want to explore a place then thats on you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 21:45:23 No.1472403 Report

Quoted By: >>1472409

>>1472114
for what purpose? no space program has a realistic plan to do any exploration outside LEO. the Chinese are focusing on unmanned flight, the Russians haven't even approached any exploration missions and NASA just canned the SLS block-1 which kills any hope of the Artemis missions going forward.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1586902347978.jpg, 1008KiB, 1200x1204

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 22:12:46 No.1472407 Report

Quoted By: >>1476235

For me it's skylab

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 22:26:25 No.1472409 Report

Quoted By: >>1472422

>>1472403
I very seriously doubt Artemis is getting canned anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 22:43:50 No.1472412 Report

Quoted By: >>1472418

>>1472261
>Not even close
135 missions
5 vehicles
2 catastrophic losses

so it had a 1 in 65 chance of killing it's crew. it was expensive as fuck, pretty much bankrupting NASA and making sure they had no budget to build anything better.

It should have been scrapped before it's first flight

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 23:02:26 No.1472418 Report

Quoted By: >>1472424

>>1472412
Carried more people and tonnage into space than any other launch vehicle--not to mention it has the ability to bring payloads back to Earth, which rockets cannot do. I don't get complaining about risk and cost, going to space is inherently risky and expensive.

>It should have been scrapped before it's first flight
Truly a brainlet take

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 23:06:50 No.1472422 Report

Quoted By: >>1474549

>>1472409
without the SLS the whole program is pointless. with COVID budget cuts are all but imminent, and NASA is always first to take the hit.
no one is getting to the moon or mars in the next half century.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 23:08:58 No.1472424 Report

Quoted By:

>>1472418
just because you can ram a square peg through a round hole for a long time doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO redditneck.jpg, 7KiB, 225x225

Anonymous Tue 14 Apr 2020 23:48:55 No.1472442 Report

Quoted By: >>1472447

>just because you can ram a square peg through a round hole for a long time doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Normandy SR2.jpg, 84KiB, 900x698

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 00:07:34 No.1472445 Report

Quoted By:

I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite ship on the Citadel

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 00:09:36 No.1472447 Report

Quoted By: >>1472473

>>1472442
>no awnser
shuttlecucks lamo. imagine having a worse hull loss ratio than slavshit.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO SpaceX Starship.jpg, 77KiB, 750x1125

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 00:38:48 No.1472453 Report

Quoted By: >>1472458 >>1473573

Daily reminder that the SpaceX Starship will be the Model T of spacecraft and render every previous platform obsolete if Elon Musk is even half as successful with it as he was with the Falcon 9 series.

Space historians will remember the 2020s as the era of mass produced, reusable spacecraft, opening up space in a way that it had never been opened up before.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 00:46:53 No.1472458 Report

Quoted By: >>1472461 >>1472462

>>1472453
space X is destined to fail. it relies on funding from both NASA and securing money from companies launching satellites, and during the upcoming decade long recession the demand for this will be near non-existent. with the Artemis missions on the chopping block then Space-X has no reliable way to fund such a program.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 01:03:41 No.1472461 Report

Quoted By: >>1472463

>>1472458
If they can drive down launch costs as much as they say they're going to, they'll be too busy blanketing the developing world with communication satellites and getting paid mad cash to do it to worry about NASA.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 01:04:20 No.1472462 Report

Quoted By: >>1472463

>>1472458
>space X is destined to fail.
whew lad
>cheapest launch provider to ever exist is destined to fail
what kind of financial bets have you made on this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 01:13:25 No.1472463 Report

Quoted By: >>1472468

>>1472461
>>1472462
demand for any satellites will dip to record lows. space-X wont have the funding to continue developments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 01:32:58 No.1472468 Report

Quoted By: >>1472477

>>1472463
>demand for any satellites will dip to record lows. space-X wont have the funding to continue developments.
What part of
>cheapest launch provider to ever exist
don't you understand?
Why would SpaceX cease to exist if they can get satellites into space cheaper than anyone else? Even if demand goes into the toilet, customers who want to get assets into space are going to go low-cost.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 01:44:08 No.1472473 Report

Quoted By: >>1472476 >>1472508 >>1473587

>>1472447
Imagine being this much of a simp for fucking Russia which also pursued their own shuttle

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 02:00:19 No.1472476 Report

Quoted By: >>1472502

>>1472473
the perused it because they thought the US was lying about its capabilities since the shuttle was so awful. get back to me when you think of a new way to justify keeping such a useless thing around.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 02:00:57 No.1472477 Report

Quoted By: >>1472610

>>1472468
what part of
>recession
do you not understand?
there wont be anyone who will send satellites into space when the US goes into a second great depression.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 02:45:04 No.1472502 Report

Quoted By: >>1472559

>>1472476
duhh yeah the two world superpowers were clueless but one brave zoomer knows better

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 03:17:54 No.1472508 Report

Quoted By: >>1472566

>>1472473
>Russia which also pursued their own shuttle
and abandoned it after it's first flight when they saw how shit shuttles were

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 08:50:04 No.1472559 Report

Quoted By: >>1472566 >>1472646 >>1472648

>>1472502
considering that no shuttle is currently in service, id say the superpowers agree with me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 09:28:38 No.1472566 Report

Quoted By:

>>1472508
>>1472559
Lol, Russia abandoned Buran purely due to financial reasons e.g. the funding for it dried up due to Russia’s economy imploding when the Soviet Union fell.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 13:29:21 No.1472610 Report

Quoted By:

>>1472477
>recession
You can't have a recession until you have two concurrent quarters of negative GDP. Please point to satellite launches which have been delayed or deferred as a result of economic slowness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 15:53:36 No.1472646 Report

Quoted By:

>>1472559
It flew for 30 years, longer than any other launch vehicle. Zoomer autists are pathetic

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 15:56:03 No.1472648 Report

Quoted By: >>1473459

>>1472559
Roundabout way of saying it was a success

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 280px-Ariane_5_Le_Bourget_FRA_00 (...).jpg, 18KiB, 280x421

Anonymous Wed 15 Apr 2020 18:48:14 No.1472702 Report

Quoted By: >>1472997

Pour moi, c'est la fusée Ariane. Vive la France!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Apr 2020 10:39:45 No.1472997 Report

Quoted By: >>1473010

>>1472702
>haha, integer conversion
>well, I guess 5 does go a bit faster than 4, big deal
https://youtu.be/PK_yguLapgA

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 16 Apr 2020 12:06:38 No.1473010 Report

Quoted By:

>>1472997
No worse than NASA contractors not being able to figure out inches aren't millimetres.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO buran.jpg, 542KiB, 1679x1011

Anonymous Thu 16 Apr 2020 21:27:30 No.1473302 Report

Quoted By: >>1475199 >>1475655

>>1470001
Hi

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 17 Apr 2020 02:09:23 No.1473459 Report

Quoted By: >>1473471

>>1472648
>they were abandoned by everyone who used them so that means its a success
now this is a stupid argument. at this point youre just coping. all your arguments for why the shuttle was worth even a fraction of the effort have been blown away and you cant come up with anything but trying to divert the conversation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 17 Apr 2020 02:22:27 No.1473471 Report

Quoted By: >>1473590

>>1473459
They weren't abandoned. A decade was spent on its development and then it flew for 30 years. Cheers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 17 Apr 2020 06:16:22 No.1473570 Report

Quoted By:

>>1470001
God I love the shuttle.
Most of the evidence I've seen points to it having been a mistake for NASA, not saving any money while limiting what kind of missions could be performed, but I still love it. I love the concept, I love the appearance, I love the history.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 17 Apr 2020 06:21:08 No.1473573 Report

Quoted By:

>>1472453
i don't want to be reminded desu.
as a species we've gone from the voyager plaque to launching a car as an advertising gimmick. space is no longer something to be taken seriously, something bigger than any of us, something to unite humanity. now it's just another place to act like a jackass.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1562374354750.jpg, 939KiB, 2233x3330

Anonymous Fri 17 Apr 2020 07:28:04 No.1473587 Report

Quoted By:

>>1472473
It actually is true that Russia thought the US was lying about the capabilities. It's pretty hilarious.
They thought it must have had a military purpose (beyond recovering satellites), such as being a bomber that would dip into the atmosphere to nuke Moscow from space. So you got fun propaganda posters like these opposing the Shuttle as something militaristic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 17 Apr 2020 07:45:18 No.1473590 Report

Quoted By: >>1473650

>>1473471
and where is that shuttle now? and how many of them are in service now? none. because the concept has been, and say it with me now, abandoned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 17 Apr 2020 11:20:06 No.1473650 Report

Quoted By: >>1473866 >>1473923

>>1473590
Every machine has a service life dumbass

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 17 Apr 2020 23:10:25 No.1473866 Report

Quoted By: >>1473897

>>1473650
useful ones are replaced at the end of their service life

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 00:48:31 No.1473897 Report

Quoted By:

>>1473866
Pretty much proves how shitty the Saturn V was since we abandoned it

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO soyuuuuz nerushemy.jpg, 1MiB, 2075x3323

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 00:56:04 No.1473903 Report

Quoted By: >>1473907

I dread the day of the last Korolev cross.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 00:59:24 No.1473905 Report

Quoted By:

>>1472114
That habitat ring is way too small. It would produce sufficient spin gravity without overwhelming coriolis effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 01:01:04 No.1473907 Report

Quoted By: >>1473917 >>1473925

>>1473903
SpaceX Crew Dragon launches soon. Making russian manned flight pointless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 01:31:31 No.1473917 Report

Quoted By:

>>1473907
>pointless
Good choise of words, because I doub they are giving up that ability easily.

Pointless is that there still isn't any concrete replacement in sight for the old Soyuz, the launcher or the craft. There had been an ample warning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 01:46:59 No.1473923 Report

Quoted By: >>1473944

>>1473650
Reusability is a solid idea, but the numerous compromises that affected the program meant that the shuttle never delivered on its promise. It's a masterwork of high technology, but a general failure as the workhorse of a space fleet.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tesla-fires-firefighters-photo.jpg, 60KiB, 720x484

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 01:50:39 No.1473925 Report

Quoted By: >>1475441

>>1473907
Don't worry, SpaceX will find a way to make it 3x the price and 1/2 as safe as Soyuz.
hell the tesla lithium batteries will probably catch fire every few orbits

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 03:17:52 No.1473944 Report

Quoted By: >>1473979

>>1473923
>but a general failure as the workhorse of a space fleet

I don't think a vehicle that saw service over the span of three decades and took more tonnage into space than any other launch system is a failure

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 05:50:28 No.1473979 Report

Quoted By: >>1474036 >>1475671

>>1473944
The shuttle program was continuously scaled back in its ambitions. The shuttle didn't reduce launch costs or increase the launch frequency. The shuttle didn't obsolete expendable rockets, nor did the entire West commit to it as their sole launch platform, as NASA had wanted. Post-Challenger, servicing commercial satellites, most military payloads, and anything that involved an upper stage (shuttle-centaur) were terminated. The thing was expensive to manufacture and service, to the point that only six OVs were ever built, and one of those never flew into space. Post-Columbia, the end was imminent as any launch after that point would put 1/3 of US manned space flight capacity in danger, an intolerable risk. That it served so long without replacement or iteration and played such a role in the construction of the ISS testifies more to the inability of NASA to get the funding for anything else, as well as the budgetary politics of the American space sector, as can be seen by the mandated reuse of shuttle contractors on the SLS.
As the Space Transportation System for a major spacefaring power, it did a serviceable job, but it fell greatly short as a shuttle, which was the entire rationale for its existence.

We could also add that for four of those thirty years the fleet was grounded due to accidents.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 10:17:19 No.1474036 Report

Quoted By: >>1474204

>>1473979
Name one manned NASA launch vehicle that had a longer service life than the Space Shuttle

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 15:19:30 No.1474110 Report

Quoted By:

>>1470475
>literally the Virgin Spaceship

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 19:08:09 No.1474204 Report

Quoted By: >>1474207 >>1474226

>>1474036
Shuttle ate the budget, so there wasn't anything else. We're still waiting on the US to make a launch

Length of service is a stupid model to use because the politicians who ultimately decide things have other priorities than choosing the most effective tool or making sure design goals are accomplished. The Trabant does not become a good car because it served for decades. It's also dumb because other LVs got iterated upon, which depresses the numbers that any specific iteration would achieve.
> manned NASA launch vehicle that had a longer service life
Doesn't exist, because NASA poured everything they had into the shuttle, and tried to get everyone else to exclusively use it. The massive problems with the shuttle are what led to its scope being reduced to mostly servicing the ISS, and what led to new members of the Titan, Delta, and Ariane families.
What made the shuttle the shuttle was the reusability aspects, which never delivered on their promise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 19:13:41 No.1474207 Report

Quoted By: >>1474228

>>1474204
>mewling about the shuttle budget
The Shuttle was retired in 2011. What's your excuse for two presidents cutting NASA programs since then? Quit blaming for Shuttle Program for that. You can go ahead and acknowledge that no other manned NASA launch vehicle had nearly the lifespan of the Shuttle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 19:44:50 No.1474226 Report

Quoted By: >>1474242

>>1474204
>What made the shuttle the shuttle was the reusability aspects, which never delivered on their promise.
even the 1 "reusable" bit , the shuttle itself, had to be %100 rebuilt after every mission pretty much making it a new vehicle every launch. hardly a reusable launch vehicle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 19:51:13 No.1474228 Report

Quoted By: >>1474229 >>1474242

>>1474207
> What's your excuse for two presidents cutting NASA programs since then?
NASA's budget is higher than it was then, and even a line-item comparison is favourable. Look at the FY2020 budget vs the FY2010 budget.
>Quit blaming for Shuttle Program for that
The defining aspect of the shuttle was not going into space, but reusability. Nothing reusability was supposed to achieve, especially lowered costs, came to pass. Neither Commercial Crew (the direct successor) nor anything anyone else is building inherits the form factor or the concept. The SLS will take the RS-25 engines, painstakingly engineered to be resuable, and toss them in the Atlantic Ocean after a single use.
>no other manned NASA launch vehicle had nearly the lifespan of the Shuttle.
Because the shuttle (and the ISS) were nothing if not jobs programs. Also why SLS procurement went the way it did. The Shuttle's entire history was one of unrealized promise and lowered ambitions. Why do you think only five were completed? Or why the design was never iterated upon? Or why Columbia was never replaced?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 19:53:57 No.1474229 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474228
>painstakingly engineered to be resuable,
In practice requiring massive refurbishment between missions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 20:11:16 No.1474242 Report

Quoted By: >>1474262

>>1474226
>the shuttle itself, had to be %100 rebuilt
Nope

>>1474228
>NASA's budget is higher than it was then
So the Shuttle literally isn't the scapegoat you want it to be

>Nothing reusability was supposed to achieve, especially lowered costs, came to pass.
Everyone says this but they would have cancelled it earlier if that had truly been the case.

