I really like this - whether it works or not, spending a bit of money on real stuff, as distinct from the latest computer fluff, is somehow very pleasing.
And I say that as someone who makes the computer fluff for a living.
But honestly would you rather be the dude who builds a plane that goes to space, or the creator of YASN. (yet another social network)?
Edit: It might also be added that Skylon is cool -- but it looks like a too big and expensive project; a shuttle in the making. It would probably be better if they bootstrapped by building a two stage unit, first. The build in stages-strategy has worked better for most large space projects (including SpaceX).
A key thing is to keep the design simple and realistic. The shuttle was doomed by conflicting design requirements, a design-by-committee approach during its development and an ignore-the-cost mentality only a government agency can create. It's designed to be too many different things and does nothing well.
The shuttles were home to a number of successful scientific experiments. The shuttles launched and then repaired the Hubble Space Telescope, which helped reshape our view of the cosmos. That went well.
The shuttle, back in 1983, saw the first US woman in space, inspiring a generation of girls (to perhaps take more of an interest in science, math, and physics).
The shuttles deployed scores and scores of communication, military, and experimental satellites.
And then there are all the improvements in our quality of life due to technologies made possible by the creation and maintenance of the space shuttles (not to mention the prolonged study of objects in zero gravity).
If by "doomed" you mean had a 30 year life span and by "nothing well" you mean were wildly successful and inspirational from 1981 to 2011, then you are correct.
Yes, there were problems, as summarized by Feynman who said "for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Like the Apollo missions, the shuttle team had to work with the technology available to them at the time. Could they have done better? Quite likely. Did the shuttles work well? Well enough for over 130 successful launches.
> The shuttles were home to a number of successful scientific experiments. The shuttles launched and then repaired the Hubble Space Telescope, which helped reshape our view of the cosmos. That went well.
An unmanned vehicle could have launched the Hubble for less money and without risk for human life. Of course, a vehicle should have taken humans up to repair the Hubble, but it could be a much smaller vehicle than a shuttle.
> The shuttle, back in 1983, saw the first US woman in space, inspiring a generation of girls (to perhaps take more of an interest in science, math, and physics).
I am quite sure a woman can fly a smaller spacecraft.
> The shuttles deployed scores and scores of communication, military, and experimental satellites.
For more money than unmanned rockets would.
> And then there are all the improvements in our quality of life due to technologies made possible by the creation and maintenance of the space shuttles (not to mention the prolonged study of objects in zero gravity).
All of them would be developed just the same, perhaps faster because there would be more money for more launches without relying exclusively on shuttles.
> If "doomed" you mean had a 30 year life span and by "nothing well" you mean were wildly successful and inspirational from 1981 to 2011, then you are correct.
Keeping them operational was a huge effort in denying its costs and the existence and/or preventing the development of more appropriate technologies for every role a shuttle can perform. The shuttle was doomed, from the start, to be a complex, fragile, dangerous and expensive vehicle.
> Yes, there were problems, as summarized by Feynman who said "for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Indeed. I routinely have to quote him.
> Like the Apollo missions, the shuttle team had to work with the technology available to them at the time. Could they have done better? Quite likely. Did the shuttles work well? Well enough for over 130 successful launches.
The shuttle team worked miracles with the technology they were limited to. I do not question their competence. I question the rationality of keeping the shuttle fleet flying when it consistently proved to be suboptimal for various roles they were required to perform. The only reason to have a shuttle is to bring down a bus-sized object from space. Every other role can be performed by either unmanned cargo ships or expendable small capsules. The money spent on an unneeded fleet drained resources from other projects. Instead of a fleet of modular vehicles that could be tailored to the mission at hand, we ended up with a fleet of 70-ton reusable cargo holder.
Don't get me wrong. It's a beautiful machine. I would have loved if it were cost-effective and if it has spawned a family of reusable spaceplanes. Unfortunately, this is not what happened.
Don't get me wrong. It's a beautiful machine. I would have loved if it were cost-effective and if it has spawned a family of reusable spaceplanes. Unfortunately, this is not what happened.
