SpaceX's Dragon capsule captured by ISS

[Skipjack]

What development did Shuttle hold back for decades? "THE development"? "the development" of what?

Reusable launch vehicles (or at least partially reusable) that would have lowered the cost of access to space.
The shuttle did a really good job at keeping the stigmata that spaceflight has to be a hugely expensive undertaking that can only be done by a government like the US in peoples minds.
BS!

[hanelyp]

The X-33 suffered from requiring too many innovations from one project. X-30 had the same problem. The successful X-plane projects generally had one primary objective, resulting in one major innovation to produce the aircraft.

The space shuttle suffered from fielding innovative tech as an operational vehicle without taking the steps to work out the bugs and mature the tech.

In reaction to the failures with the X-30, X-33, and space shuttle programs, NASA appears to have swung to the opposite extreme. No innovation, no risk tolerance.

Contrast Space-X, developing one innovation to a project, and making steady progress.

[GIThruster]

Musk is saying he will hold the cost of a Falcon 9/Dragon launch to ISS at $60M adjusted. That means he ought to be able to sell seats for less than $10M@. Reusing might drive that down significantly, but the point is that the idea of "affordability" is but a minor point. Affordable to whom? There are people who can afford mega-yatchs. Does that make them "affordable"?

Yeah, Delta and Atlas launches cost less than Shuttle launches. So what? In the 1960's and 70's, "economy" was not the goal. Sure, the idea was used to sell the concept to the American people and to congress, but no one crunching the numbers really thought Shuttle would be cheap to fly.

Again just saying, take the economy issue out of your criteria, just as those did who designed the Shuttle, and what you're left with is an amazing machine and program. I'm all for driving the costs for launch down the way SpaceX is doing, but economy is not the only criteria by which space programs should be judged.

[GIThruster]

The X-33 suffered from requiring too many innovations from one project. X-30 had the same problem. The successful X-plane projects generally had one primary objective, resulting in one major innovation to produce the aircraft.

The space shuttle suffered from fielding innovative tech as an operational vehicle without taking the steps to work out the bugs and mature the tech.

In reaction to the failures with the X-30, X-33, and space shuttle programs, NASA appears to have swung to the opposite extreme. No innovation, no risk tolerance.

Contrast Space-X, developing one innovation to a project, and making steady progress.

In general I agree, but SpaceX is fielding more than one innovation at a time. Dragon has several innovations all by itself. Had X-33 been managed the way SpaceX is being managed, life today would be very different.

[Skipjack]

So what? In the 1960's and 70's, "economy" was not the goal.

I just explained to you that a lot of the shuttles shortcomings were because of budget problems and the resulting need of it doing too many things at once for too many users (NASA and DOD and whoever else thought they wanted it).
So how can you seriously claim that economy was not a concern?
But ok, lets take economy out of the picthre. Here are several other things it failed miserably at.
1. Reusability. It was only partially reusable. I would actually call it "partially refurbishable".
2. Launch rate. Due to the high maintenance of the orbiter and the whole issue with integration (vertical) and other crap (and also the high cost of operation but I am leaving that out), it never achieved a launch rate that it was originally meant to.

So there are two more failures.

[Skipjack]

The X-33 suffered from requiring too many innovations from one project. X-30 had the same problem. The successful X-plane projects generally had one primary objective, resulting in one major innovation to produce the aircraft.

The space shuttle suffered from fielding innovative tech as an operational vehicle without taking the steps to work out the bugs and mature the tech.

I agree

[GIThruster]

But ok, lets take economy out of the picthre. Here are several other things it failed miserably at.
1. Reusability. It was only partially reusable. I would actually call it "partially refurbishable".
2. Launch rate. Due to the high maintenance of the orbiter and the whole issue with integration (vertical) and other crap (and also the high cost of operation but I am leaving that out), it never achieved a launch rate that it was originally meant to.

So there are two more failures.