>The Shuttle's entire history was one of unrealized promise and lowered ambitions.
Took more people into space than any other launch vehicle
More cargo too
Repaired satellites and brought some back
Helped build the ISS
"It was an unrealized promise"

>Why do you think only five were completed?
All we needed

>Or why the design was never iterated upon?
It was

>Or why Columbia was never replaced?
Program was winding down by the time that happened

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO PHONEHOME.jpg, 85KiB, 735x600

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2 Sat 18 Apr 2020 20:42:33 No.1474253 Report

Quoted By: >>1474263 >>1475155 >>1475428 >>1475648

cooldown,,,easy,,realx,,,,,,,,,
,SHUTUPSHUTUPSHTUP!!!!!,
,dontyou bebadtalking the Shuttle!,
,,,,doge,,its good being insane,,,ontherwise idbe crazy.,
,,YA!,,the Shuttle,,,,,,
STILLFLYS!!,,,THET,,giant presurerated,,has Tonsof Oxegen,,,itsown OMS?!,,why yes, it NEEDS orbital capacity,,to'deorbit,,,,,Right!,
,,,pealaways over solar panels,,a bit of string tieing 2 together,,,gentle spin and WALA!,a toilethat WORKS!,,,, ooo letme try!,
,,i like laying them down for that LONG open feeling,,tennis?,
,freefloating tank nearby, factory,,,,gota load those 'Empty cargo pays for return to Earth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 20:55:08 No.1474262 Report

Quoted By: >>1474321

>>1474242
>Everyone says this but they would have cancelled it earlier if that had truly been the case
NASA does not decide its budget or goals. Congress does. Congress does not care about it as a space vehicle, which is why there wasn't any replacement in the works in 2011, despite the end of the program being clear. Congress is also the reason why the shuttle was designed as it was.
>It was an unrealized promise
The shuttle was supposed to massively lower the costs of going into space by reusing as many components as possible. It was supposed to replace all the expendable launch vehicles in use. It was supposed to routinize space travel, to the point where commercial airlines (who had experience in mass flight operations) were partners on the original bids for it. The wings are as large as they are because of the USAF's requirements for a polar launch from Vandenberg and a return to Vandenberg within one orbit.
It did none of this.
Wings, thermal tiles, multiuse main engines and recoverable SRBs are not needed to go into space. Had merely launching things been the goal, an expendable launch vehicle with a conventional form factor would've sufficed. The shuttle is not that because it had far larger goals.Given the delta-v and payload costs of hauling all that dead weight into orbit, those wider goals limited what it could do in the conventional role, the STS launch stack being a heavy lift vehicle that never served in the role.
>It was
No it wasn't. The last one was Endeavour which was put together from spare parts in 1990. Compare the progression in any other launch vehicle family.
>Program was winding down by the time that happened. The announcements about its imminent end happened because of Columbia's loss, and because it had been restricted to only flying missions that needed human involvement, its capabilities and expense being unneeded for most of those.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 20:56:18 No.1474263 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474253
I hope you get well soon.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 535687_785478.png, 561KiB, 1297x1234

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 22:00:06 No.1474291 Report

Quoted By: >>1480301 >>1480303

Look how optimistic the estimates were, even into the early 1980s.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 22:01:33 No.1474293 Report

Quoted By:

>With the 1982 completion of the orbital flight test series, NASA began a planned
acceleration of the Space Shuttle launch schedule. One early plan contemplated an eventual rate of a mission a week, but realism forced several downward revisions. In 1985,
NASA published a projection calling for an annual rate of 24 flights by 1990. Long before
the Challenger accident, however, it was becoming obvious that even the modified goal of two flights a month was overambitious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 22:04:00 No.1474295 Report

Quoted By:

>With the 1982 completion of the orbital flight test series, NASA began a planned acceleration of the Space Shuttle launch schedule. One early plan contemplated an eventual rate of a mission a week, but realism forced several downward revisions. In 1985, NASA published a projection calling for an annual rate of 24 flights by 1990. Long before the Challenger accident, however, it was becoming obvious that even the modified goal of two flights a month was overambitious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 23:06:05 No.1474321 Report

Quoted By: >>1474349 >>1474376 >>1474380

>>1474262
So your problem should be with Congress, not the Shuttle

>The shuttle was supposed to
Wah fuckin wah it still took more people and things into orbit than any other system

>No it wasn't.
Wrong

>The announcements about its imminent end happened because of Columbia's loss
The Shuttle still flew over 20 missions after the loss of the Columbia

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 18 Apr 2020 23:55:38 No.1474349 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474321
>fuckhuge rocket only surpassed by Saturn V
>crew capacity of 7 because ???
>kept in service for 40 years
>"btw you are not allowed to use other rockets for your launches, everything must be done with sts"
>design the iss specifically so that sts had to be used for every launch

>it still took more people and things into orbit than any other system
yeah no shit
still many of the missions of the shuttle would have been done better with a regular rocket. apart from servicing hubble and allowing the iss to be designed this way instead of that way (arguably the spacelabs missions too but these could have been done with a space station), they never really used its capacities, even with tailored missions

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 00:51:27 No.1474373 Report

Quoted By: >>1474552

is there a bigger clusterfuck than the SLS?
the basic concept has been on the drawing board since (iirc) before the Shuttle got off the ground. Since then it's bounced from the Advanced Launch System (80s) to the National Launch System (90s) to SLS (2010s) and we've still not actually got so much as a giant wooden mockup of the rocket.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 01:00:23 No.1474376 Report

Quoted By: >>1474388 >>1474417

>>1474321
>Wah fuckin wah it still took more people and things into orbit than any other system
The world superpower can choose to constantly shove a square peg into a round hole, it doesn't mean that selecting a square peg for operations inside that round hole was a good idea.
I love the shuttle, I really do, but you're conflating this guy's statement of fact that the shuttle failed to live up to the original economic promises it made with the wider idea of whether the shuttle was good or bad.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 510005_474727.png, 175KiB, 1311x999

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 01:12:08 No.1474380 Report

Quoted By: >>1474383 >>1474417

>>1474321
>So your problem should be with Congress, not the Shuttle
The STS was the bastard child of Congress and unrealistic NASA ambitions.
>Wah fuckin wah it still took more people and things into orbit than any other system
Source, please. Also, if you read into the design goals ("Exploring the Unknown" Volume 4 collects many relevant documents), the entire point of the program was to produce something that would so cheap that expendable launch vehicles became obsolete. That never happened. If the concern was just to throw things into space, you would never build anything like the STS.
>The Shuttle still flew over 20 missions after the loss of the Columbia
The initial projections for the shuttle program were for tens of launches a year, and hundreds before the 1990s ended. Each orbiter was designed for a 100-mission lifespan; the program as a whole did 135. Decreasing the number of launches increases the per launch cost.
>Wrong
Upgrades are not iteration. There were at most four orbiters in various stages of operations at any given time, the last of them being finished in 1990.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 01:21:52 No.1474383 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474380
>If the concern was just to throw things into space, you would never build anything like the STS.
I'll play devil's advocate for the shuttle here, though i'm not disagreeing with you: there is one (quite realistic) scenario in which you would. If the thing you wanted to throw into space was people and you were in the budgetary environment of the 70s.
Assume that Congress doesn't really want to pay a lot to fire things into space or care about manned exploration - if you hit them in the face with the cost of constantly doing expendable launches for manned flights, there's a chance they'll straight up say "No" and cancel the manned spaceflight program, leaving behind a rump NASA that gets most of its money from doing unmanned commercial launches. Once the manned program it's dead, it's going to be a nightmare to restart and regain astronaut experience.
So one option to preserve the manned program is to design something like the shuttle, which (unlike an expendable rocket) is dependent on a human crew for operation. Even if you knew in advance that the projections of cost savings wouldn't materialize, once the Shuttle was built it would be politically more difficult to push it out of service rather than making use of it, so you'd preserve the manned program for at least the service life of the Shuttle. You're paying much more to toss up satellites, but that extra money is going to keeping 7 astronauts in space. They're risking their lives in a less safe system, but the alternative is for them to not be astronauts at all.

I don't think NASA was that cynical - I think most of them really did believe their cost projections (more or less) before the Shuttle was built, though they were clearly being optimistic - but even if you assume they were cynical, the Shuttle clearly had much better politics than it did economics or physics.
(So basically as you said
>The STS was the bastard child of Congress and unrealistic NASA ambitions.)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sls-config.png, 731KiB, 800x600

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 01:29:50 No.1474388 Report

Quoted By: >>1474399 >>1474400 >>1474417 >>1474561

>>1474376
how much money did they waste sending all that dead weight of a goofy space plane into orbit? why the fuck do you even need wings in space? and for the love of shit why do you need winds at all if it is just to glide slightly better back to earth than a bowling ball

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO JwFty.jpg, 51KiB, 513x442

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 01:49:59 No.1474399 Report

Quoted By: >>1474400 >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1474388
>why do you need wings at all
To provide steering capabilities and additional life. Orbiter wings were as large as they were due to a US Air Force requirement to be able to launch from and return to Vandenberg AFB in a single orbital pass, which required considerable gliding capability to adjust for Earth's rotation.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 516203_665878.png, 354KiB, 1348x627

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 01:52:42 No.1474400 Report

Quoted By: >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1474388
>>1474399
From Exploring the Unknown: Volume 4.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4407/vol4/cover.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 02:36:13 No.1474417 Report

Quoted By: >>1474426 >>1474427 >>1474719

>>1474380
>>1474376
>The STS was the bastard child of Congress and unrealistic NASA ambitions.
The Shuttle did everything it was designed to do. Space travel is expensive

>>1474388
>how much money did they waste sending all that dead weight of a goofy space plane into orbit?
Because it could take things up and deploy them with the robot arm (or retrieve them and fix/bring them back). Hit me up when a rocket can do that (and take more than 3 people into orbit at a time)

>why the fuck do you even need wings in space? and for the love of shit why do you need winds at all if it is just to glide slightly better back to earth than a bowling ball
Stop being a histrionic sperg

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 02:44:24 No.1474426 Report

Quoted By: >>1474433

>>1474417
>The Shuttle did everything it was designed to do.
So the US no longer uses expendable rockets?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 02:46:14 No.1474427 Report

Quoted By: >>1474433

>>1474417
>The Shuttle did everything it was designed to do
It didn't get launch costs per kg down and it didn't make space travel much more routine than it was with disposable rockets. That was the number one thing it was designed to do. You can't just dodge this fact.
>me up when a rocket can do that
A rocket generally doesn't need a manipulator arm to awkwardly fling payloads into space. The ability to retrieve and repair satellites is a legitimate capability of the Shuttle, but it isn't what it was designed for and it was used so infrequently that it's hard to justify the whole program with it. (If you really need to retrieve payloads, there's always the option of building a shuttle-type craft that is launched on top of a rocket like the X-37.)