Well, there's always the X-37B. Perhaps now that shuttle-type technology is in the hands of the USAF and away from the public eye they'll be able to do something interesting with it.
Then again, maybe putting wings on a spacecraft is just a stupid idea whose pros fail to outweigh its cons.
The space shuttles have captured the imaginations of children for the last 30 years, as Apollo had before that. Massive crowds cram around Cape Canaveral for hours before a launch. The shuttles are impressive: lifting several humans and massive cargo into orbit. Would smaller vessels, sized like Space Craft Two, have held us equally engaged? Conjecture, but I doubt it.
That the space shuttle fleet "does nothing well" is a harsh statement, and not true. The software that runs the shuttles, for example, was not just "done well", but is one of the most impressive pieces of software ever written. Millions of lines of code, very few bugs. The process to create the software is nearly as flawless as the software itself. Even if the fact that it had to be so complex misses the point (that a smaller system needn't be so complex), it is still an example of part of the shuttle design that was "done well".
Humans can adapt to scientific experiments faster and better than any machines could have, even by remote control, in the 1980s. You simply cannot build a general purpose scientific experiment machine, launch it into space, and get results back. You would have to build specialty systems (such as the rather successful Gravity Probe B).
Yes, each shuttle launch could have had its constituent goals carved into a dozen smaller vehicles and missions... yet would the overall price tag for a dozen smaller missions be any lower than a single shuttle mission? Perhaps. (Not having a single point of failure would be the largest benefit.)
I think we're mostly on the same page. There are other ways to get space-bound. However, a sweeping statement that the creation and deployment of the shuttle fleet across 130 missions resulted in nothing of worth, nothing of value, or that the design does "nothing well" is a tad off the mark.
It inspired. It sent people and objects into space. I agree that there were other, less expensive ways, that could have been less prone to failure. Even more, projects run over-budget and can still be considered successful, valuable, and "done well". (The Mars rovers, for example, were 300 million over budget. A roaring success and that was done exceedingly well.)
Some design components of the shuttle were done well. Others, I wholly agree, were not.
Think about it: if the shuttle program were canceled when it became clear that it would not provide low-cost space access, there would be money for a lot more launches, more launch vehicles (big cargo, small cargo-and-crew, small cargo without crew). By now, the ISS would be 5 times its size with a dozen scientists working there. We could even have established a permanent moon colony (a radiotelescope on the far side is a nice idea).
That would also inspire generations of new space scientists.
The successes of the shuttle program were, indeed, impressive, but the failures were equally baffling. Let's hope, the next time, reason prevails over politics.
The Shuttle project promised launch costs in the $100s for a kilo. It failed with roughly a factor of 100.
All the NASA money wasted could have been used better in doing something! Like space research -- or going to Mars.
The shuttle project has probably delayed humanity living outside the atmosphere by decades. Hell, the shuttle's existence might literally have doomed humanity, if another dinosaur killer comes along...
The only "good" thing with the shuttle, which makes people support it, is that it was a job program.
It would probably be better if they bootstrapped by building a two stage unit, first.
Isn't the whole point of the Skylon to build the first hybrid engine that breathes air in the atmosphere and uses its own oxygen once outside it? A two-stage unit would just be building the easy parts while avoiding the hard parts.
I actually think they're doing the right thing here. Solve the hard problems first. Build this new engine, and then worry about building a ship to put it in.
To build a flyback first stage would avoid making any hard part. The problem is that it would increase operations costs.
Check the expected costs. It is hard to get mega-projects like that working. The traditional solution is to build a little, test it -- and then build more.
Compare the cost for the whole project with the cost for SpaceX. Or one of the classics -- an air tanked system with a few jet engines.
Point is, you can get lower launch costs -- and with less development danger.
And I say that as someone who makes the computer fluff for a living.
But honestly would you rather be the dude who builds a plane that goes to space, or the creator of YASN. (yet another social network)?