Space Shuttles were sexy as hell. Why going back to Saturn V-like

File: sls-2.jpg (188KB, 1200x926px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1200x926px

Because the Space Shuttle was more complicated device than the Saturn-V and the new SLS. Which means more failures (Challenger and Columbia).

Likewise, the STS's max payload was 30 tons while the Saturn-V's was 53 (the new Falcon Heavy's is also 53). SLS Block I will be 70 tons, and SLS Block II will be 130. Despite all the cynicism /sci/ has for NASA, SLS will be a huge step forward for space exploration as it will allow NASA to start putting big things in space again. In particular, a bigger and better ISS and parts to moon bases.

>>8309788
>exploration
implying spacex wont cuck them all


the falcon is about to be reusable that will be a giant space revolution of changes

like, that is like if nasa were a little dime on the ocean and spacex were a giant planet billions of light years across

because the space shuttle was a fucking retarded design

SLS is also a retarded design though

>muh LH2 fuel
>muh solid boosters

>>8311523
the way to go will probably be the MCT by musky musk

his rate of technological development is undeniably higher than all of hte other agencies combined

also, if he proofs reusability then other people will be idiots not to start reusing their own shit
not using your shit: 100.000.000 per flight

reusing your shit: 200.000 per flight (fuel)

le retard technoscienticians

>>8309624
Because the only advantage of the shuttle is the "woah look at me I can land this thing like a plane" factor

Other than that it's a retarded design.

If you played KSP then you know why.
It's a retarded design, if only for the fact that it's asymetrical. What's the point of putting the thing sideway when you can put it on top? Why do you need a plane in space? We have re-entry pods already.

It's supposed to be reusable (THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PROGRAM) but it's not.
Space Shuttle : 450 million per launch
Delta IV Heavy : 350 million per launch

Also it killed people. I'd rather go on a soyuz than a shuttle.

>sexy
lolno

>>8309624
Because it's just not worth it to haul wings into space. The space shittle was a very bad design. The airforce wanted something that could do something over Moscow and then fly back with enough range to meet the classified mission requirements. This meant the wings had to be very big, which meant more weight to carry into space.

>>8311606
eh
Is the asymmetry really so bad?

The real problems are a giant 70 ton orbiter that serves no real purpose. Then they pussied out on doing stuff like putting a third stage in the payload bay so it never could actually do anything in space.

>>8309624

First of all it isnt a space shuttle, its a low earth orbit shuttle
the maximum range of the craft is barely what you would consider outer space

also the biggest problem with the shuttle was no escape system, none, zero.
if something goes wrong during launch you are FUCKED, as we have seen with challenger

at least standard rocket stacks have the ability to jettison the crew module and rocket away to safety.

>>8311486

The Falcon Heavy still has a lower payload. It may not be reusable, but SLS will be able to put bigger things in orbit. This means bigger crew capsules, and bigger components for things that might be constructed on the moon.

SpaceX will be able to do neat things but they won't be competing alongside NASA. At least not until they make something capable of putting 100+ tons into orbit in one go.

File: orion.gif (18KB, 400x292px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x292px

>>8309624
>not using Orion for liftoff, then NTR to Mars
why can't we have nice things

>>8311546

SpaceX's "rate of technological development" isn't faster than any space agency, because SpaceX uses existing data. They aren't doing anything new except for landing boosters. While this is all good, it's based on 50+ years of accumulated R&D that they themselves did not do. And SpaceX themselves only exist because ULA got lazy and didn't want to do it themselves despite having the data and know-how to do so. And NASA is in a hole because of the STS.

It's a great business story, but not a good "science and engineering" story.

>>8309788
>SLS will be a huge step forward for space exploration as it will allow NASA to start putting big things in space again
There will be about 5 flights in total, after that the program will get closed :^) Screencap this.

>>8311821
>Orion in atmosphere
pls dont

>>8311829

That won't happen as then the entire production line made for it will stop employing people and the legislators responsible for it will get voted out of office. Additionally, the Space Shuttle program lasted 30 years from 1981 to 2011. The only irony is that it will take 20 years (initial concepts for Ares 1 in 2000 or so, first flight in 2018) to get the SLS flying, but NASA will milk out 30 years if not more out of it if only to keep people employed.

Also, if NASA has something that works they won't let go. The entire reason everything is fucked right now is because they don't have anything due to shit planning. If you think the STS replacement is a shitshow, imagine what the SLS replacement in 2048/2058 will be like.

File: illegal.gif (208KB, 300x218px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 300x218px

>>8311821
That would be illegal you know.

And why the fuck wouldn't you go Orion all the way? We can launch NTRs with regular rockets, we just don't because NASA has no money.

>>8311823
They are developing all sorts of new shit with their next rocket.
No existing data for methane engines after all, or composite tanks.