I mean how do you justify a mission like STS-51-G using the Shuttle if it wasn't cheaper than using rockets? Was it worth risking the lives of 7 people on a vehicle without any launch escape system just to throw out some communication satellites?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 02:58:09 No.1474433 Report

Quoted By: >>1474435 >>1474716

>>1474426
>So the US no longer uses expendable rockets?
Almost as if having more than one launch vehicle is good

>>1474427
>It didn't get launch costs per kg down
Yet it still took more cargo into space than any other launch vehicle

>A rocket generally doesn't need a manipulator arm to awkwardly fling payloads into space.
That's not how the Canadarm works

>Was it worth risking the lives of 7 people
Yes. They knew the risks

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 03:01:35 No.1474435 Report

Quoted By: >>1474438

>>1474433
>Yet it still took more cargo into space than any other launch vehicle
Again, America can shove a square peg into a round hole all it wants. That doesn't mean it was the most efficient way to do things.
Why do you think that's a valid response to that claim? Why are you approaching this like your only interest is to defend the "honor" of the space shuttle? We're not asking "was the shuttle good or bad", as I've already stated: I fucking love the Shuttle. That doesn't mean it was the most efficient way of doing the job it did.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 03:03:30 No.1474438 Report

Quoted By: >>1474439 >>1474710

>>1474435
>Again, America can shove a square peg into a round hole all it wants.
Not an argument

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 03:05:12 No.1474439 Report

Quoted By: >>1474501

>>1474438
What does it feel like throwing stones in a glass house?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 04:36:00 No.1474475 Report

Quoted By: >>1474501

Loves the STS so much, and yet knows nothing about it or its creation process. Just "muh cargo muh cargo"

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20200418_232632.jpg, 1MiB, 2560x1536

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 05:18:10 No.1474489 Report

Quoted By: >>1474491

>>1470001
I'm fully aware of the problems the Shuttle had, but I also understand (and share) the fascination with them. They're the closest thing ever in service to how a "standard human spacecraft" would often be depicted (SpaceX's Starship, if ever realized, would be a good example too). They're arguably the most recognizable space vehicle that entered service service and the one with the most "personality" if you will. There's something about a massive, building looking thing covered in a pattern of brick-sized tiles floating gracefully in space. Also, during their service years they made spaceflight into routine.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 0124-0610-2617-4124_space_shuttl (...).jpg, 3MiB, 3790x2500

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 05:23:55 No.1474491 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474489
>There's something about a massive, building looking thing covered in a pattern of brick-sized tiles floating gracefully in space.
On that note, I love photos like this one, with the sharp shadow form the unscathered sunlight bathing over the massive nozzles and tile surfaces.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 06:36:48 No.1474501 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474439
Pretty cool

>>1474475
And people, too

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO musky.jpg, 16KiB, 416x416

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 11:24:39 No.1474549 Report

Quoted By:

>>1472422
>no one is getting to the moon or mars in the next half century.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 11:32:36 No.1474552 Report

Quoted By: >>1474652

>>1474373
>is there a bigger clusterfuck than the SLS?

It's almost like it's just a massive pork barrel job creation scheme for Pratt and Whitney & Boeing that is never intended to end.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO goQ6eIy.jpg, 30KiB, 622x801

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 12:11:34 No.1474561 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474388
>why the fuck do you even need wings
To safely bring down whole fragments of shot down alien orbiter from LEO.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Too+bad+its+a+heaping+pile+of++_ (...).jpg, 69KiB, 1000x429

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 16:59:41 No.1474652 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474552
>massive pork barrel job creation scheme
>never intended to end.
sounds familiar

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 17:12:19 No.1474656 Report

Quoted By:

Space exploration as we know it is finished. The costs of the pandemic will simply be too high. I give the ISS another two years at the most before it will have to be abandoned, as Skylab and Mir were.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 19:53:10 No.1474710 Report

Quoted By: >>1474736

>>1474438
That literally was an argument.
"Extensive use of the STS reflects the operating country more than it does any properties of the vehicle."
If the goal had just been to put the maximum amount of personnel and cargo into space over a given time or on a given budget, they would've never built something as expensive and complex to operate as the shuttle.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 868860_038207.png, 407KiB, 1318x487

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 20:07:26 No.1474716 Report

Quoted By: >>1474736 >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1474433
>Almost as if having more than one launch vehicle is good
Except they wanted to phase out expendable rockets entirely and move all cargo/personnel launches to the STS. ELVs survived while other reusable concepts (NASP, Shuttle-C) died early on.
>Yes. They knew the risks
>let's risk 1/3 of our manned launch capacity to put some more communications satellites in orbit

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 162472_020025.png, 868KiB, 1147x1757

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 20:19:11 No.1474719 Report

Quoted By: >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1474417
>The Shuttle did everything it was designed to do. Space travel is expensive
Kek at putting those two sentences together.
>It is the combined reduction in launch costs and payload costs that underly [sic] the economic justifications of the TAOS Space Shuttle System
From a 1971 NASA-commissioned study.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 843340_506068.png, 266KiB, 1032x484

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 20:28:07 No.1474722 Report

Quoted By: >>1480301 >>1480303

>we conclude that the development of a TAOS Space Shuttle System is economically justified, within a level of space activities between 300 and 360 Shuttle flights in the 1979–1990 period, or about 25 to 30 Space Shuttle flights per year, well within the U.S. Space Program including NASA and DoD.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 738463_270120.png, 193KiB, 1042x355

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 20:29:28 No.1474723 Report

Quoted By: >>1480301 >>1480303

And in practice, they took almost every opportunity to reduce development costs in the 1970s, even though that led to greater costs later on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 21:27:10 No.1474736 Report

Quoted By: >>1474746 >>1474761 >>1474829

>>1474710
>That literally was an argument.
No

>>1474716
>Except they wanted to phase out expendable rockets entirely
"They" -- NASA or Congress?

>let's risk 1/3 of our manned launch capacity to put some more communications satellites in orbit
Do you think that's all they did on Shuttle missions?

>Kek at putting those two sentences together.
Not an argument

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 21:49:50 No.1474746 Report

Quoted By: >>1474760

>>1474736
>Do you think that's all they did on Shuttle missions?
nope but yes
the shuttle was originally to bring back and service spy satellites and bulky film containers. but by the time it was being launched digital cameras were being put in the satellites.
the shuttle was no longer needed but too expensive to be obsolete before it ever left the ground, so NASA continued to use it for milk runs and burn cash like it was going out of style doing so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 22:17:19 No.1474760 Report

Quoted By: >>1474779

>>1474746
That doesn't make sense.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 576707_778072.png, 149KiB, 1114x471

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 22:17:20 No.1474761 Report

Quoted By: >>1474774 >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1474736
>"They" -- NASA or Congress?
NASA. The only reason you would ever go to the trouble of designing and building a reusable launch vehicle is if operating costs would make it cheaper than using expendables. In that case, expendable rocket manufacturers would either exit the launch industry or build their own reusable vehicles because all their customers would switch to the STS. Outside of that, if the shuttle flew more missions, each mission would be cheaper and the overall cost savings from not using expendables would be higher, thus NASA and DOD originally planned to fly all possible payloads on the shuttle. 24 missions a year was the minimum baseline for most of the projects NASA and DOD's studies looked at. They literally shut down the Atlas/Titan/Delta production lines due to the shuttle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 22:38:43 No.1474774 Report

Quoted By: >>1474776

>>1474761
>The only reason you would ever go to the trouble of designing and building a reusable launch vehicle is if operating costs would make it cheaper than using expendables
Opinion

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 248840_601643.png, 234KiB, 1109x1513

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 22:45:56 No.1474776 Report

Quoted By: >>1474789 >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1474774
Shared by NASA when they proposed it, the DOD when they joined the project, the OMB when they approved it, and Congress when they funded it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO wxf9edhy3rp11.jpg, 67KiB, 720x1243

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 22:49:40 No.1474779 Report

Quoted By: >>1474785 >>1474789 >>1474792 >>1475645

>>1474760
neither has the American space program since ... forever.

"Look lads, we have lost every significant first in the space race to the Russkies, but they are giving up on their moon mission because it's a dead lifeless rock of no value. I think we can win this one!"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 23:03:02 No.1474785 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474779
Not even the soviets knew they would give up at that point, Luna 15 was en route at the same time as Apollo 11.
That list is missing Venera, one of the more significant successes in the race..

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 23:17:42 No.1474789 Report

Quoted By: >>1474795

>>1474776
Nope

>>1474779
Obsessed

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 23:23:34 No.1474792 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474779
US had the first actually piloted craft in space, as well as the first one that the occupant could land with.
The USSR continued with the N1 until 1972, long after the US had managed to land on the Moon. Gagarin was going to be in the lunar group (just as Alan Shephard went to the Moon).
>it's a dead lifeless rock of no value
They sent rovers there, and if Luna 15 had beaten Apollo II, would've given the samples it returned a parade in Moscow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 23:26:40 No.1474795 Report

Quoted By: >>1474796

>>1474789
>Nope
Not an argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 23:32:27 No.1474796 Report

Quoted By: >>1474804

>>1474795
Yes it is

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Apr 2020 23:49:18 No.1474804 Report

Quoted By: >>1474811

>>1474796
Provide evidence to support your "argument," then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 00:07:01 No.1474811 Report

Quoted By: >>1474814

>>1474804
Took more people and tonnage into orbit than any other launch vehicle

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 00:13:05 No.1474814 Report

Quoted By: >>1474861

>>1474811
Source?
And source that that was NASA's goal for the Shuttle?
Here's an entire collection of documents about the Shuttle program's early years, if you need somewhere to start looking.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4407/vol4/cover.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 01:00:59 No.1474829 Report

Quoted By: >>1474861

>>1474736
>Do you think that's all they did on Shuttle missions?
STS-51-G

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO SpaceX Starship Pressure Tests.gif, 2MiB, 450x338

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 01:01:43 No.1474830 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 02:09:02 No.1474861 Report

Quoted By: >>1474864

>>1474814
>Source?
https://www.space.com/12376-nasa-space-shuttle-program-facts-statistics.html

>And source that that was NASA's goal for the Shuttle?
Duhhh they didn't build it to put cargo and people into orbit

>>1474829
There's a paragraph in the wiki article about that missions explaining the other experiments they did in orbit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 02:12:06 No.1474864 Report

Quoted By: >>1474866

>>1474861
no they built it to save money sending cargo and people into space. which it was a colossal failure at

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 02:13:10 No.1474866 Report

Quoted By: >>1474868

>>1474864
>which it was a colossal failure at
Then why was it used for 30 years?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 02:16:45 No.1474868 Report

Quoted By: >>1474869

>>1474866
sunk costs + no budget for a manned alternative.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 02:17:37 No.1474869 Report

Quoted By: >>1475236

>>1474868
So it fulfilled the role it was designed to do at least adequately. Got it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 02:43:23 No.1474878 Report

Quoted By: >>1474881

>>1470001
Aesthetic as fuck yet objectively terrible. Too many scenarios where the crew is doomed to terrible deaths. Danger has it's appeal though

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 02:54:02 No.1474881 Report

Quoted By: >>1474884

>>1474878
>objectively terrible.
Nope

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 02:59:16 No.1474884 Report

Quoted By: >>1474900

>>1474881
>high as fuck launch cost
>high as fuck program cost
>high as fuck cost per kilogram to orbit
>shit-tier safety record

It was trash.

Aesthetic trash though.

Feel free to post cope replies, but I'm not the guy you were arguing with for the last thirty posts, so you're not going to get any (you)s

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1568528207818.jpg, 46KiB, 922x553

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 03:09:11 No.1474891 Report

Quoted By:

>it's an RTLS abort episode

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 03:41:22 No.1474900 Report

Quoted By: >>1474917 >>1474918

>>1474884
It took more people and more cargo into orbit than any other system. If it was as expensive as you think it is, it would have been cancelled or replaced before the end of the Orbiters' service lives. The reason it was in use for so long is because it met or exceeded the requirements foisted upon it. "It was a failure" isn't just cope, it's delusion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 04:36:36 No.1474917 Report

Quoted By: >>1474919 >>1474924 >>1474931

>>1474900
> If it was as expensive as you think it is, it would have been cancelled or replaced before the end of the Orbiters' service lives.
It was. Each orbiter was designed with a service life of 100 missions. NASA/DOD/OMB anticipated hundreds of shuttle launches during the eighties and nineties.
>The reason it was in use for so long
was sunk costs, no money available to seriously develop alternatives (look at the NASP/Shuttle-C/ASRM/X-33/...), vested interests in NASA whose careers had been built around the STS, members of Congress with contractors in their districts. As an example, Nixon approved the full size shuttle because 1972 was an election year and he wanted votes in states with significant employment in the aerospace program.
>because it met or exceeded the requirements foisted upon it.
Except it didn't. The entire point was to reduce launch costs. If the goal was just to throw stuff into orbit, expendable launch vehicles would've been cheaper, carried more cargo and personnel, and still be in use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 04:36:47 No.1474918 Report

Quoted By: >>1474929 >>1474983

>>1474900
>If it was as expensive as you think it is, it would have been cancelled or replaced before the end of the Orbiters' service lives
This isn't how operating economics work.
Let's say you have $10,000 and need to buy a car to get to work.
You can buy a truck for $8,000 that gets 10 miles per gallon, or you can buy a sedan for $7,000 that gets 15 miles per gallon.
A truck will get you to work just fine, but once you've bought the truck and realized you're bleeding money on gas you can't just turn around and buy the Sedan: you closed that door when you bought the truck.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 125078_433010.png, 285KiB, 1118x572

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 04:37:50 No.1474919 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474917
Forgot pic from an official NASA document, showing the sorts of motivations that went into the shuttle program.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 04:58:50 No.1474924 Report

Quoted By: >>1474929 >>1474931 >>1474976

>>1474917
>NASA/DOD/OMB anticipated hundreds of shuttle launches during the eighties and nineties.
It lived out its expected service life.

>was sunk costs
Opinion

>The entire point was to reduce launch costs.
Then why wasn't it cancelled after a decade? Two decades?

>This isn't how operating economics work.
Yes it is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 05:10:25 No.1474929 Report

Quoted By: >>1474983

>>1474924
sunk costs aren't "opinion"
you can't re-spend the money you spent on developing the shuttle on developing a traditional rocket.