None of the Shuttle designs, dating back into the 60's were for a completely reusable spacecraft. In fact, a USAF study in the mid 60's showed that a partially resuable craft was the best option, so pretending Shuttle failed at something it was never intended for is just being disingenuous.

I doubt anyone can know what you think you mean by "originally meant to" but again, sounds like you have these unrealistic standards you use to then decide Shuttle was crap and a failure. The Shuttle fleet was cut from 10 to 4 before the program went online, and that fleet generally flew as often as expected. You might have had some delusional notion of ships that could fly every week, but noone involved in the shuttle program was so deluded.

And just telling you a third time now Skippy, you're not making any friends making these obnoxious kinds of objections. Tell you what, next time you are in the states, go to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in DC, stand in front of the orbiter there, and declare in a loud voice that "the Space Shuttle is crap, idiocy! It was a failure!". Have the family take pictures as the nearest red blood puts his knuckles where your nose belongs.

[Skipjack]

None of the Shuttle designs, dating back into the 60's were for a completely reusable spacecraft. In fact, a USAF study in the mid 60's showed that a partially resuable craft was the best option, so pretending Shuttle failed at something it was never intended for is just being disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shut ... gn_process

Also without the need for crossrange, they could have used Bonos designs of a VTOL SSTO based on the SaturnV.

And just telling you a third time now Skippy, you're not making any friends making these obnoxious kinds of objections.

LOL, as if I cared.

Tell you what, next time you are in the states

I am in the states right now.

Dont get me wrong, the shuttle was a fantastic machine and a lot of great know how went into it. But it ultimately was not a good design and it did not advance human spaceflight. Von Braun was not happy about it either.

[Skipjack]

And here is a rundown of the many issues that the shuttle had (many due to politics):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... le_program

[303]

so what if the cost overran, name me one large project that hasn't (usually due to stupidly low initial quote to get the job)

challenger was 100% nasa managers fault, & columbia down to inattention to detail

as far as im concerned, it was awesome, an icon. It went into space and came back , to go into space again. RIP Ms Ride btw

[ScottL]

so what if the cost overran, name me one large project that hasn't (usually due to stupidly low initial quote to get the job)

challenger was 100% nasa managers fault, & columbia down to inattention to detail

as far as im concerned, it was awesome, an icon. It went into space and came back , to go into space again. RIP Ms Ride btw

Your view is clouded by nostalgia and emotional attachment. I'll play along though:

!. Dragon
2. WhiteKnight
3. SpaceShipOne
4 SpaceShipTwo
5. GlobalFlyer

I can keep going if you like...

[ladajo]

And here is a rundown of the many issues that the shuttle had (many due to politics):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... le_program

Please do not forget that the shuttle was designed to do things that were not (and probably never will be) made public.

[Joseph Chikva]

And here is a rundown of the many issues that the shuttle had (many due to politics):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... le_program

Please do not forget that the shuttle was designed to do things that were not (and probably never will be) made public.

And what mission can conduct Shuttle that conventional single use rockets cannot?
Has Shuttle any advantage in payload mass, may be slower acceleration of g-sensitive payload or what advantage?
I think that criticism is legit and toady's technologies do not allow us to transport 1 kg to the orbit at lower cost. So, Shuttle could not achieve his main goal. But this is today's status of shuttle technology, as I also believe that by new technologies development Shuttle idea has a future.
This is similar to the fact that after invention of internal combustion engine and building of first cars people for a long time and with more success used again horses.

[Skipjack]

Please do not forget that the shuttle was designed to do things that were not (and probably never will be) made public.

Which is part of the problem. E.g. that resulted in the requirement for insane crossrange which meant larger wings which meant stronger heatshield, which meant stronger engines, which meant larger tank which meant boosters, which meant reduced resability, reduced reliability and higher cost. This meant that NASA had less budget available for other things and it cemented the idea in the publics mind that doing space has to cost billions and therefore can only be done with mega government projects and human spaceflight is thus limited to a small elite.
BS!

[ltgbrown]

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?