File: 323116main_s119e010286_hires.jpg (1MB, 4288x2929px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4288x2929px

>>8311813
Just use more launches. The ISS has already demonstrated that we can assemble stuff in space. Not to mention, NASA doesn't have enough money to design payloads and develop the SLS

>>8311706
The asymmetry isn't the real issue from putting the orbiter on the side. The shuttle had thrust vectoring engines to compensate. The real issue is that when you launch bits of insulation foam and ice that has formed on the outside of your cryogenic propellant tanks falls off the tank. This falling debris is capable of smashing holes in your heat shield and a hole in your heat shield will be deadly. See Columbia.

>>8311823
SpaceX proved that supersonic retropropulsion works. This is something that had never been done before, it had been demonstrated in CFD, but not in real life.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/spacex-has-already-demonstrated-its-key-mars-landing-tech-with-the-falcon-9/

>>8311859

Yes but the fundamental thing is that they're putting things into LEO, occasionally GEO.

>>8311846
SLS is not going to last anywhere near as long as the shuttle, not now there is an alternative, not now that we have the private sector developing launch capabilities.

>>8311860

Yes, but again the two will diverge a lot more thanks to the SLS's higher payload. SpaceX will be doing a lot of ISS-type stations in LEO and GEO, while NASA will be able to go full throttle on Moon missions and send larger and better probes (perhaps even construction vehicles) to Mars and Venus. That's a while off (20-40 years) from now, but it's how things will play out.

It's two different goals. SpaceX is in the business of making space accessible to midsize countries (and perhaps the occasional university), NASA's goal is doing "greenfield" or "blue ocean" research projects.

>>8311874
You are talking hypothetically about shit that might happen 15 years from now, for programs/missions that are not funded or scheduled or being worked on....

These insane price tags that NASA has got away with for decades are no longer acceptable.

File: shuttle_repairs_inf416.jpg (25KB, 416x262px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 416x262px

>>8311863
and because you have a HUEG wing, you got more distance for a flow to go from laminar to turbulent.

The time the shuttle had a piece of filler sticking out the front was really scary, because that tiny little filler could have tripped that flow to turbulent across the whole fucking shuttle. NOTE: turbulent flow means better heat transfer! That is very bad!

So you know the NASA engineers did after Columbia and after the filler incident? Well they decided to try tripping hypersonic laminar flow to hypersonic turbulent flow ON THE SHUTTLE ON PURPOSE just to learn more! Now that took balls. They made a special tile with a turbulent trip and sensors and shit and put it near the back of the shuttle, because fuck it why not!

FUCKING HELL! 4chan thinks NTRS is spam. FUCK YOU NEW MOOT!

>>8311869

SpaceX is a government contractor, ultimately they're still at NASA's behest. And NASA has no reason to use a 50-ton vehicle compared to a 70/100 ton vehicle. SpaceX would have to provide an alternative with 1:1 the same abilities as the SLS and right now they have no plans to do so. Even if they were to start that right now, it only only at best get online (ie through design, certification, construction and testing) by about the time SLS Block II comes online.

So, it's not really an alternative especially when NASA doesn't want to deviate from what they already know and understand.

>>8311879

>These insane price tags that NASA has got away with for decades are no longer acceptable.

It's perfectly acceptable when it keeps legislators employed. And everyone inside the government agrees that NASA should have their own vehicle one which can put at least double the STS's payload into orbit. And SpaceX's solution (the Falcon Heavy) is a step down from the SLS. If anything, SpaceX's timer is counting down as both ULA and NASA get their acts together within the next decade.

>>8311892
And other legislators will come along demanding the money be spent on SpaceX in their district, not for some defense contractors.

When the price gap reaches a certain point, there is no amount of justification that would allow them to continue funneling billions away.

In a few years when SpaceX is talking about daily super heavy launches, what is NASA going to be doing with the SLS? Obviously it'll be long dead by then.

>>8311912

Those legislators are a minority: remember that SLS is made by Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman. Which is to say production is distributed across America's three largest aerospace contractors across the entire US. SpaceX doesn't have that kind of legislative pull and never will unless they start building fighter jets or helicopters. That's not to say SpaceX will go away, but they're a LEO/GEO shuttle service. This means lots of profitable supply missions for NASA and other countries, but NASA itself does more than LEO/GEO stuff. They want to go to the moon and a 53-ton vehicle won't cut it.

>In a few years when SpaceX is talking about daily super heavy launches

As it stands, SpaceX will at best have a 53-ton lifter by 2026. NASA will have a 70-ton one in service and a 130-ton one making it's first flights around that time. Of course this will probably change by the 2030s, but by then NASA themselves will be doing moon missions (perhaps a manned Mars mission), and likely looking at an SLS replacement. This is when SpaceX might be able to edge themselves in. But that's also 20 years from now, 20 years ago NASA expected a moon landing in 2016 at the latest.

>>8311874
you are forgetting the SpaceX mission statement: bring launch costs low enough that Mars settlement is economically possible. The whole point of the methane engines, reuse program, and BFR design is to get to Mars, refuel from atmospheric processing, relaunch, and return to Earth.