>Yes it is.
please explain for the class how you, going through >>1474918 , use the $2000 you have remaining after buying a truck to buy a $7,000 sedan.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 663317_133474.png, 89KiB, 1316x363

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 05:14:54 No.1474931 Report

Quoted By: >>1474977 >>1480211 >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1474924
>It lived out its expected service life.
Five orbiters were built. Each orbiter had an expected service life of 100 missions. 5 times 100 is 500. 135 is nowhere near 500.
>Then why wasn't it cancelled after a decade?Two decades?
See >>1474917, the second part
The loss of Challenger arguably helped the shuttle, as it made getting back into space (via Shuttle) a national conviction.
The ISS also was roped into the justifications for the program, as cancelling the ISS would have diplomatic repercussions.
Parts of the program, like the manufacture of the reusable engines which are now going to be tossed into the ocean, continue to this day, for jobs purposes.
>Yes it is.
No it isn't. Same reason why everyone doesn't upgrade to the latest model of anything as soon as it comes out. The process of getting funding to research and develop the Shuttle was prolonged and torturous, and led directly to many of its faults; they originally wanted liquid boosters, as an example. Any attempts at replacements would face the same problem. Even today, nine years after the final flight, the US has no manned spaceflight capability, with Congress consistently underfunding the Commercial Crew Program.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 07:52:28 No.1474976 Report

Quoted By: >>1474977

>>1474924
holy shit lol. you can still look back on the shuttle with nostalgia goggles and see it as cool as fuck while also seeing it as a dangerous money pit that needed its cargo designed around it's limitations. I do, most people do. Don't worry about it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 08:00:34 No.1474977 Report

Quoted By: >>1474983 >>1475013 >>1475095

>>1474931
>Five orbiters were built.
First correct thing you've said

>No it isn't.
Yes, it is

>>1474976
Most people see it for what it was: a successful launch system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 08:20:26 No.1474983 Report

Quoted By: >>1474996 >>1474997

>>1474977
your failure to reply to >>1474918 , >>1474929 is deafening.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 08:59:10 No.1474996 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474983
Not reading all that shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 09:02:58 No.1474997 Report

Quoted By: >>1475005 >>1475006

>>1474983
>Something about the cost of a car is supposed to reflect a multi-billion dollar government spaceflight program
"No"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 09:16:42 No.1475005 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474997
Okay, let's play a different game: You have $300 billion to buy a spaceship to put things in space.
Do you develop a Shuttle program for $196 billion, which will cost ~$54,500 per kg of cargo taken into space, or do you buy a conventional rocket program for $90 billion and which will cost ~$10,000 per kg taken into space?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 09:24:52 No.1475006 Report

Quoted By: >>1475052

>>1474997
Okay, let's play a different game: You have $300 billion to buy a spaceship to put things in space.
Do you develop a Shuttle program for $196 billion, which will cost ~$54,500 per kg of cargo taken into space, or do you buy a conventional rocket program for $90 billion (+$15 billion to account for the cost of replacing rockets, since they can't be reused like the shuttle) and which will cost ~$10,000 per kg taken into space?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 10:13:33 No.1475013 Report

Quoted By: >>1475031 >>1475052 >>1475070

>>1474977
It was successful in that it worked and provided incredibly valuable utility for decades but it was a failure In never quite fully living up to its programs promises or goals. Is Falcon Heavy a successful launch system? It has amazing capabilities, it’s functional, but it struggles to find launch customers. Were the space shuttle a private space vehicle it wouldn’t have nearly as many missions provided any alternatives, if it made it to production in the first place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 11:56:45 No.1475031 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475013
>but it struggles to find launch customers
The Falcon 9 uprates increased capability to the point where SpaceX cannibalized their own Falcon Heavy market.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 12:38:59 No.1475052 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475006
Still oversimplified

>>1475013
>It was successful
>but it was a failure
Ok

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO soyuz-tma-----wallpaper.jpg, 481KiB, 4288x2848

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 13:53:37 No.1475070 Report

Quoted By: >>1475156

>>1475013
>provided incredibly valuable utility for decades
*knocks at your airlock*

Sigh, Orel is scheduled to fly 2024 earliest and I guess on Angara. Then it will be the end for the old space lada. Still all expendable. At least Ariane is putting up some attempt, but still pretty lame. Multiple launch to geostationary is their game for now.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO f150-4000.jpg, 444KiB, 1599x1066

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 16:20:18 No.1475095 Report

Quoted By: >>1475260

>>1474977
>Most people see it for what it was: a successful launch system.
and if that was all it was designed to be it would have been a success
most of the time it was like operating a F150 when all you need is a Festiva.

but then because the shuttle had to be everything to everybody (design committees kill everything) and expense budgets, you didn't get the truck you want, a F250 4x4, long box, supercab; the wife made you get the f150 2wd, short box, crew cab and you end up with so little truck, you probably should have gone with the Festiva in the first place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 18:50:04 No.1475155 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474253
man you're still shitposting on this board?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Space_Shuttle_vs_Soyuz_TM_-_to_s (...).png, 233KiB, 2783x2459

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 18:50:17 No.1475156 Report

Quoted By: >>1475184 >>1475185

>>1475070
It could have even went to mood with orbital refueling but politics.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 800px-Apollo_11_Launch_-_GPN-200 (...).jpg, 188KiB, 800x1000

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 20:08:03 No.1475184 Report

Quoted By: >>1475185

>>1475156
*coughs*

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Saturn-Shuttle design model.jpg, 1MiB, 2070x3648

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 20:14:47 No.1475185 Report

Quoted By: >>1475187 >>1475230 >>1475234

>>1475156
thesis
>>1475184
antithesis

i now present: synthesis

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 20:25:24 No.1475187 Report

Quoted By: >>1475217

>>1475185
its really cool. Shame the Shuttle was only technically reusable as far as money went. if There were better heat shield technology at the time, it may have delivered on its promises

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 21:00:36 No.1475199 Report

Quoted By:

>>1473302
A ship named after a snow storm, killed by a snow storm

Poetic

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO NTS_-_Nuclear_Rocket_Development (...).jpg, 211KiB, 752x940

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 21:28:44 No.1475213 Report

Quoted By:

Oh what could have been..

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 21:30:08 No.1475217 Report

Quoted By: >>1475229

>>1475187
Was there anything really wrong with the heatshield technology that was used though? Besides completely disintegrating and killing the entire crew that one time it seemed to work pretty decently once they figured it out in the early 80s. If it were an ablative system it would be a shitload of time and money to replace all the leading edges and entire bottom of the ship after every single reentry. It seems to me like the tiles and blankets were one of the few "re-usable" components of the system that actually were reasonably re-usable.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 881115_702284.png, 1MiB, 2384x1272

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 21:44:52 No.1475229 Report

Quoted By: >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1475217
Each tile was individually made for its location and had to be manually inspected, which was time consuming.
With today's material science knowledge, we would probably be able to make lighter and better tiles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 21:46:25 No.1475230 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475185
Ah, what a beautiful concept. If nothing else, it preserves heavy lift capability, which would've been useful for the space station and future activities beyond LEO.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Sea-Dragon.jpg, 383KiB, 2000x1131

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 21:53:25 No.1475234 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475185
I love how old NASA blurred the lines between whether or not kerbals were behind the design process or not

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 21:59:59 No.1475236 Report

Quoted By: >>1475244

The short version of Shuttle is: it was an old design from the early 1970s, that was incredibly fucking cool for its time. It was so cool that all the people in charge of the money were permanently snow-blinded by its coolness for decades. They didn't want to see any of the drawbacks. So who would want to spend billions of dollars to get rid of their symbol of American pride? We got a space ship, it's awesome, it does some stuff, why replace it?

Hindsight 20/20:
What SHOULD have happened: After finishing and starting to fly Colombia, they should have stepped back and said "wow actually this system kind of sucks". Keep using Columbia for now. Cancelled subsequent orbiters, taken that money and everything they learned, and design an 80s version of Constellation that didn't suck. Maybe have a workable Shuttle-derived system to replace the orbiter setup by the late 80s. Maybe even keep Columbia processed and on deck for those little telescope lens oopsie woopsies.

Oh and fix that SRB o-ring design before it's a problem you motherfuckers.

>>1474869
This sums up the entire program

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 22:08:11 No.1475244 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475236
Constellation OR SLS*

SLS is fine but the program should have started in the 80s and finished by the 90s. 2011 should have been the start of a program to replace it. And a late replacement, at that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 23:01:15 No.1475260 Report

Quoted By: >>1475262

>>1475095
>most of the time it was like operating a F150 when all you need is a Festiva.
It's always better to have more capacity to do something than less than you need

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 23:07:10 No.1475262 Report

Quoted By: >>1475272

>>1475260
the opposite is true when talking about orbital payloads

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 23:22:04 No.1475272 Report

Quoted By: >>1475273 >>1475279 >>1475305 >>1475314

>>1475262
Opinion

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 23:23:45 No.1475273 Report

Quoted By: >>1475320

>>1475272
Would you use a Saturn V to launch a single cubesat?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO venus1.jpg, 62KiB, 998x500

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 23:24:06 No.1475275 Report

Quoted By: >>1475276

We need a new Venus lander.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 141222115103-cloud-city-horizont (...).png, 578KiB, 980x552

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 23:35:08 No.1475276 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475275
We need Venusian aerostats

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 838454_281107.png, 777KiB, 2339x1496

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 23:42:54 No.1475279 Report

Quoted By: >>1475318 >>1475320 >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1475272
So wasting money is good?
Hell, if the costs had been lower, they would've had the fifth and sixth operational orbiters that NASA wanted. Poor constitution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 00:47:44 No.1475305 Report

Quoted By: >>1475318 >>1475320

>>1475272
>He doesn't know about the rocket equation

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO homeTile2.jpg, 30KiB, 399x215

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:17:10 No.1475314 Report

Quoted By: >>1475317 >>1475318 >>1475320

>>1475272
Space launches are ENTIRELY about money. If your lift system isn't financially viable, it isn't viable at all. Remember that Shuttle was literally invented right from the beginning be as financially efficient as possible. The F150 vs Fiesta analogy doesn't work because F150 was really designed to commute in.

Better analogy:
You need to make an Uber eats delivery. Your options are:
1. $35k Tesla Model 3 on autopilot with nobody in it
2. $175k Ford F450 king ranch diesel with a custom camper/sleeper cab with long bed with a boom crane with 7 people crammed into it

You can do many things in one trip with the F450 with enough months of planning to line everything up. You can do more things overall with the truck. F450 is honestly going to last longer but those diesel engine and transmission rebuilds cost the price of a new Tesla. If something goes wrong mid-mission, the 7 people inside might be able to do something about it... maybe. You can go as long as 17 days with people living in that camper cab. You can even stick stuff in the bed and bring it home.

The big, highly capable, complicated truck is a better vehicle. But you started off budgeting for a V6 F150, and bragged to everyone about how you were going to get 50 mpg. And now since it's the only vehicle in your driveway, you have to look like a clown spending all that money on fuel and maintenance when you need to make an Uber Eats delivery.

The truck looks pretty shit now that someone learned how to tow stuff bigger than you ever could just by bolting 3 teslas together.

You have to put this into perspective though. This whole thing started off in 1975. Only one of these vehicles was even possible. As of 2011, it's time to park those old money pit girls and move on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:27:00 No.1475317 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475314
Also in 1975 they would have been inventing the first truck that can even be used more than once

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:27:40 No.1475318 Report

Quoted By:

>>Conjecture

>>1475279
>So wasting money is good?
Opinion

>>1475305
No source

>>1475314
>Space launches are ENTIRELY about money.
Opinion

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:29:28 No.1475320 Report

Quoted By: >>1475321 >>1475325 >>1476076

>>1475273
Conjecture

>>1475279
>So wasting money is good?
Opinion

>>1475305
No source

>>1475314
Quit making this pickup truck strawman argument

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:31:49 No.1475321 Report

Quoted By: >>1475322

>>1475320
you've gotta level with me anon, is this bait or are you actually trying to make some kind of point?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:34:18 No.1475322 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475321
Don't give it (you)s

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:46:04 No.1475325 Report

Quoted By: >>1475330

>>1475320
???

I laid out that analogy so an 8 year old could understand it.

It's literally a pickup truck. It's got a cab in the front where you drive it, it's got an open bed in the back that you strap your cargo in, and it rolls on Michelins.

This covering your ears and screaming shit is why we got stuck with this 1970s spaceship for decades. At least Russia has an excuse, they don't have any money to design anything else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:52:41 No.1475329 Report

Quoted By:

>1475325
Stop giving it (you)s

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:56:14 No.1475330 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475325
>I laid out that analogy so an 8 year old could understand it.
I'm not 8

>This covering your ears and screaming shit is why we got stuck with this 1970s spaceship for decades
It was the world's first spaceship

>Buhh muh 1970s technology
Do you truly believe it never got upgraded as technology improved?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 02:46:41 No.1475360 Report

Quoted By: >>1475362 >>1475369 >>1475370

1900s Humans invent first airplane
1910s Humans invent first modern rocket
1920s Humans fly around the planet
1930s Humans invent first jet airplane
1940s Humans fly in rocket airplane faster than speed of sound
1950s Humans shoot object in orbit around planet
1960s Humans walk on Moon
1970s Humans invent space truck
1980s Space truck
1990s Space truck
2000s Space truck
2010s Space truck

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 02:50:07 No.1475362 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475360
>Humans invent space truck
>come on Space trucken!
>come on Space trucken!
>come on Space trucken!
>come on Space trucken!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHOrpFeXUao

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 03:08:10 No.1475369 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475360
>1970s Humans invent space truck
>1980s Space truck
>1990s Space truck
>2000s Space truck
>2010s Space truck

Seems pretty based to me

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 03:13:18 No.1475370 Report

Quoted By: >>1475383 >>1475390

>>1475360
desu i'd rather live in the timeline where we had shuttles forever than live in the spacex timeline where you get real reusability, but it's deeply intertwined with a personality cult for reddit: the person

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 7pHMjiFkKrVMCTWhjZXbRD-650-80.jpg, 44KiB, 624x445

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 03:42:54 No.1475383 Report

Quoted By: >>1475393

>>1475370
no space cheese in that timeline

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 03:52:33 No.1475390 Report

Quoted By: >>1475399 >>1475409

>>1475370
Honest question tho: what's the point of "real reusability" if processing costs more than multiple new commercial rockets

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img_9609.jpg, 1MiB, 2448x3264

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 03:55:56 No.1475393 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475383
dude, that's not space cheese.
everybody knows that space cheese comes from bowling alley natch concessions and it's been sitting on that shelf since sputnik.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 04:37:09 No.1475399 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475390
Okay Eli settle down

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 04:55:00 No.1475409 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475390
If processing costs can be reduced over time, eventually it might be cheaper. Especially when you're not really dealing with true mass produced rockets as competition.

