DBWI: Would Shuttle Really Cause A Space Wank?

So, after the latest round of "What if the space shuttle was actually built?" threads, I decided to post this thread, because I don't think that the shuttle would actually be a good deal. Yes, it would be "reusable", but as Zurbin and many others have shown, even if Shuttle were to fly dozens of times a year, the necessary replacement parts would cost quite a bit. Also,since the shuttle was designed to do it all, all that weight for a combined crew carrier and cargo carrier that has wings would be quite a bit- big enough to require a massive fuel tank and even then, the payload would be limited by the weight of the shuttle itself and the payload bay size. And don't get me started on how the crew basically can't bail out if something goes wrong during the ascent to orbit, because building a crew cabin that can eject was too expensive. I have to agree with Zurbin that a small crew shuttle and a separate heavy-lift cargo launcher that gradually is changed to become reusable over time would be a much better idea then the big shuttle that NASA wanted to build before Nixon cancelled that idea.

OOC: This is from an ATL where Nixon cancels the shuttle and NASA is left doing Skylab and Spacelab missions in Earth orbit using a Apollo-Titan IIIM combination.
 
Some of the things that the shuttle was supposed to be used to build looked pretty interesting, like the proposed joint space station project with the Russians.

iss_sunrise.jpg


I have to admit that that's pretty damn impressive looking, but if we had gone with the shuttle we wouldn't have gotten the Grand Tour flights. That photograph of Ben Schofield performing an EVA with Jupiter and the Galilean Moons in the background is legendary.
 
Some of the things that the shuttle was supposed to be used to build looked pretty interesting, like the proposed joint space station project with the Russians.

iss_sunrise.jpg


I have to and that that's pretty damn impressive looking, but if we had gone with the shuttle we wouldn't have gotten the Grand Tour flights. That photograph of Ben Schofield performing an EVA with Jupiter and the Galilean Moons in the background is legendary.

OOC: Actually, I said in the OP that NASA stays in Earth orbit... :p ;)
 
Of course it would! Youve seen the NASA estimates of $20M per flight! That would totally, i mean TOTALLY revolutionize space flight. We would have dirt cheap access to space, lots of space stations, commercial 0 gee manufacturing.

Sure, the semi expendable nature of the machine, and the pushing of the state of the art would mean that costs would be higher. No aerospace project comes in on time or on budget. But even things like the ETs (external tanks) would be manufactured at a rate of hundreds a year, and the costs would drop fast.

Initial plans were for 5 orbiters each flying something like once a week, for atotal of oover 200 flights a year oncethey got things in full swing.

Again, even if we cut that in half, thats still a hundred flights a year.

No other nation could possibly compete with that. The Euro rocket consortium Transpace, would have gone belly up, or reduced to launching about 1 flight a year with sensitive military payloads.

Besides, even the expendable SRBs (thats Solid Rocket Booster) would soon have been replaced with lquid fuelled boosters, and then by fly back boosters, so the only thing expended would then have been that ET, which by then would be dirt cheap.

Yes the naysayers have pointed out a few flaws that might possibly have cropped up, but once they ramp up flights, theyll be introducing a new orbiter to the fleet every year or two, and any little wrinkles can be ironed out in the later marques.

-----
OOC: THe above is basically what NASA promised us, and silly fanbois we were, we believed them. The idea that they would be overoptimistic was to be expected. The fact they were lying through their teeth to us and to Congress was not. Some of those guys should have been jailed for fraud.

Am i bitter? You might say.
 
Of course it would! Youve seen the NASA estimates of $20M per flight! That would totally, i mean TOTALLY revolutionize space flight. We would have dirt cheap access to space, lots of space stations, commercial 0 gee manufacturing.

Sure, the semi expendable nature of the machine, and the pushing of the state of the art would mean that costs would be higher. No aerospace project comes in on time or on budget. But even things like the ETs (external tanks) would be manufactured at a rate of hundreds a year, and the costs would drop fast.

Initial plans were for 5 orbiters each flying something like once a week, for atotal of oover 200 flights a year oncethey got things in full swing.

Again, even if we cut that in half, thats still a hundred flights a year.

No other nation could possibly compete with that. The Euro rocket consortium Transpace, would have gone belly up, or reduced to launching about 1 flight a year with sensitive military payloads.

Besides, even the expendable SRBs (thats Solid Rocket Booster) would soon have been replaced with lquid fuelled boosters, and then by fly back boosters, so the only thing expended would then have been that ET, which by then would be dirt cheap.

Yes the naysayers have pointed out a few flaws that might possibly have cropped up, but once they ramp up flights, theyll be introducing a new orbiter to the fleet every year or two, and any little wrinkles can be ironed out in the later marques.

-----
OOC: THe above is basically what NASA promised us, and silly fanbois we were, we believed them. The idea that they would be overoptimistic was to be expected. The fact they were lying through their teeth to us and to Congress was not. Some of those guys should have been jailed for fraud.

Am i bitter? You might say.


OOC: To be fair to NASA Congress added a lot of crap to the shuttle program. That increased costs greatly.
 

Archibald

Banned
Only the shuttle could have brought the flawed Hubble back to Earth surface for repairs. Without the shuttle astronauts had to try and repair in orbit (!) and we all know how that business ended
(pretty bad for the crew, plus NASA had to launch another, non-flawed $3 billion space telescope, and then the flawed one re-entered uncontrolled, with its debris causing havoc over Texas)
 
Only the shuttle could have brought the flawed Hubble back to Earth surface for repairs. Without the shuttle astronauts had to try and repair in orbit (!) and we all know how that business ended
(pretty bad for the crew, plus NASA had to launch another, non-flawed $3 billion space telescope, and then the flawed one re-entered uncontrolled, with its debris causing havoc over Texas)

Ooc. Why would repairs in orbit be worse without a shuttle? Besides, for the cost of the otl upgrades they could have launched a spare and had TWO hubbles.
 
Top