Only the current Falcon 9 designs are optimized for LEO and GEO, because those are the money makers.

>>8311925
Space Launch is not a large part of these companies, nor are they THAT big/influential. If SpaceX is there in the media & congress giving an option at a fraction of the price, then the SLS will be indefensible.

>As it stands, SpaceX will at best have a 53-ton lifter by 2026

Except Musk has already set a timeline of 2022 for the first MCT sent to mars, which will need a 200+ ton reusable launcher for it.

>>8311943

Mission statement does not reflect reality. SpaceX is a business, and businesses must operate within the bounds of what investors will tolerate. LEO/GEO makes money and will continue to do so even through the entire SLS program. At the very least, SpaceX would have to build an interplanetary transit vehicle and a Martian orbital fuel depot. SpaceX needs to start sending large probes to Mars before I take anything they say about crewed Mars missions seriously. Until then, it's safe to assume they will do what makes money and that is LEO/GEO launches, be them comsats or the ISS's replacements(s).

>>8311887
>SpaceX is a government contractor, ultimately they're still at NASA's behest.

Less so every year. 2016 will have three NASA resupply missions (plus one NASA satellite) against twelve commercial missions.

I won't deny that SpaceX got a sweet cash infusion at a critical time from the CRS and CCDev contracts. But now that the Falcon 1.1 development is done, I think they'd rather be a pure commercial supplier.

>And NASA has no reason to use a 50-ton vehicle compared to a 70/100 ton vehicle.

Ten times cheaper? All existing science payloads are less mass than either of those two figures?

>>8311951

The entire shuttle program was indefensible yet NASA went with it for thirty years. The public loved them for it until it ended in 2011. And the big three are hugely influential, it's how both the V-22 and F-35 could survive 30 years of development and exist.

>Except Musk has already set a timeline of 2022 for the first MCT sent to mars, which will need a 200+ ton reusable launcher for it.

So it's Mars One tier idiocy. SpaceX doesn't even have a transfer vehicle capable of that, nor will they have one ready to go in 2022. They don't have a lander either.

>>8311970
>At the very least, SpaceX would have to build an interplanetary transit vehicle and a Martian orbital fuel depot. SpaceX needs to start sending large probes to Mars before I take anything they say about crewed Mars missions seriously.

Look forward to Elon's announcement at IAC in Mexico this month.

>>8311996

Ok, but that's still going to take at least 5-10 years to build and implement. By then NASA will be doing moon missions if not have a moon base. Then SpaceX can do their own moon landing, and NASA can begin seriously looking at a manned Mars mission (even if it's just a fly-by).

I'm willing to accept the idea that SpaceX will do probes, even large ones. But a Mars mission is totally ridiculous especially given that a moon mission accomplishes the same thing but at a fraction of the cost and risk (and has a much more forgivable launch window).

>>8309624
>Space Shuttles were sexy as hell.
But absolutely terrible as a space vehicle. The project continued for so long because it was deemed important to restore USA's image after the Vietnam war disaster, but NASA understood pretty soon that the shuttle was a shitty program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

>>8311951
>set a timeline of 2022 for the first MCT sent to mars, which will need a 200+ ton reusable launcher for it.
Kek, they should be lucky if only the Flacon Heavy flies by that date

>>8312011

NASA would still have the larger vehicle though, and therefore could build a bigger transfer vehicle capable of carrying more stuff.

File: Vega_VV02_ready_for_liftoff.jpg (727KB, 2330x3500px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 2330x3500px

>>8311859
>No existing data for methane engines
Methane is only attractive for meme reasons (reusability and muh mars). As a rocket fuel its performances are inferior to hydrogen.
>after all, or composite tanks.
Lolwut, the Vega rocket has been using composite tanks since 2012.

>>8312037
Yeah good luck putting lox and h2 in adjacent containers without highly insulated bulkheads.

Also, hydrogen embrittlement of metals is a big fucking deal.

>>8311846
>The entire reason everything is fucked right now is because they don't have anything due to shit plannin

MFW they could have just kept using saturn V launchers for everything and it STILL would have been cheaper than the shuttle program

>>8312290

It would have been better overall. Cheaper and larger ISS modules. Heck, the Saturn V could probably send up two or three at once instead instead one at a time like the STS.

>>8312306
besides, the saturn was easily configured into a slighlty less powerfull rocket, it wouldnt have been the same moon mission saturn v each time

File: Oral_B.jpg (14KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 600x600px

>>8312037

>>8312037
>Methane is only attractive for meme reasons (reusability and muh mars). As a rocket fuel its performances are inferior to hydrogen.

Methane is like the ideal best chemical fuel
It's super cheap, its good performance, it stores at basically the same temperature as LOx, it can be used to self-pressurize, it burns clean....

reusability is also not a meme.

The Space Shuttle looked cool, but didn't really make much sense. Wings on a spaceship? Really?