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_3601.jpg, 474KiB, 1968x1750

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2 Tue 21 Apr 2020 05:40:50 No.1475428 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474253

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 07:55:33 No.1475441 Report

Quoted By:

>>1473925

okay boomer

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 20:14:58 No.1475645 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474779
Whoever crosses the finish line first wins.
Soviets bailed out.

Now it's between USA and CHINA.

IMHO winner is whoever first achieves permanent, fully autonomous presence anywhere in space. Everything else is just exploration thats comparable only on per-event basis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 20:18:04 No.1475648 Report

Quoted By:

>>1474253
So you're telling the tanks was so big to refuel orbital factory and shuttle was used to bring down product?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 20:33:43 No.1475655 Report

Quoted By: >>1475720

>>1473302
Wow, Two failures in the same image!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1534799795797.jpg, 447KiB, 2560x1440

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 20:52:16 No.1475671 Report

Quoted By:

>>1473979
Excellent post. Sure, the shuttle ended up launching plenty of payloads over the span of decades, took hundreds of people to space, and looked cool as fuck, but it's impossible to deny it at least didn't reach its full potential, among other things as you pointed out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 21:10:23 No.1475683 Report

Quoted By:

by "comfy feelings" do you mean the feeling of my cock and balls, hava

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 21:35:11 No.1475695 Report

Quoted By: >>1475703 >>1475787

You know what I think makes the Shuttle more memorable to people? They had names and people knew them. How many people know the nicknames given the Apollo CSMs and LMs aside from big space program fans? Soyuz don't really have permanent names other than their clalsigns. People will attach to something they can point at and day "Oh that's the Atlanis!" I wish spacex would start giving the F9 1st stages nicknames other than their Booster number. That would make it more personable to people watching if when a booster lands they can say something like "Intrepid back home once again" instead of just generically calling them the Falcon. I hope they'll start getting starship test articles off the ground and start giving them real names.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 21:58:42 No.1475703 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475695
They should wait until they stop blowing up first.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 22:36:18 No.1475720 Report

Quoted By: >>1475723

>>1475655
The Shuttle wasn't a failure.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1572727957368.jpg, 166KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 22:39:01 No.1475723 Report

Quoted By: >>1475731

>>1475720
>has a loss rate worse than the average anti-ground missile
>not a failure

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO soyjakd.jpg, 38KiB, 570x538

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 22:46:02 No.1475731 Report

Quoted By: >>1475732 >>1475767

>>1475723
>Took more people into orbit than any other launch system
>Took more cargo into orbit than any other launch system
>Was in service three decades
>"It was a failure"

pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 22:47:35 No.1475732 Report

Quoted By: >>1475733

>>1475731
>killed more people than any other launch system in history
gg no re

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 22:50:17 No.1475733 Report

Quoted By: >>1475737

>>1475732
Going to space is inherently risky and few manned launch systems can lay claim to nobody being killed in them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 22:52:22 No.1475737 Report

Quoted By: >>1475743

>>1475733
yeah but only one can lay claim to 14 being killed in them
that's more than triple the number killed by all other launch systems combined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 22:54:16 No.1475743 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475737
So? It still took more people and cargo into orbit than any other launch system, and it was the longest lived NASA launch vehicle. The Shuttle fulfilled any task given to it at least adequately, the program itself was very successful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 22:54:49 No.1475744 Report

Quoted By: >>1475746

>longest lived NASA launch vehicle
>NASA
remarkable cope

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 22:58:37 No.1475746 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475744
Keep trying baby bro

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 23:33:25 No.1475767 Report

Quoted By: >>1475828

>>1475731
>>Took more people into orbit than any other launch system
opinion

see I can petulant autist too

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 23:50:22 No.1475780 Report

Quoted By: >>1475828

Stop giving that thing (you)s. If you leave it alone with its uninformed opinions and single-word "arguments," maybe it will go away.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 23:51:34 No.1475783 Report

Quoted By: >>1475828

>fulfilled any task given to it
Be cheaper per launch than the competition.
Launch at least 24 times a year.
Make shuttle-like vehicles the standard for the future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 23:57:11 No.1475787 Report

Quoted By: >>1475808 >>1475828

>>1475695
"The Eagle has landed."
How many shuttles could normalfags actually name, other than the two that are no longer with us?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 00:48:47 No.1475808 Report

Quoted By: >>1475849

>>1475787
That would be the most obvious example. Although, I really think a lot of people wouldn't know that it was the name of the LM. People definitely know Colombia and Challenger are shuttles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 01:47:12 No.1475828 Report

Quoted By: >>1475899

>>1475767
>opinion
Nope

>>1475780
Sup

>>1475783
>Be cheaper per launch than the competition.
If it was so expensive, why did it stay in use especially when alternatives were available (and used) when it was in service?

>>1475787
>How many shuttles could normalfags actually name
In the 80s and 90s everyone could name most of them

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 02:29:40 No.1475841 Report

Quoted By: >>1475843

Space isn't real

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 683235_165840.png, 1MiB, 1742x1561

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 02:33:05 No.1475843 Report

Quoted By: >>1475866 >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1475841
Still a better post than anything the bot above you has done.
>NASA’s space shuttle had a cost of about $1.5 billion to launch 27,500 kg to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), $54,500/kg. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 now advertises a cost of $62 million
From an official NASA document.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20200001093.pdf
to launch 22,800 kg to LEO, $2,720/kg

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 26180886.png, 1MiB, 3156x1768

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 02:34:37 No.1475845 Report

Quoted By: >>1480301 >>1480303

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170009967.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 02:39:04 No.1475849 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475808
Discovery and Atlantis are pretty easy ones to remember.
I tend to forget about Endeavour though.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 783710.png, 1MiB, 3175x1746

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 02:41:28 No.1475853 Report

Quoted By: >>1480301 >>1480303

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 03:13:56 No.1475866 Report

Quoted By: >>1475873

>>1475843
So companies kept overpaying even though other launch options were available? That doesn't add up.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 88134115.png, 1MiB, 2446x1359

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 03:28:09 No.1475873 Report

Quoted By: >>1475876 >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1475866
After the loss of Challenger, the STS largely stopped doing commercial satellite launches, with its payload being mostly NASA/DOD/other government launches.
http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/dev/hillger/Shuttle-related.htm
https://history.nasa.gov/pocketstats/sect B/P&E.pdf
Before that, the US government subsidized commercial users of the STS, but was still undercut by Arianespace.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 03:31:37 No.1475876 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475873
Oh so your point is a wash at worst

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 04:59:27 No.1475899 Report

Quoted By: >>1475902

>>1475828
>alternatives were available (and used) when it was in service?
what alternative US manned launcher was available?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 05:12:01 No.1475902 Report

Quoted By: >>1475903

>>1475899
I can see how far you moved the goalposts from space

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 05:12:36 No.1475903 Report

Quoted By: >>1475905

>>1475902
If you're on the Shuttle, I won't have to worry about you telling anyone after re-entry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 05:15:25 No.1475905 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475903
I'm on Soyuz 1

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 476325_445021.png, 2MiB, 1344x1513

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 06:32:45 No.1475930 Report

Quoted By: >>1475931 >>1475933 >>1480301 >>1480303

>I can see how far you moved the goalposts from space
>it's not that almost everyone who's weighed in has disagreed with me, it's gotta be one poster
Though to answer the original question. The reason why Delta/Atlas/Titan didn't all die out in the 1980s is precisely because every possible mission was moved from the shuttle to one of those platforms. Arianespace only exists because its first rockets were cheaper to develop, build, and operate than the STS (not to mention taking less time to develop and build), and able to deploy multiple satellites in one launch. Arianespace was probably the biggest winner of the horrendously gimped STS that Congress forced upon NASA.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 06:34:16 No.1475931 Report

Quoted By: >>1475934 >>1475938

>>1475930
>The reason why Delta/Atlas/Titan didn't all die out in the 1980s is precisely because every possible mission was moved from the shuttle to one of those platforms.
They were continually updating the Delta series but at the same time they were also in danger? Kek

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO space_station_cheaper.jpg, 713KiB, 2509x1665

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 06:39:01 No.1475933 Report

Quoted By: >>1475946

>>1475930
>Any pretense of recouping the more than $5 billion cost of Shuttle development was abandoned
Look at that. NASA actually thought they might make back the development costs of the STS through cost savings. Should've done modular 70s Space Station + manned ELVs. Descendents of those ELVs might still be in use today, just as Soyuz, Long March, H-II, and Ariane are all living rocket families.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 400105_101303.png, 360KiB, 1368x534

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 06:42:15 No.1475934 Report

Quoted By: >>1475975 >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1475931
The new Delta variants came after the Challenger fireworks show. Prior to that, the goal was to completely phase out US ELVs after the STS had proven successful.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 135614_866686.png, 816KiB, 682x1325

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 06:57:32 No.1475938 Report

Quoted By: >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1475931
The US Air Force, having done so much to cripple the shuttle, did begin work on a complementary expendable launch vehicle prior to 1986, but this was against the wishes of NASA and the shuttle's supporters.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 07:46:21 No.1475946 Report

Quoted By: >>1475954 >>1475956

>>1475933
>Soyuz
Commie
>Long March
Commie
>Ariane
Shuttle technology, less payload, gay
>H-II
Shuttle technology, less payload, gay

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 08:26:51 No.1475954 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475946
Ariane 1 flew before Columbia did.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 08:43:51 No.1475956 Report

Quoted By: >>1475975

>>1475946
Soyuz is literally the only way Americans have been getting into space for almost a decade now. Those seats don't come cheap either. Nothing more capitalist than that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 10:41:05 No.1475975 Report

Quoted By: >>1476007 >>1476013

>>1475934
>It's another "government bureaucrats add cost" episode
Color me surprised

>>1475956
People bitch about the Shuttle allegedly costing more but suck off Russians because they use rockets and ergo are "economical"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 12:08:40 No.1476007 Report

Quoted By:

>>1475975
>People bitch about the Shuttle allegedly costing more but suck off Russians because they use rockets and ergo are "economical"

Well, "turning them out like sausages" has been a pretty good strategy for the longest of time. I'm pretty interested to see where they can place the seat price with competition.

It goes without saying that America and its allies will use SpaceX/Boeing regardless what the Russians offer because of politics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 12:53:21 No.1476013 Report

Quoted By: >>1476021 >>1476417

>>1475975
>People bitch about the Shuttle allegedly costing more but suck off Russians because they use rockets and ergo are "economical"

Rockets are big metal tubes with some pipes in them.

The only complicated part are the engines, and the shuttle engines had to be refurbished after every flight anyway so the savings there aren't as impressive as you'd think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 13:22:45 No.1476021 Report

Quoted By: >>1476049

>>1476013
>Rockets are big metal tubes with some pipes in them.
Why do you have to lie?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 15:36:42 No.1476049 Report

Quoted By: >>1476054

>>1476021
Prove me wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 15:40:20 No.1476054 Report

Quoted By: >>1476417

>>1476049
Rocket engines are not big metal tubes nor are they pipes. Next

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 16:33:16 No.1476076 Report

Quoted By: >>1476087

>>1475320
>No source

You have the internet in your hands.
I'm not going to spoon-feed a retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 16:46:59 No.1476087 Report

Quoted By: >>1476277

>>1476076
Still no source

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 20:22:33 No.1476165 Report

Quoted By: >>1476178

> suck off Russians because they use rockets and ergo are "economical"
NASA's own commercial crew program (the STS's replacement in the ISS-ferry role) uses conventional rockets for a reason. Falcon 9 is reusable, though in a completely different (and substantially cheaper and more efficient) way than the STS.
>people bitch about the Shuttle allegedly costing more
>allegedly
Willing to see sources that say otherwise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 21:06:49 No.1476178 Report

Quoted By: >>1476180 >>1476192

>>1476165
>NASA's own commercial crew program (the STS's replacement in the ISS-ferry role) uses conventional rockets for a reason. Falcon 9 is reusable, though in a completely different (and substantially cheaper and more efficient) way than the STS.
They're not competitors. STS was retired almost 10 years ago.

