SpaceX's Dragon capsule captured by ISS

[GIThruster]

And what mission can conduct Shuttle that conventional single use rockets cannot?

How about support repairing a satellite in orbit?

How about bringing it back?

Taday ALL missions allowed by Space Shuttle are allowed by single use rockets as well. And single use rockets provide their missions at lower cost. That is the fact.

That's what many say but we don't really know this is true. Assembling the ISS would have been extremely difficult without the Orbiter's high mass and robotic arm. People say it could have been done without both, but since nothing that large has ever been constructed without those resources we don't really know. We know that what we did do does work. We also know that without such enormous lift and down capacities we'd have had to launch many more EELV's than the number of shuttle flights, which we presume would have driven the costs of those flights down, but again, we don't know this. The providers of the Delta and Atlas collaborate and this alters the market. For all we know, were we dependent upon them, they could have raised the prices and we would have paid them, a couple hundred launches at higher rates could have become even more expensive than shuttle. We really don't know what would have, could have should have so those arguments are vacant.

[Joseph Chikva]

a couple hundred launches at higher rates could have become even more expensive than shuttle.

As I know Russian Progress and top models of French Arian have more carrying capacity than Shuttle.

[Skipjack]

The topic I was on was 'things Shuttle could do that an expendable LV can't'

No, my argument with GIThruster was about the shuttle being a crappy design and I still stick with it.

Assembling the ISS would have been extremely difficult without the Orbiter's high mass and robotic arm.

They could have had a separate, smaller manned transport with a robotic arm. There is no need for it to have all of the other capabilities of the shuttle. They could have transported much larger parts with a separate, expendable heavy lift vehicle based on the SaturnV. Or they could have built a VTOL design that was floating arround back then. All fullz reusable instead of the shuttle which was only refurbishable.

They would have had to leave the black ops to a separate air force vehicle that would have military level funding that is not subject to NASA budget scrutiny.

I was very much aware of the claims made my shuttle supporters about it being able to operate commercially, but even cutting the price in half would not have been enough.

[ladajo]

And what mission can conduct Shuttle that conventional single use rockets cannot?

How about support repairing a satellite in orbit?

How about bringing it back?

Taday ALL missions allowed by Space Shuttle are allowed by single use rockets as well. And single use rockets provide their missions at lower cost. That is the fact.

Well, ahh. nope. There are things that shuttle did that sinlge use can not do.
And why do you think that we, the US, continue to develop and field multiple use spacecraft?
Are you not aware that this concept is alive and well and pressing forward with actual missions and development for bigger and better?
I already understand that you do not know why.

[randomencounter]

Well, ahh. nope. There are things that shuttle did that sinlge use can not do.

Name one.

I like multiple use craft, but their only real advantage is cost savings due to not having to build the whole blessed thing over for each mission.

Cost savings that the space shuttle failed to realize.

[GIThruster]

They could have had a separate, smaller manned transport with a robotic arm. . . They could have transported much larger parts with a separate, expendable heavy lift vehicle based on the SaturnV. . .they could have built a VTOL design that was floating arround back then. . .They would have had to leave the black ops to a separate air force vehicle.

Yep. They could have built 5 vehicles instead of one. If you think that would have been cheaper you're right out of your mind.

[krenshala]

Well, ahh. nope. There are things that shuttle did that sinlge use can not do.

Name one.

Down mass?

[Joseph Chikva]

And why do you think that we, the US, continue to develop and field multiple use spacecraft?

I do not think so. But think that future technology will revive idea of reusable use spacecaraft. As on base of today's level of technology embodiment of such idea is not cost effective.
And why do you think that there are thing shuttle can do and single use craft cannot? I asked you and am asking once again:
-payload advantage?
-lower acceleration with allowing of transport of g-sensitive equipment?
I see only one advantage - roomy space and big manipulator. But manipulator can be installed on any craft. If you have space restriction you can make that telescopic. I am sure that critical is only one factor: namly cost of transportation of 1 kg. And nothing more.

[93143]

a couple hundred launches at higher rates could have become even more expensive than shuttle.

As I know Russian Progress and top models of French Arian have more carrying capacity than Shuttle.