Skylon shits on all others.

>>8309624
>Shuttles were sexy as hell
... except when they blew themselves to Hell.

>>8311970
>within the bounds of what investors will tolerate
negatively falsa you stupid retard. dont oyu dare answer me again till you know at least a bit of reality

you had clearly no fucking idea what you were talking about, you just babble and babble and bable and babble

spacex
has
no
inv
es
tor
s

thats right little kiddy billy boy, SPACEX IS OWNED MAJORITARILY BY ONE PRESIDENT THAT HAS TOTAL POWER OF DECISION...

i love to what point are people willing to opinate without knowing of topics

>>8313425
when they did that they kept being sexy but also hot

>>8315377
spacex does have investors retard
musk only have 150 million to start it with
doesn't he own like 40%?

>>8311546
>.02 has been deposited to your account

>>8312344
Kek, I didn't know it was a tooth brush at first

>>8315382
>Musk doesnt have the majority of the stocks!!!
>Does musk have the majority of the stocks?

no you master of stupidity, he makes a point out of it, he says that if he had investors he couldn't aim his rockets towards mars mission.

reusability was searched from the begginning,

all engines were initially designed to be reusable, do you think investors would have approved that?

>>8311912
>not for some defense contractors
You must not be very familiar with American politics.

>>8313422
Skylon is a myth meme.

>>8315377

SpaceX has one investor that matters: the bank lending them money to pay the initial startup cost for rockets.

Yes, even profitable businesses require loans to operate. If SpaceX fails to make a return on investment the bank gets pissed and takes them to court. Even if they pay their bills, they have to put forward clearly profitable missions or else banks won't loan them the startup capital for them.

That's not to say SpaceX can't go to Mars. I firmly believe that eventually they will start sending probes there. But, in the near future (ie 20-30 years out), there is no way Musk could justify a manned Mars mission when the ROI will be negative.

>>8315691
?
Musk is going to send a dragon capsule to mars in 2018

>>8315638

>all engines were initially designed to be reusable, do you think investors would have approved that?

If the technology exists (it did, NASA proved with the Shuttle that reusable engines and boosters are possible and reliable) and there's a good enough business plan (specifically undercutting ULA's monopoly) then investors will do it. Same for the bank that loaned him money to do this (Paypal pays for a lot, but like all smart people Musk isn't one to risk his entire fortune).

>>8315692

What about getting it back? Actual manned missions cannot be one-way journeys.

>>8315695
coming back will take producing fuel there and a different vehicle

>>8311885
Wouldn't better heat transfer actually be desirable, since the air temperature, even at the trailing edge would be cooler than the wing temperature?

>>8315750
no, the ceramic tiles are specifically designed to isolate the fragile ship from the fiery inferno of doom below it

you dont want the heat transfered to the melty part of the ship

>>8315739

ok, so how does SpaceX plan on:

1. sending and landing a second vehicle onto Mars's surface
2. sending and landing a fuel production facility onto Mar's surface
3. building a long-term crew capsule

within the next 4 years? And, more importantly, why would Musk do all of this without a moon mission first.

>>8315768
>1. sending and landing a second vehicle onto Mars's surface
bfr & mct, super heavy methane rocket.

>2. sending and landing a fuel production facility onto Mar's surface
First few MCT's probably wouldn't be coming back fast

>3. building a long-term crew capsule
Not sure what challenge you see with this.

Musk sees no reason for HIM to go to mars, if someone wants to pay him to, he would.

>>8315775
for him to go to the moon**

>>8315775

>MCT

Neat. How is he going to get it designed, built, tested and operational in five years?

Secondly: the moon is the planet closest to earth. Which is to say, if Musk really wants funding for a Mars mission (or even just the ability to find willing astronauts), then a moon landing as a proof-of-concept (and big fuck you to NASA) is the most obvious route. Mars is certainly the goal, but people want to see him walk before he runs.

>>8315835
>the moon is the planet closest to earth
>>8315835
>>8315835
>the moon is a planet
>moon
>planet
>shiggitydiggity

The space shuttle was a meme that killed 14/18 astraunats that have died due to space travel. The other 4 were two Russian crews in two launches which were far earlier than the shuttle. There is a reason Soyuz is still king.

Space Shuttle was overbuilt for the original purpose.

It was supposed to be a pickup truck. Something reusable that could take things into orbit, dock with a space station, and bring things back from orbit. It turned into a flying science lab.

>>8316037
No the shuttle turned into abomination the airforce wanted then realized they didn't need. The airforce wanted something that did god knows what over moscow and fly back. This flyback part dictated the need for hueg wasteful wings. This took away from the payload capacity.

Second sending crew and payload up on the same rocket is just dumb.

Take a look at the crazy death star missions:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/dispatches-from-the-death-star-the-rise-and-fall-of-nasas-shuttle-centaur/

Other thing is that it just does not make sense to human rate a whole rocket that's carrying stuff that really doesn't need to be human rated.