>Willing to see sources that say otherwise.
Well, you keep saying it's so expensive to use the Shuttle, but it was used for three decades which tells me it was at the very least cost practical to do so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 21:10:17 No.1476180 Report

Quoted By: >>1476185

>>1476178
>Well, you keep saying it's so expensive to use the Shuttle, but it was used for three decades which tells me it was at the very least cost practical to do so.
>it was at the very least cost practical to do so
That would imply people do logical or rational things. People can do cost-ineffective things for centuries.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 21:17:18 No.1476185 Report

Quoted By:

>>1476180
High level cope

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 21:32:18 No.1476192 Report

Quoted By: >>1476197

>>1476178
>but it was used for three decades which tells me it was at the very least cost practical to do so.
they didn't have any other option because they blew all their money on the shuttle. this was already explained to you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 21:35:17 No.1476197 Report

Quoted By: >>1476198

>>1476192
>they didn't have any other option
There were other launch options for commercial cargo available the entire time the Shuttle was in service.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 21:36:21 No.1476198 Report

Quoted By: >>1476201

>>1476197
NASA payloads aren't commercial cargo

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 21:38:47 No.1476201 Report

Quoted By:

>>1476198
Some were. Others were government/DoD

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 438333_804255.png, 1MiB, 1746x1328

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 22:02:44 No.1476214 Report

Quoted By: >>1476225

The vast majority of Shuttle cargo (esp. post 1986) was NASA/other US government.
Thanks partially to the STS the US lost its monopoly on commercial launches for the Western world.
>it was used for three decades which tells me it was at the very least cost practical to do so.
That has been explained repeatedly by multiple people in this thread, with sources.
If you want, you can look at NASA budgets (or even just SLS procurement) to see how much the program cost them to run. The decision on which platforms to develop and use is made by Congress, which has goals (mostly job$ and contract$) other than making an efficient or effective spacecraft. Look at how delayed Commerical Crew has been to see what Congress is willing to do for new spacecraft. Or Senator Shelby's opposition to a propellant dep*t.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Apr 2020 22:19:26 No.1476225 Report

Quoted By:

>>1476214
>That has been explained repeatedly by multiple people in this thread, with sources.
Dubious claims at best

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_3602.jpg, 102KiB, 1200x630

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2 Wed 22 Apr 2020 22:27:57 No.1476231 Report

Quoted By:

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO twistear.jpg, 1MiB, 2424x2657

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2 Wed 22 Apr 2020 22:48:24 No.1476235 Report

Quoted By: >>1476268

>>1472407
madefrom,,,,,old,,Fuel,TANK!,
,SS ET is bigger,,made for artifical gravitys,,,ornot.,
,,,tied together withalfmile of cable,,,why??
,Whyouask?,,,
,,,,,,,TORULETHEGALAXY!!!!WHAAAHAAAHAHAHAAA!(evil Zenu laff).

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO horsestadium.jpg, 3MiB, 5530x2060

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2 Wed 22 Apr 2020 22:51:44 No.1476236 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 00:10:51 No.1476260 Report

Quoted By: >>1476263

>dubious claims
That's an opinion, not a source.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 00:20:03 No.1476263 Report

Quoted By:

>>1476260
I didn't claim it was a source

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Mir-72_RDbvN7X_1471850795.jpg, 84KiB, 892x669

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 00:34:38 No.1476268 Report

Quoted By: >>1476282 >>1476382

>>1476235
Rule the galaxy?
The shuttle couldn't even get out of LEO.
Buran-Energia was a far better concept.
Had the Americans done something like that instead, they wouldn't have to muck around with the Senate Launch System.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 01:31:24 No.1476277 Report

Quoted By: >>1476282 >>1476382

>>1476087
opinion

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bbuns.jpg, 3MiB, 3888x1952

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2 Thu 23 Apr 2020 01:48:20 No.1476282 Report

Quoted By:

>>1476268
mytheisis,,,here,,,isthat from the Moonon,,,WENEVER LEFT.,
,,asplit happened,,,darkspace is Fastpace,,no prying eyes or laborlaws,,,real knowledge ofour local galaxy.,
,lunarbased radar,,you cant gethatrue signal on Earth,,,nuclear boombooms,,,off world farming.,
,,,,if nothen,,WHATHE HECK HUMANS?!?!,
,we Shouldo itall!,,Buran lifting Shuttles,,,kids on broomsticks,,Pegasus Panam intercontenental flights,,,SPACE,,FILLIT!,
,,,so,,im crazy wrong,,,,,,, OR YOU ARE!,, i mean you as in humans not ripping the Moontobits.,
,
>>1476277
fact.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 02:34:48 No.1476289 Report

Quoted By: >>1476382

Source on the fucking rocket equation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
Larger vessel than you need -> higher final mass -> larger initial mass required -> more cost
Larger vessel than you need + fixed cost/fixed initial mass -> smaller payload

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO soyjakt.png, 7KiB, 352x425

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 07:59:35 No.1476382 Report

Quoted By:

>>1476268
>Buran-Energia was a far better concept.
pic related is you

>>1476277
Nope

>>1476289
Doesn't make sense

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:31:33 No.1476417 Report

Quoted By: >>1476420 >>1476503

>>1476054
>>1476013
>The only complicated part are the engines

I acknowledge the engines, you tryhard failed reader.

APART FROM THE ENGINES, rockets are big metal tubes with some pipes in them. And the Shuttle engines had to be refurbished after every flight anyway, making the cost saving of re-usable engines less than it would be if they were truly re-usable. And the Russian engines tend to be more simple, making them cheaper to manufacture.

tl;dr: Yes a disposable rocket can be more economical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 13:42:02 No.1476420 Report

Quoted By:

>>1476417
>rockets are big metal tubes with some pipes in them
Disingenuous oversimplification

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 747216_417348.png, 641KiB, 1148x864

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 17:47:37 No.1476483 Report

Quoted By:

>the rocket equation doesn't make sense
>yet I think my opinion about rockets is valid

>i i'll show him, I'll post a wojack
It's been 30 years, like five different concepts, and billions of dollars since they "got serious" about an HLV, and there's still nothing. STS is inherently an HLV with most of the payload being an orbiter. Restructure so it doesn't need the orbiter, and you've got 70 more tons of payload to play around with. You've also got an Energia at that point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 18:43:48 No.1476497 Report

Quoted By: >>1476499

>When Agnew showed up at the Apollo 11 launch and called for flight to Mars, key senators were quick to respond.

>Mike Mansfield, the Senate Majority Leader, declared that he would rule out such efforts "until problems here on earth are solved." Following the safe return of the Apollo 11 astronauts, Clinton Anderson, chairman of the Senate space committee, stated that "now is not the time to commit ourselves to the goal of a manned mission to Mars." Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican member of that committee, added that the government "should avoid making long-range plans during this emotional period," following the first moon landing. She warned against becoming involved "in a crash program without the justification we had for Apollo."

>There was similar sentiment in the House. Congressman George Miller, chairman of that chamber's space committee, warned against decisions that would "commit ourselves to a specific time period for setting sail for Mars" and proposed that such decisions might be deferred until "five, perhaps ten years from now." Joseph Karth, a space subcommittee chairman, asserted that the success of Apollo would not "translate directly into an urgent mandate to put a man on Mars by 1980 or, for that matter, any other magical date." He declared that NASA was showing "complete lack of consideration for the taxpayer." Congressman Olin Teague, chairman of the powerful Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight, said a year later that "the easiest thing on earth to vote against in Congress is the space program. You can vote to kill the whole space program tomorrow, and you won't get one letter."

NASA seemed popular after Apollo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 18:47:35 No.1476499 Report

Quoted By: >>1476528

>>1476497
>These people were members and leaders of the congressional space committees. If they were willing to take such candid views, what would the rank and file do within the House and Senate? Certainly they would pay close attention to public-opinion polls - which were strongly adverse to NASA. Following Apollo 11, a Gallup Poll took a nationwide survey of views concerning flight to Mars. Fifty-three percent of the respondents were opposed to such a program; 39 percent were in favor. A few weeks later, a Newsweek poll [179] found that 56 percent of the public wanted Nixon to spend less on space. Only 10 percent wanted him to spend more
>Unable to sway his critics, Paine soon was dismissing them out of hand:
>One of the games that some people on the Hill might play would be to say, gee, let's hit the space program and wipe it out, and keep the sewers and so forth in. The idea was that, well, the reason the country was so crummy was because we went to the moon, and by God, if we had only spent that money on all these other things that we needed to do, then we would have a great country and a crummy space program. Wouldn't it be better than a great space program and a crummy country. This was the line of reasoning they slipped into.
>Now, in congressional testimony, he spoke of a "shuttle/station" and described it as a single integrated program, offering "the first elements of a transportation system." The shuttle would "transport a crew of two, and [180] twelve passengers, into low orbit." In addition to supporting the station, it would accomplish "propellant delivery, satellite repair, short-duration orbital missions, deployment of satellites," and the launch of automated "planetary probes."
>The space station would have a crew of 12, "seven men working and five men operating the vehicle itself," and would have "an operational life of ten years, with resupply." It would fly atop a Saturn V, with both the Shuttle and station entering service by 1978.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 19:01:38 No.1476503 Report

Quoted By: >>1476521 >>1476655

>>1476417
>tl;dr: Yes a disposable rocket can be more economical.
Then why does SpaceX have the lowest launch cost?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pratt2.jpg, 100KiB, 714x962

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 19:29:08 No.1476521 Report

Quoted By: >>1476655

>>1476503
They do vertical integration, have an efficient process, and have found a cheap approach to reusability. They also have a high launch cadence, which is essential to realizing the benefits of reusability. Their costs were competitive even before they began reusing boosters, which says a lot about the rest of the industry. But if you wanted to maximize payload on a given launch, Falcon 9 expendable would be better.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO p185.jpg, 39KiB, 722x559

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 19:45:55 No.1476528 Report

Quoted By: >>1476529 >>1476630 >>1476677

>>1476499
>Following this vote, NASA's opponents launched their onslaught. William Proxmire, an ally of Mondale and a strong critic of NASA in his own right, noted that the House had approved a NASA budget that was $136 million below the Administration request. This cut had not been aimed specifically at the Shuttle/station, but had been spread among a variety of programs. Proxmire now introduced his own amendment, calling for a cut to this level in the Senate appropriation. He asserted that the money saved could "provide a subsidy for the building of some 125,000 to 150,000 new low- and moderate-income housing units." This amendment also failed, 34 to 39.
>Senator William Fulbright then introduced yet another amendment, demanding a cut of $300 million for NASA. Nixon had described the Senate as "spendthrift" for having added $400 million to the bill the previous day, for urban programs. "We should all have an opportunity to help balance the current bill," this senator said, adding that his cut in funding for the space program would do precisely that. He presented an explicit appeal to take money from NASA and spend it on the cities: "We voted for sewers. Certainly sewers are more important than going to the moon." Again Paine found the support he needed as Fulbright's measure went down, 32 to 37.
>This appropriation represented a drop of $428 million from the level of FY 1970, with inflation reducing the 1971 allocation even further. It marked the fourth year in a row of such cuts, and while no one had a crystal ball, this budget at least would offer the solace that future cuts would be considerably less severe. NASA funding finally hit rock bottom in FY 1974, barely above $3 billion. In constant dollars, this represented only one-third of NASA's peak in the [186] mid-1960s. Subsequent budgets stayed close to that level, with adjustment for inflation, and continued at that constant-dollar level through the mid-1980s.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 19:47:00 No.1476529 Report

Quoted By: >>1476630 >>1476677

>>1476528
False economy on the Moon program.
>Yet even in 1970 the final cut, from $3.333 billion to $3.269 billion, gave a clear view of congressional attitudes toward Apollo and, by extension, to the challenges that might lie beyond the moon. This reduction of $64 million represented only two percent of the Administration request, but NASA was already so hard-pressed that it had significant consequences. Paine now saved $42 million by canceling two planned Apollo moon landings. This amounted to a down payment; those two missions would have cost $800 million, spread over several years.
>The Apollo program had spent $23.85 billion through mid-1970, and had accomplished the two moon landings of Apollo 11 and 12. The equipment was in hand for six more. Hence, to save 3.3 percent of the program cost - $800 million out of nearly $24 billion - Paine sacrificed one-third of the remaining missions. The loss in lunar science was greater still. Lunar landings were visiting rugged regions of interest to geologists; indeed, a professional geologist, Harrison Schmitt, flew to the moon aboard Apollo 17. The final Apollo missions were able to stay longer on the moon, as astronauts ranged widely by driving a battery-powered vehicle that resembled a dune buggy.
>Such waste is inconceivable unless one understands that, to Congress, Apollo was a means to achieve national prestige. By 1970, the nation had reached the moon and had won whatever prestige it was likely to get from this. Members of Congress could look at the moon and say "been there, done that." Each Apollo flight cost up to $400 million. Such a sum, following the estimate of Senator Proxmire, could provide housing for as many as a million people. In an era when people looked to Washington to do such things, Apollo would fail totally in any competition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Apr 2020 23:42:56 No.1476630 Report

Quoted By:

>>1476528
>>1476529
I've never liked this false battle that senators set up between the space program and social welfare. It seems uniquely well suited to polarizing people - either you want low income housing, or you want to go to the moon - rather than looking at the entirety of the government budget, taxes, borrowing, policies for growth, etc and setting national priorities seriously. What we wound up with in the end is a country with a crummy space program and a crummy welfare system. I'm not saying that could've been reversed if space-nerds and welfare policy people had teamed up, but we'd at least have been spared the animosity, the track of blaming the poor for the fact we haven't hit mars and blaming the space program for the fact we've got poor people, all while congress gets away with their mismanagement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 01:38:23 No.1476655 Report

Quoted By: >>1476680 >>1476689 >>1476690

>>1476503
>>1476521
They're also subsidized

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 02:20:33 No.1476677 Report

Quoted By:

>>1476529
>housing for as many as a million people.
>>1476528
>125,000 to 150,000 new low- and moderate-income housing units
Minorities again ruining it for everyone else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 02:21:47 No.1476680 Report

Quoted By: >>1476683

>>1476655
>[SpaceX is] subsidized
>neglects to mention the subsidies for Old Space
Whew lad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 02:23:28 No.1476683 Report

Quoted By: >>1476685

>>1476680
Red herring

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 02:34:57 No.1476685 Report

Quoted By: >>1476686

>>1476683
How is calling for a legitimate basis of comparison a red herring?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 02:35:33 No.1476686 Report

Quoted By: >>1476689

>>1476685
Read the posts I was replying to

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 02:42:38 No.1476689 Report

Quoted By: >>1476691

>>1476686
>points to completely irrelevant posts to support his claim
Are you claiming SpaceX is subsidized in >>1476655? If so, how is that different than Old Space subsidies a la ULA? You have repeatedly failed to make an argument when given the chance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 02:43:11 No.1476690 Report

Quoted By: >>1476691

>>1476655
The entire industry receives extensive state support.
Did absolutely nothing for lower prices.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 02:46:57 No.1476691 Report

Quoted By: >>1476701

>>1476689
>You have repeatedly failed to make an argument when given the chance.
Not true. I did make an argument.