If you don't actually know what you're talking about, stay out of the discussion. You're just spouting nonsense, and this is an excellent example.

The only expendable since Energia with a LEO payload higher than Shuttle's cargo capacity is Delta IV Heavy, and only since the RS-68A upgrade (and even then it's only slightly higher). Progress? That's genuinely funny...

Shuttle was not just a launcher. It was a spacecraft combined with a launch vehicle. Doing any one of the tasks Shuttle could do in a single mission with expendable rockets and dedicated spacecraft is usually cheaper. But doing all of them, or even two or three of them, often turns out to be as expensive or more so, because you need multiple dedicated vehicles.

As I pointed out, it has recently come to light that an investor was able to identify a sufficiently robust non-NASA business case for Shuttle that former skeptics were trying very hard to rescue STS for this private venture even late last year. Apparently Plan B is to develop a brand-new Shuttle-capable vehicle on their own...

...

On second thought... plenty of folk around here are spouting nonsense due to not knowing what they're talking about. Skipjack in particular seems impervious to facts and reason on this subject, not that I didn't know that already from previous encounters... Go nuts.

[Joseph Chikva]

You're just spouting nonsense, and this is an excellent example.

I said: "As I know russian progress and top models of french arian". I think that is does not mean "I am sure". And please do not press me with your designations. Please simply inform maximum payload carried by shuttle, orbit on which that payload was delivered and than let's compare.
I think if you are making your PhD in physics, so, your source of information is the same as mine - internet.
Also recall that I am not a physicist but I am an engineer. Now for your reference I can say that I have desined and built two differnt size rockets for military use. So, I can a little advantage in this discussion. And can say that rockets have less restrictions in payload than airplanes.
And if you are trying to insult me defending your beloved Polywell, this would not improve viability of Polywell.

[randomencounter]

Well, ahh. nope. There are things that shuttle did that sinlge use can not do.

Name one.

Down mass?

Non-reusables have been used successfully to return humans and sensitive scientific experiments on many occasions.

You just can't use them to do it *twice*.

[Joseph Chikva]

You just can't use them to do it *twice*.

To hell with "twice" if two times of different lauch vehicles allow you to do the same job at lower cost. What this is called in English? Not "cost effectivness"?

[randomencounter]

You just can't use them to do it *twice*.

To hell with "twice" if two times of different lauch vehicles allow you to do the same job at lower cost. What this is called in English? Not "cost effectivness"?

Exactly. Which is the real reason why the shuttle program finally got the axe.

Non-reusable launch platforms beat it on cost while still being able to do everything it did.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Next-gen shuttle already exists. It's called X-37.

The airframe design scales. The first test articles were the X-40. Reportedly the X-37 is 120% the size of the X-40. Supposedly the X-37C will be around 160 to 180% the size of the original, and mount atop an Atlas V. It could conceivably go bigger.

I remember in the early to mid-2000s two of the proposals for modifying the space shuttle were to: (a) mount atop rather than on the side of the main tank, with expendable SSMEs under the tank, and jet engines for powered re-entry capability for the orbiter, and (b) build a heavier bulkhead around the crew cabin where they all sit during take-off and landing, and make the cabin ejectable and capable of coming down like a capsule, so loss of vehicle doesn't necessarily mean loss of crew. The X-37 looks suspiciously like it's moving in those directions.

It's a bit of a Polywell-like story, actually. NASA started the project in the late 1990s, but as with almost every other NASA spaceplane in recent times (X-30, X-33, X-34, whatever that glider was named that was supposed to be attached to the space station that could fly back 6 or 7 people in the event of an emergency), it got cancelled/unexpectedly altered/put on a shoestring as budget priorities kept shifting. So, the Air Force took it over, and now actually has at least one operational plane.

I really do like seeing the U.S. armed services step in and fund some interesting projects when other organizations like NASA or DOE kind of drop the ball.

[GIThruster]

Exactly. Which is the real reason why the shuttle program finally got the axe.

No. Shuttle got the axe because it ran its 30 years as expected, and to keep such old spacecraft in service would have escalated costs well beyond what they already were, and sucked up any funds to build a replacement. It is technically not true to say it "got the axe". Rather, the program ended when expected.