>>8316253
>Second sending crew and payload up on the same rocket is just dumb.

this doesn't make any sense
"human rated" is just a meme

>>8316260
It's not just a meme, it's the law:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-rating_certification

Human rating means rockets cost more.

>>8311838

Radiation is negligible

Main problem is getting the thing to work

Better to build one in orbit than launch it

>>8309788
The Saturn V payload was 140 tons numbnuts. Stop trying to compare the shitty Falcon Heavy to it.
>>8311546
>The way to go is an imaginary fantasy rocket built by a guy whose last rocket exploded
>>8316253
They have the X-37 for that now

>>8309788
>SLS will be a huge leap.

If they get the fucking funding to do stuff with it, then sure. Until that day, it'll be stuck with its three missions and constant delays until someone else scraps it.

Right now, after Obama killed all Moon plans for the Ares boosters, the entire spaceflight industry seems to be "focused on Mars", which is like a celebrity caught jerking off saying "no comment".

>>8316723

Obama killed Constellation because there was no way NASA could realistically hope to stick to it. Also, as SLS nears completion all NASA has to do is build a lander so moon missions can happen. This would only take 3-4 years to do, for a moon mission in 2025 or 2026.

>the entire spaceflight industry seems to be "focused on Mars", which is like a celebrity caught jerking off saying "no comment".

I'm in total agreement. But SLS will allow moon missions to happen even it's ten years down the road.

>>8317020
I agree about Constellation, though NASA is already pretty behind on the SLS schedule, afaik

I have herd 0 plans for actual lunar landing missions. Seems like they died when Altair from Constellation died. EM-1 and 2, and possibly that one manned ARM mission are orbitals, plus some other beyond-Earth-orbit missions proposed, but that's about it as far as I know.

>>8317036

SLS is +5 years behind schedule, and figure that into +5 more years of delays due to red tape leading to a total +10 years behind schedule.

>I have herd 0 plans for actual lunar landing missions.

Back in the early 2000s NASA had hoped for a moon landing in 2016. But this was also predicated on SLS/Ares first flight in 2008, and Orion first flight in 2010. SLS won't fly until 2018 or 2019, with it's first mission to send an unmanned Orion capsule around the moon. This gives NASA 4-6 years to build the lander for a moon landing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_Mission_1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_Mission_2

However, NASA can't make official plans as they'd risk having them end up like Constellation (which was 50 years of plans) did.

>>8311606
Ah yes, if only the shuttle design team had your experience from playing Kerbal Space Program back in the 60s and 70s. Things would have certainly been different.

>>8317048
>>8317036
>>8317020
Can someone clue me in on the thought-process behind cancelling Constellatio, an over-budget, behind schedule project that was starting to make something usefull, and starting over with the SLS, an over-budget, behind schedule project. I know there has to be some reasonable idea behind this, made by people a lot smarter than me, but right now it feels like its
>use x billion dollars in RD, get behind schedule and cancel.
>use another x billion dollars, get behind schedule, cancel (dear god i hope not).
Why not just stick with the half-done shit and throw the billions at it instead of starting over all the time?

>>8317090

The problem was this: by 2008 there was no way NASA could possibly keep up with Constellation's schedule, which was already at +10 due to problems with Ares V. As the project would go on, the delays would inevitably increase to something ridiculous like +20 or +30. This is a no-go when Congress funds NASA in 24 month increments. Congress told NASA to figure out a new plan which they could stick to. Orion was completely kept as it's program remained on schedule.

In this way NASA can actually have a schedule that they can realistically adhere to, while having a single clear goal to work towards.

>Why not just stick with the half-done shit and throw the billions at it instead of starting over all the time?

It's a problem with Ares. Ares I (earth to LEO, comparable to the shuttle or Saturn-IB) went smoothly and had a successful demonstration launch in 2010 (to test Orion's launch abort system). Problem is, Ares I itself isn't big enough and was always just a "step" to building the Ares V which could take large payloads (specifically, ones capable of going to the moon and back). NASA was five years behind on this due to problems scaling up the technology, and they were not certain how they'd make the boosters work.

NASA then determined that these issues could not be realistically figured out or fixed before 2030, and decided to just build a whole new vehicle (SLS) which they could get flying (in a moon capable state) by 2020.

>>8317090
>>8317120

tl;dr at some point (about 2010) it made more sense just to restart than to try and make the current scheme work. It's never an easy choice to make, but ultimately by shelving Constellation NASA's plans were only put back +10 years instead of +20.

>>8317120

also the fact that the Ares I got developed at all, when it served no purpose other than to test Orion, is proof that Constellation wasn't going to go as planned. Even as a LEO access vehicle, Ares V could do that job a lot more efficiently because it could carry a higher payload

>>8309624
>Why going back to Saturn V-like Space Launch System?
Because the flagship American space program at MSFC can't admit failure and always has to be doing something they can spin as bigger and better.