>>1476690
I know

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Apr 2020 03:20:55 No.1476701 Report

Quoted By:

>>1476691
>I did make an argument.
opinion

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO PHONEHOME.jpg, 85KiB, 735x600

BaconRider !yuA7eZE8l2 Tue 28 Apr 2020 17:12:30 No.1478683 Report

Quoted By:

thisthread,,,,gotme Banned.,
,,,,notalking!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 361qMEo.jpg, 1MiB, 4288x2848

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 03:52:43 No.1478902 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ares1.jpg, 62KiB, 900x600

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 20:34:02 No.1479216 Report

Quoted By:

Remember that time when America was going to send capsules into space with a single 5-section SRB.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 201648.png, 1MiB, 1689x669

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:16:43 No.1479241 Report

Quoted By: >>1479242 >>1479652

What could've been...
All that actually happened was a space station to nowhere and a shuttle that killed beyond-LEO possibilities.
And now NASA is spending billions to get a gimped version of a return to the Moon and lunar station.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 21:18:00 No.1479242 Report

Quoted By: >>1479299

>>1479241
>100 men in low earth orbit by the late '80s
Record as of today is 13.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 23:23:27 No.1479299 Report

Quoted By:

>>1479242
>tfw Starship breaks the record with a single launch

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Motorola_DynaTAC_8000X_600_lq_0005.jpg, 26KiB, 600x600

Anonymous Wed 29 Apr 2020 23:53:14 No.1479320 Report

Quoted By: >>1479344

>>1470001
The shuttle was cool, but SpaceX Falcons are more efficient, and they land themselves which is awesome

So really the Falcons are better due to greater efficiency. Lower cost means greater access to space. Greater access can only be a good thing.

I know some people would say "but the shuttle was cool" and yes it was, but that doesn't mean I want it back. The Motorola DynaTAC was cool, but I'm not going to be replacing my smartphone with it any time soon. Also did you know that DynaTACs cost the equivalent of around $10k in today's money? Crazy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 00:48:46 No.1479344 Report

Quoted By: >>1479346 >>1479352

>>1479320
>So really the Falcons are better due to greater efficiency.
Bugman tier

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 01:02:39 No.1479346 Report

Quoted By: >>1479352 >>1479359

>>1479344
>dude, waste payload capacity taking useless wings and main engines into orbit
>dude waste months hand-checking thermal tiles on those huge wings
>dude fuck lowering launch costs, Nixon said "stay in LEO" so we'll stay in LEO
>space should be 'cool', not functional
Only bugman here is the spessplen autist.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1584759000092.png, 119KiB, 929x1175

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 01:14:59 No.1479352 Report

Quoted By:

>>1479346
Based

>>1479344
Cope

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 01:27:29 No.1479359 Report

Quoted By: >>1479360 >>1479390

>>1479346
>waste payload capacity
Opinion

>waste months hand-checking thermal tiles
Literally nothing wrong with it

>Nixon said
Conjecture

>space should be 'cool', not functional
Sorry forgot that putting a car in orbit was "functional"

Go suck off Elon

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 01:34:04 No.1479360 Report

Quoted By: >>1479390

>>1479359
troll harder nigger

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 207283_034355.png, 1MiB, 1111x1743

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 02:46:21 No.1479390 Report

Quoted By: >>1479575 >>1480301 >>1480303 >>1480313

>>1479360
It's not a troll. It is autistic enough that it "defends" the shuttle at all costs, but not autistic enough that it knows anything about the STS.
>>1479359
>opinion
The wings/SSMEs have no function in orbit, but the shuttle has to take them to orbit anyway. The fuel expended could've been used to bring something actually useful up there, or even something fun, like a car.
>Literally nothing wrong with it
More expensive, more failure prone, decreases launch rate which effectively increases per-launch costs and makes expendables look cheaper by comparison. Their planning went from one launch a week to two a month to about one every other month.
>Conjecture
Fact, according to literally everyone. Just count the US manned missions past LEO after 1972 (hint: it's 0). Not a coincidence that Bush's Crew Exploration Vehicle speech was also his shuttle retirement speech.
>Go suck off Elon
Can't. NASA is hogging him.
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1251178705633841167
https://www.space.com/spacex-wins-cargo-contract-nasa-gateway-moon-station.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 15:35:12 No.1479575 Report

Quoted By: >>1479636

>>1479390
>The wings/SSMEs have no function in orbit
They're functional on landing

>More expensive,
Opinion

>more failure prone
Subjective

>Fact,
Nope

>according to literally everyone
Quite a source

>NASA is hogging him.
Enjoy your sloppy seconds

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 17:54:08 No.1479636 Report

Quoted By: >>1479638

>>1479575
>They're functional on landing
SSMEs aren't. Wings presuppose that you want to land, which only is worth doing if reusing it is cheaper than the alternative.
>Opinion
>30,000 groundcrew being more expensive than the ~10,000 total SpaceX employees is an opinion
>subjective
STS-107 happened. If even a few of those tens of thousands of tiles get damaged, loss of vehicle can result.
>Nope
Quite a source.
>Quite a source
Do literally any research on Nixon and the space program, or just read the attached pic.
>Enjoy your sloppy seconds
>the guys who operated the space shuttle went with something that was reusable but a not-spessplen for the replacement
>this means nothing

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 18:01:50 No.1479638 Report

Quoted By: >>1479652

>>1479636
>SSMEs aren't
Yeah that's why I was talking about the wings. The attitude control systems are used during early landing stages though

>STS-107 happened
"B-b-b-ut what about--"
The Shuttle took more people and cargo into orbit safely than any other system. Space travel is inherently risky and every astronaut knows that.

>Quite a source.
Thanks

>Do literally any research on
Not a source

>this means nothing
Rockets were available for cargo during the entire Shuttle program, yet the Shuttle continued to be used for three decades. Oh well that's because everyone involved was dumb and you're smarter than rocket scientists lol

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 534285.png, 2MiB, 1477x1088

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 18:30:35 No.1479652 Report

Quoted By: >>1479655

>>1479638
>Not a source
Hey, that's three words rather than your usual 'one'.
>Not a source
Did you even read the attached picture, which is a source?
>yet the Shuttle continued to be used for three decades
Continued to be used by NASA, because it was the only vehicle they actually owned, and all attempts at successors fell through due to lack of funding or technical issues.
The lack especially of a heavy lift vehicle (which NASA is spending billions on today with the Space Launch System) was not by deliberate choice of NASA. Literally every accident/spaceflight commission (Augustine 1990,Augustine 2009, CAIB) recommended one, but Congress did not act until Constellation.
The situation was not deliberate. To quote President Bush in his "Vision for Space Exploration" (where the STS was cancelled and an expendable successor announced) ,
> In the past 30 years, no human being has set foot on another world, or ventured farther upward into space than 386 miles -- roughly the distance from Washington, D.C. to Boston, Massachusetts. America has not developed a new vehicle to advance human exploration in space in nearly a quarter century. It is time for America to take the next steps.
> that's because everyone involved was dumb and you're smarter than rocket scientists lol
Congress decides which rockets NASA will build and use, not "rocket scientists." NASA did not want Saturn V production to end in 1968. NASA did not want NERVA to be cancelled. NASA wanted a 1970s/1980s space station, a lunar station, a lunar base, a Mars station, a Mars landing, a space tug, a.... >>1479241, None of which happened because they answer to Congress and Congress doesn't care.
>three decades
Or 135/500 possible missions, for a program that was supposed to do hundreds of launches during the 1980s alone. If the STS had actually accomplished its goals, the idea of an expendable rocket would be as dead as expendable airplanes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 18:36:24 No.1479655 Report

Quoted By: >>1479677

>>1479652
>Hey, that's three words rather than your usual 'one'.
Not an argument

>>1479652
>Did you even read the attached picture
Yeah, it's just an opinion piece though

>Congress decides which rockets NASA will build and use, not "rocket scientists."
Conjecture

>Or 135/500 possible missions
Again, opinion

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 535535_437838.png, 602KiB, 3750x1595

Anonymous Thu 30 Apr 2020 19:41:40 No.1479677 Report

Quoted By: >>1479930 >>1480301 >>1480303

>>1479655
>Not an argument
Still better than your usual fare.
>Yeah, it's just an opinion piece though
Can you refute anything it says?
>Conjecture
Congress, the President, and OMB decide NASA's budget. If they don't provide/approve funds, it ain't happening. Obama soft-cancelled Constellation by not including funding for it in the budget. The STS extension from 2010 to 2011 was done by Congress without any NASA request.
>Conjecture
Everything you say is a one word non-response or conjecture. "I feel like NASA decides its own budget, and that NASA administrators are all 'rocket scientists' rather than career bureaucrats.
>Again, opinion
Each orbiter was designed for a 100 mission service life. 135 total missions were flown. Five orbiters were built, with at most four (later three) operational at any given time. 5 * 100 = 500.
>Nixon stated that NASA should stress civilian applications but should not hesitate to note the military uses as well. He showed interest in the possibility of routine operations and quick reaction times, for he saw that these could allow the Shuttle to help in disasters such as earthquakes or floods.
>He liked the fact that ordinary people would be able to fly in the Shuttle, who would not be highly-trained astronauts. He asked if the Shuttle was a good investment, and agreed that it was indeed, for it promised a tenfold reduction in the cost of space flight. He added that even if it was not a good investment, the nation would have to do it anyway, because space flight was here to stay.
>Nixon himself, however, decided that it would be better to refer to the vehicle in the usual fashion, as the "Space Shuttle." Earlier piloted spacecraft had carried names such as Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, but the new one would break with this practice.
> The Shuttle carried Nixon's personal stamp because it carried his personal decision.
pic from https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch9.htm

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:39:05 No.1479930 Report

Quoted By: >>1480211

>>1479677
>Still better than your usual fare.
Nope

>Can you refute anything it says?
Not going to "refute" your biased source

>Congress, the President, and OMB decide NASA's budget
Then why are you railing against the Shuttle again?

>Everything you say is a one word non-response or conjecture.
I'm right too

>Each orbiter was designed for a 100 mission service life.
Opinion

>Nixon stated that
You're really hung up on Nixon. I'm talking about the Shuttle.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO canadarm.jpg, 34KiB, 1041x320

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:40:19 No.1479931 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO discovery.jpg, 1MiB, 3032x2005

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:41:23 No.1479932 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO columbia.jpg, 153KiB, 1024x756

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:42:25 No.1479933 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO spacelab_sts_9.jpg, 925KiB, 2965x1949

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:43:27 No.1479934 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO shuttle_340.jpg, 166KiB, 1200x675

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:44:31 No.1479935 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO space_shuttle_large.jpg, 284KiB, 1140x1600

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:45:33 No.1479936 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sts121.png, 2MiB, 991x658

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:49:04 No.1479937 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO payload bay.jpg, 167KiB, 600x605

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:50:05 No.1479939 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO endeavour_iss.jpg, 124KiB, 900x593

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:51:07 No.1479940 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO endeavour_orbit.jpg, 128KiB, 1920x1280

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:52:08 No.1479941 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO vandenburg_ca.png, 1MiB, 796x638

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:53:48 No.1479943 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO enterprise_vandenberg_1985.jpg, 2MiB, 1910x2840

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:54:57 No.1479944 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO open_cycle_lightbulb.png, 54KiB, 580x382

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 10:55:22 No.1479945 Report

Quoted By:

>>1470001
For me, it's spraying glowing radioactive death in my wake.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO GNHqDX586535.png, 250KiB, 1236x1711