A reusable launch vehicle was exactly the right next step after the Apollo Program, and a human-piloted VTHL spaceplane was the most feasible way to approach it with the technology of the time. And you can see many suggestions of the right way to do it in the early space shuttle concepts: a small spaceplane, with a small payload mass fraction, that could carry two astronauts and maybe two hundred pounds of cargo.

This was the smallest reasonable thing to build, which made it the most reasonable thing to build, since this would be Wright-Bros-level stuff. A smaller vehicle is one which can be built and tested faster, the design more easily changed, and the costs of failing are smaller.

It has never stopped making sense to build this little shuttle.

The space shuttle that was built was a product of hubris. Instead of building a Wright Flyer, they tried to skip straight to a 747. Frankly, it didn't work. While it mostly went to space and mostly came back, the shuttle was not reusable in a meaningful sense, rather it required more refurbishment than the cost of just building a new expendable rocket.

The main motivation of the shuttle design changes and upscaling were to make it an immediately-practical cost-saver compared to expendable rockets, however, even a cursory look at the design shows that this was never possible.

Rather than recovering a vehicle that just needed to be refuelled, the shuttle recovered a few badly-beaten parts. Because the entire vehicle had to be much larger for the same payload, the discarded external fuel tank alone was an equivalent mass and greater cost of precision aerospace hardware as a complete Proton rocket, which had a similar LEO payload as the shuttle.

>>8309624
Saturn-V is more reliable and it can actually be used to get to Mars.

>>8317159
>the fact that the Ares I got developed at all, when it served no purpose other than to test Orion
That wasn't the only purpose. Ares I / Orion was a general replacement for the Space Shuttle.

Two Ares I launches would have been able to do anything the shuttle could do, and a single Ares I launch could do most things the shuttle was actually used for.

270 shuttle SRBs flew on manned missions, with only one failure, when they were used on a day far out of temperature spec (and the design was changed after that so even when abused in this way, they wouldn't fail).

Ares I, if built as specified, could launch a partially-reusable Orion to LEO (including the ISS) with six crew and ~10 tons of unpressurized cargo, compared to the shuttles ~25 tons of unpressurized cargo. Or it could simply launch a ~25 ton payload to orbit, which a separate Orion launch could dock with.

This was a practical plan to replace the space shuttle, and a reasonable way to produce a man-rated alternative to Delta IV Heavy.

They just no longer had the institutional competence to implement it.

>>8317159
>>8317125
>>8317120
Wouldn't have made some sense to keep the Ares I as a LEO-lifter for the Orion, and develop something similar to SLS to use as a heavy lifter for deep space modules and shit?
My limited knowledge tells me that solids like Ares I has a bit better safety than LOX/LHO, thus easier human-rating, plus it was almost ready for use(afaik).

>>8311821
Sounds like a waste of energy.

>>8312290
But muh spying

This is me:
>>8317370

I should add that the really unforgivable failure of Ares I was the cost and schedule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I#Schedule_and_cost

The original Ares I concept was to take a shuttle SRB, stick a Saturn V J-2 upper stage engine on a modified shuttle external tank, and stack them up with an Orion (moderately scaled up and ruggedized Apollo CSM) on top. Dusting off and rearranging these old parts should have taken a few years and maybe a billion or two billion dollars, resulting in a program that could launch maybe 5 times per year for a billion dollars per year.

Various versions were proposed starting in 1995, and they settled on this plan in 2006.

When it was cancelled in 2010, it was estimated that it would cost $40 billion to develop and would probably not fly until 2017 or later, and result in a program that would launch about once per year for $6 billion per year. They had already spent billions of dollars.

What happened? Well, NASA turned its eggheads and contractors loose and let them run wild. In the end, Ares I was going to be made of a new solid rocket booster that only looked like a shuttle SRB, a new upper stage engine that was only going to be about the same size as the J-2, and a new upper stage that was only going to be covered in the same insulating foam as the shuttle external tank. Likewise, the capsule was only the same shape as the Apollo capsule, and with the same (badly obsolete 60s technology) heat shield material. Otherwise, Orion was a radical redesign, and one which was coming in far overweight and behind schedule.

>>8311823
SpaceX is 3d printing entire rockets from inconel alloy.

Red Dragon mission is going to be fucking tits. Sending a Dragon 2 capsule to Mars. To land, gather rock, and then shoot a smaller rocket back to Earth.

ULA, being Boeing and Lockmart, just likes to be lazy and suck in defense dollars.

>>8317322
>and a human-piloted VTHL spaceplane was the most feasible way to approach it with the technology of the time.

Nonsense

they could easily have done a pilotted first stage/second stage rocket. First stage is VTHL, second stage does parachutes + vertical landing.

The shuttle design didn't make any sense. What is the purpose of it? The spaceplane itself is just payload on top of a non-reusable rocket stack... wasted payload...

>>8317517
>>and a human-piloted VTHL spaceplane was the most feasible way to approach it with the technology of the time.
>Nonsense
>they could easily have done a pilotted first stage/second stage rocket. First stage is VTHL

>>a human-piloted VTHL spaceplane
>Nonsense
>they could easily have done a pilotted ... VTHL

>Nonsense
>I agree with you
Come the fuck on.

>second stage does parachutes + vertical landing.
I don't think they could do precision landings with this method and 1970s technology, and if it doesn't lift like a spaceplane you'd have far inferior cross-range capability. Anyway parachutes have to be repacked or replaced, and a high-lift entry is much more gentle. The potential for efficient reusability, and scaling up, of the mature technology is much lower.

>>8317500

>SpaceX is 3d printing entire rockets from inconel alloy.

Yes, a thing NASA did with various Ares I-x parts. I believe some of the shuttles might be 3d printed as well. It is not a new technology, and is one all major manufacturing companies have now.

>Red Dragon mission is going to be fucking tits. Sending a Dragon 2 capsule to Mars. To land, gather rock, and then shoot a smaller rocket back to Earth.

got a source for the latter? We're under 24 months from it's planned 2018 launched.

>>8317390

Ideally that would have been the case, if it was not for all the problems Ares I had. There's a reason NASA dumped it after only a single launch (which wasn't even to LEO, again it was a test of Orion's launch -abort- system). At some point, it made more sense to just start new and that new thing was SLS. A rocket that is too powerful for individual LEO jobs is better than a rocket that can barely make it to LEO.

>>8317633
>It is not a new technology
The first metal powder printers came on the market in the 90s, and they were NOT suitable for printing rocket parts. They were used for factory tooling.

Printing high-performance aerospace parts basically only became a possibility in the 2000s, and now it is a cutting-edge technique.

No, the 1970s-tech shuttle did not use fucking 3d-printed parts.

>Red Dragon
It's almost certainly not going to do sample return, although someone was analysing the feasibility of doing so and figured it should work.

>>8317646

>No, the 1970s-tech shuttle did not use fucking 3d-printed parts.

yes, but Ares and SLS do. SpaceX is doing what is the industry standard. Proofs from a NASA contractor:

http://www.rocket.com/additive-manufacturing

My point is that SpaceX is not doing anything particularly special here.

>It's almost certainly not going to do sample return, although someone was analysing the feasibility of doing so and figured it should work.

then why suggest it would?

>>8317641
>it was a test of Orion's launch -abort- system
No it wasn't. Ares I-X was primarily a test of the Ares I lower stage. The Orion simulator on top didn't have a functioning LAS or parachute descent system.

Orion's LAS was tested separately.

>>8317661
>Ares and SLS do.
Orion does, in very limited ways, starting very recently. Here's what AJR said in December 2015: "These components are the first additively manufactured parts we have provided for the Orion spacecraft"

>SpaceX is doing what is the industry standard.
Holy shit, a few other people trying a technology out in limited ways does not make it "industry standard".

>Proofs from a NASA contractor:
>http://www.rocket.com/additive-manufacturing
These stories start in 2013.

In 2013, SpaceX converted their SuperDraco design to almost pure 3d printing, and that's what they've been using since.

This is what they were doing in 2015 with 3d-printed rocket engines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsg6WR4BWhw

AJR (your NASA contractor) didn't fire a 3d-printed rocket engine until 2014. SpaceX's SuperDraco had finished qualifying for use on manned vehicles one month after AJR's first successful test.

SpaceX is leading the way here, not doing "industry standard" things.

>>8317572
>I agree with you
I don't agree with you, the SPACE part of the spaceplane is the problem.
Taking wings/extra tonnage to orbit is madness, the orbiter weighed 70 tons with a payload of like 20!
Engines had to work at sea level & at vacuum!

I suggest that the first stage of a 2 stage rocket could carry wings & do horizontal landing, this is something that is sane/practical/could have been done back when the shuttle was designed.

>I don't think they could do precision landings with this method and 1970s technology

Well if the shuttle manages to hit a runway, I don't see why a blunt body capsule can't have similar accuracy.

>>8317791
>the SPACE part of the spaceplane is the problem.
Space and orbit are different. You'd expect the first stage to also be a spaceplane, or something close to it.

>Taking wings/extra tonnage to orbit is madness, the orbiter weighed 70 tons with a payload of like 20!
>Engines had to work at sea level & at vacuum!
The orbiter engines didn't make a very significant contribution to lift-off thrust. It wasn't that they *had to* start them on the pad, it's that they *wanted to*, for reliability purposes.

Anyway, if you read my whole post, you'd see I wasn't defending the final space shuttle configuration, I was talking about much smaller early shuttle proposals that were focused on total, rapid-turnaround, low-maintenance reusability rather than payload capacity or capabilities like polar orbit, and which still would make sense for NASA to pursue today.