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 21:44:47 No.1480211 Report

Quoted By: >>1480212

>Nope
There he goes again. The one word non-reply.
>>1479930
>Not going to "refute" your biased source
A source being biased doesn't mean its information is wrong. NASA is biased, but if they say the capital of Russia is Moscow, that is still true.
>Then why are you railing against the Shuttle again?
Because the shuttle is more than anything the bastard child of those groups. If you gave NASA engineers in 1972 the budget they wanted, they would not have produced the STS we got. All the compromises to reduce development costs at the expense of later performance meant that it never achieved the launch tempo needed or a reduction in costs. Knowing what we do, the US would've been better off developing an expendable heavy life vehicle and a separate expendable crew vehicle, with the priority then going to an early modular space station. Instead, we got a dead end that will have no impact on the future other than being a cautionary tale.
>I'm right too
>literally never ever has sources
>every post is just more assertions
>You're really hung up on Nixon.
Because he was the one who approved it, and it was under his administration that NASA's course for the rest of the twentieth century was set. You can't understand anything about the STS without understanding what happened from ~1967- 1972 in US space policy.
>Opinion
It's a factual statement. Would love to see evidence stating otherwise.
See pic in >>1474931, from a NASA document.
>Each Shuttle orbiter was designed to experience up to 100 launches and returns.
From NASA's shuttle basics page
> Each of the three Space Shuttle orbiters now in operation -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour -- is designed to fly at least 100 missions. So far, altogether they have flown a combined total of less than one-fourth of that.
>I'm talking about the Shuttle.
It's clear to all that you know nothing about it other than the PR stuff they gave out to elementary schoolers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 01 May 2020 21:49:16 No.1480212 Report

Quoted By: >>1480254

>>1480211
>A source being biased doesn't mean its information is wrong.
Christ almighty anon

>Because the shuttle is more than anything the bastard child of those groups.
Yeah the bastard that took more people and cargo into space than any other launch vehicle

>Because he was the one who approved it
He made the right choice

>It's a factual statement.
Dubious claim

>From NASA's shuttle basics page
BASICS i.e. not the entire story

>It's clear to all that you know nothing about it other than the PR stuff they gave out to elementary schoolers.
And drubbing you with it

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO k2Zuyy807873.png, 334KiB, 1326x371

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 00:20:40 No.1480254 Report

Quoted By: >>1480255 >>1480272

>>1480212
>Christ almighty anon
That's a true statement. Shouting "it has conclusions I don't like so I'm just going to ignore" is nothing but retardation.
>Dubious claim
An actual NASA document was quoted.
Is NASA biased about this too? They don't know their own vehicle?
>Each Shuttle orbiter was designed to experience up to 100 launches and returns. Its thermal protection system had to be robust
enough to stand repeated heating loads and the structural rigors of reentry.
>not the entire story
Source? What else to the "story" of the number of launches and landings an orbiter could safely perform (which ended up being far more than any of them actually did) could there be
>And drubbing you with it
>never has sources for statements (because they don't exist)
>contests even the most basic things that everyone else contests
>knows and posts nothing about his "beloved" shuttle other than "muh cargo muh passengers"
>pretends that nothing he posts is opinion/conjecture, while constantly crying that others are doing it
>doesn't even post related pictures with his autistic posts

I like spaceflight, I like researching spaceflight, so I keep posting. 1.1

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 8Wtotm580202.png, 1MiB, 1320x1393

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 00:23:46 No.1480255 Report

Quoted By: >>1480272

>>1480254
>contests even the most basic things that everyone else contests
*has literally no problem with, not even NASA

Pic describes an STS-related program that was killed by Congress, even after NASA built a plant for it. The case of the ASRM demonstrates partially why the US was saddled with the STS for so long, and why even now neither a replacement nor SLS has flown, going on 10 years after the last external tank was made.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 01:54:30 No.1480272 Report

Quoted By: >>1480290

>>1480254
>Shouting "it has conclusions I don't like so I'm just going to ignore" is nothing but retardation.
I didn't say that

>An actual NASA document was quoted.
No, a small selection of it was. Nice cherry pick

>What else to the "story" of the number of launches and landings an orbiter could safely perform
Time

>never has sources for statements
Neither do you

>contests even the most basic things that everyone else contests
Because they're fallacious

>"muh cargo muh passengers"
All that matters

>>1480255
>Pic describes an STS-related program that was killed by Congress
There you go again about Congress. Sounds like they're the real problem to you, not the Shuttle

>The case of the ASRM demonstrates partially why the US was saddled with the STS
NASA used rockets throughout the Shuttle program's duration. The fact that the Shuttle was used for three decades despite that is a testament to its utility.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO p377.jpg, 29KiB, 706x389

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 02:32:46 No.1480290 Report

Quoted By: >>1480293 >>1480297

>>1480272
>I didn't say that
That's what you consistently do.
>Time
Which is only relevant when you use it for missions, with 1986-88 and 2003-06 being great examples.
>No, a small selection of it was. Nice cherry pick
You can't provide any NASA documents that support you (because they don't exist). Nothing in the rest of that document refutes it.
>Neither do you
I've been constantly posting sources. Every single "nasa.gov" reference on this page is from me. Most of my posts have pictures taken from NASA documents attached. Your "best" was fucking space.com's facts page.
>All that matters
For the cost of the STS, a cheaper heavy lift vehicle could've been made, and taken more cargo and passengers to orbit. Reusability is not the path to max payload. Hell, if you stripped the TPS and wings off an orbiter it would get you more payload capacity on that flight.
>Sounds like they're the real problem to you, not the Shuttle
As I've said before, Congress, the OMB, and the Nixon administration had the biggest influence on what the STS would be. NASA originally wanted a fully reusable vehicle in two stages or barring that, liquid fueled boosters. The cargo bay was determined entirely by the airforce. The American government made NASA create and use a sub-optimal vehicle, the Space Transportation System.
>NASA used rockets throughout the Shuttle program's duration.
NASA had nothing but the STS, with the option to buy commercial for certain other launches (like Cassini-Huygens). NASA certainly had no manned alternative, and even 10 years later they have no flying manned alternative, which is a testament to how American government policy makes creating and switching to new launch vehicles difficult. They couldn't just say "Shuttle is too expensive, Congress give us money to build something else."

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 02:37:39 No.1480293 Report

Quoted By: >>1480301 >>1480303 >>1480308

>>1480290
>That's what you consistently do.
Not relevant
>Which is only relevant when
You move the goalposts apparently
>You can't provide any NASA documents that support you
Just because I haven't doesn't mean I can't
>I've been constantly posting sources.
You've admitted they were biased
>For the cost of the STS, a cheaper heavy lift vehicle could've been made
If that was true, it would have been. Obviously the utility of the Shuttle was worth it.
>As I've said before, Congress, the OMB, and the Nixon administration
I'm talking about STS, all you want to do is rail against Congress and Nixon
>NASA had nothing but the STS
Absolutely false

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 213352_638535.png, 2MiB, 1459x1394

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 02:44:50 No.1480297 Report

Quoted By: >>1480298

>>1480290
If we apply your arguments, then "rocket scientists" at NASA, with no other influences other than the virtue of it, decided that the US had no need to put crews in space after 2010. That decade, a longer period of time than the Apollo program lasted, is a length of time that proves that "rocket scientists" think human spaceflight isn't worth anything, and that not putting humans into space is better than a Moon landing.
By my arguments, the same system that failed to fill this gap with anything other than delays is the same system that produced the STS, and which did so for the same reasons with the same level of competence.
>The fact that the Shuttle was used for three decades despite that is a testament to its utility.
The NASP, the NLS, the ALS, and other would-be successors have been mentioned repeatedly. Not that you know what any of those are.
NASA never protested to have the STS extended past 2010. They did not make any new orbiters after 1990. When discussing replacements and future directions for the manned spaceflight program, no one proposed resuming shuttle use, building a better shuttle, building another spaceplane, or building anything reusable at all (except SpaceX). The shuttle's direct successor (in terms of technology) is the Space Launch System, fully expendable. Mostly expendable rockets carry crews and cargo to the ISS and into space. That the entire concept was shelved without protest or successor (which can't be said for the category of expendable heavy lift vehicles) speaks volumes to what the STS says about reusability. The shuttle, and anything like the shuttle, are dead ends.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 02:46:21 No.1480298 Report

Quoted By: >>1480308

>>1480297
>If we
Straw man

>Not that you know what any of those are
Correct because I'm talking about the SHUTTLE

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 02:53:20 No.1480301 Report

Quoted By:

>>1480293
>Just because I haven't doesn't mean I can't
You can't, space.com-kun.
>You've admitted they were biased
That source had a point of view backed by verifiable factual statements, and there were far more sources than that.

>>1474400
>>1474291
>>1474399
>>1474716
>>1474719
>>1474722
>>1474723
>>1474761
>>1474776
>>1474931
>>1475229
>>1475279
>>1475843
>>1475845
>>1475853
>>1475873
>>1475930
>>1475934
>>1475938
>>1479390
>>1479677
Are all from documents hosted on NASA.gov
>If that was true, it would have been
Opinion. Source seriously needed. Seriously, how can you look at the last decade in American manned spaceflight (or lack thereof), and think that the US can quickly or easily make new launch vehicles?
>Obviously the utility of the Shuttle was worth it.
So worth it that they went right back to expendables after retiring it.
>I'm talking about STS
I've said far more specific things about STS development and use. You only mention taking cargo and crew to space, neither of which were specific to the STS.
>Absolutely false
NASA had other crewed LVs? Where? And why didn't they just use those, rather than buy seats on Soyuz?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 02:56:28 No.1480303 Report

Quoted By: >>1480306

>>1480293
>Just because I haven't doesn't mean I can't
You can't, space.com-kun.
>You've admitted they were biased
That source had a point of view backed by verifiable factual statements, and there were far more sources than that.

>>1474400
>>1474291
>>1474399
>>1474716
>>1474719
>>1474722
>>1474723
>>1474761
>>1474776
>>1474931
>>1475229
>>1475279
>>1475843
>>1475845
>>1475853
>>1475873
>>1475930
>>1475934
>>1475938
>>1479390
>>1479677
Are all from documents hosted on NASA.gov
>If that was true, it would have been
Opinion. Source seriously needed. Seriously, how can you look at the last decade in American manned spaceflight (or lack thereof), and think that the US can quickly or easily make new launch vehicles? Or the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor, which would've been more reliable while enabling the shuttle to take larger payloads into space, which still got cancelled.
>Obviously the utility of the Shuttle was worth it.
So worth it that they went right back to expendables after retiring it.
>I'm talking about STS
I've said far more specific things about STS development and use. You only mention taking cargo and crew to space, neither of which were specific to the STS.
>all you want to do is rail against Congress and Nixon
Because I like spaceflight, and they forced things that hurt spaceflight. I'm not against reusability or a spaceplane, but the one we got just wasn't good enough.
>Absolutely false
NASA had other crewed LVs? Where? And why didn't they just use those, rather than buy seats on Soyuz?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 02:59:39 No.1480306 Report

Quoted By: >>1480313

>>1480303
>You can't,
Your words not mine

>That source had a point of view backed by verifiable factual statements
You admitted it was biased

>Opinion
Incorrect

>So worth it that they went right back to expendables after retiring it.
After three decades, the longest serving manned NASA launch system

>You only mention taking cargo and crew to space
Yes because those are the things we take into space

>they forced things that hurt spaceflight
Opinion

>NASA had other crewed LVs?
I didn't say that

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 03:00:59 No.1480308 Report

Quoted By: >>1480309

>>1480298
>Correct because I'm talking about the SHUTTLE
Here, >>1480293, you say that if successors could've been developed, they would've been.
The fates of actual new development programs are obviously relevant to the question of whether/when something cheaper could've been developed and used, and the shuttle retired.
I guess that Starliner, Crew Dragon, Cargo Dragon, Cygnus, and such are successors, all of which are cheaper than the shuttle was. But it could've been done earlier.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 03:02:26 No.1480309 Report

Quoted By: >>1480314

>>1480308
Thanks for linking me to my own post. Very constructive

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 03:11:18 No.1480313 Report

Quoted By: >>1480508

>>1480306
>After three decades, the longest serving manned NASA launch system
Yes, that will look nice on the museum placard.
But back to the point.
>You admitted it was biased
No I didn't. I talked about the general category of sources. After Apollo? is a full book on the US space program by former George Washington University director of the Space Policy Institude John Logsdon. Hardly a raving partisan, and certainly someone who has better responses than "Nope/Incorrect/Opinion/Conjecture" And that excerpt >>1479390
contained entirely factual statements i.e. Nixon did [x] and Nixon did [y],
https://www.amazon.com/After-Apollo-American-Palgrave-Technology/dp/1137438525
And all the NASA documents? Are they biased too? Is space.com's fun facts page the One True Source?
>Straw man
That's literally your argument though. The length of time proves virtue, because there are no other factors.
>Space Shuttle > Literally nothing (2010 -2020) > Apollo > Literally Nothing (~1975 -1981) > Apollo Applications > Gemini >Mercury
is what you are arguing

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 03:12:36 No.1480314 Report

Quoted By:

>>1480309
>Thanks for linking me to my own post.
Given how little you know, you probably needed help with that as well. You're welcome.
Thanks for addressing the point
>The fates of actual new development programs are obviously relevant to the question of whether/when something cheaper could've been developed and used, and the shuttle retired.
>I guess that Starliner, Crew Dragon, Cargo Dragon, Cygnus, and such are successors, all of which are cheaper than the shuttle was. But it could've been done earlier.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 May 2020 18:16:37 No.1480508 Report

Quoted By:

>>1480313
>Yes, that will look nice on the museum placard.
Which will be more important than a snippet from a report you posted

>No I didn't.
Yes you did.

>That's literally your argument though.
Nope

>The length of time proves virtue,
It's part of it

>because there are no other factors.
For example, carrying the most cargo and people into orbit

>is what you are arguing
Those are your words not mine

>Given how little you know,
Ad hom attack. You lose.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Spacecraft