There would be nothing wrong with only one sixth of the mass taken to orbit being payload in a quasi-SSTO, if you got rapid, low-cost reusability for that. SpaceX is looking at tripling the vehicle size and fuel cost for the same payload to go fully reusable. Figures in that neighborhood are just the cost of reusability.

- The shuttle specs increased the size of necessary wings, since it was required to have a long cross-range capability (for polar orbits) and be able to bring about 16 tons of payload down.
- The shuttle was a quasi-SSTO, with the orbiter engines firing from launch and the SRBs done at 45 km altitude and mach 4.5.
- 7 crew seats, galley, toilet, airlock, supplies -- the stuff in the cargo bay was hardly the only "payload".

>if an aircraft manages to hit a runway, I don't see why a lump that falls like a rock once it dips under hypersonic speed can't have similar accuracy.
Crew Dragon is supposed to have precision landing because it'll basically have a supercomputer steering it and it won't normally use parachutes. Old capsules could hit a general region of Earth on a good day.

>>8317875
>I was talking about much smaller early shuttle proposals

Yea sure but with any such shuttle design you are going to need the heat tiles which caused so much problems. Still need a reusable booster too or you are just wasting your time
All of the designs were using LH2 so I imagine no matter what they went with they would need extensive refurbishment each launch.

It really doesn't seem like NASA + defense contractors are structurally capable of producing a cheap reusable working vehicle.

>SpaceX is looking at tripling the vehicle size and fuel cost for the same payload to go fully reusable.

Well the Falcon 9/Heavy will never have full reuse. We will have to wait and see what the final difference between expendable/reusable launch for their next rocket. If, for example, they didn't need to do a reentry burn & instead fully aerobraked to terminal velocity, then the fuel needed for boosting back is greatly reduced

>>8309624
The Chinese just announced a Skylon rip off that will be able to land on jet runways.

Should be nice since the Chinese actually have the money to build it unlike the broke Brits.

>>8318384
>with any such shuttle design you are going to need the heat tiles which caused so much problems
Simple, durable metal heat shields were also proposed. They would have weighed more, and reduced performance.

>All of the designs were using LH2
I don't think the early concepts were. I believe dense propellants were in the running until they decided to go with a drop tank. Then they made it an expensive lightweight tank for performance.

>they would need extensive refurbishment each launch
There's no reason that's inherent to LOX/LH2 engines. The shuttle engines were pushed too hard for performance, and not tested enough under realistic operating conditions because the whole system was too big, with giant SRBs, and hard and expensive to properly test.

Detecting a theme here? On their first try at a reusable system, they should have been conservative, and made a small, low-performance vehicle using well-understood, predictable technology. Maybe one tenth the size of the shuttle, two crew, no support for two-week independent stays in space (just a shuttle to Skylab and back), under a ton of cargo.

It would still make absolute sense to build that vehicle.

>Well the Falcon 9/Heavy will never have full reuse. We will have to wait and see what the final difference between expendable/reusable launch for their next rocket.
SpaceX people have said that, in their analysis, flyback reusability by itself should cost about a third of payload capacity and upper stage reusability by itself should cost about half of payload capacity (to LEO -- it would be worse for higher orbits). I doubt they're going to do better than their estimate.

They've also said that flyback recovery, not downrange landing, is their plan for the next generation.

And they're not doing an expendable version, so its performance as an expendable will be purely theoretical.

>>8318476
>Detecting a theme here?

Yea they have serious structural & organizational problems that prevent them from making sane overall decisions.

You can't be conservative when you are spending tens of billions of dollars and taking a decade to produce something

>I doubt they're going to do better than their estimate.

Thats for the Falcon family of rockets. A bigger rocket with lower mass fraction, less need of propulsive braking, and its a very different story.

>>8318535
>Yea they have serious structural & organizational problems that prevent them from making sane overall decisions.
Then maybe you should stop talking about the shuttle as if it were the best that can be achieved with an orbital spaceplane, rather than just a badly designed orbital spaceplane and the first attempt ever at building an orbital spaceplane.

>You can't be conservative when you are spending tens of billions of dollars and taking a decade to produce something
They didn't have to spend tens of billions of dollars if they kept it to a reasonable size, and it was never the plan to spend a decade to produce the shuttle. The shuttle took twice as long as it was supposed to, which is why Skylab splashed.

The original shuttle concept was like a Project Gemini, not an Apollo Program. Manageable, quick, affordable, experimental. An appropriate way to gain experience. What they ended up doing was like doing Apollo without bothering with Gemini OR Mercury.

>>I doubt they're going to do better than their estimate.
>Thats for the Falcon family of rockets.
It really isn't. Anyway, in many ways, the next generation will be more conservatively built. For instance, they'll be using a less dense fuel and self-pressurizing propellant tanks, rather than lighter helium pressurant.

Falcon 9 started out fully expendable, and is only now starting to approach partial reusability. It has had to be cost-effective as an expendable, so they couldn't just build it several times larger than it needed to be for common payloads.