Shuttle concept most capable

Shuttle concept most Capable
Many are critical of the shuttle, they say it is not economically viable.  Did you expect a vehicle as capable as the shuttle that is pushing the envelope to go into service and meet all the original design goals during the first design iteration and to be financially viable too?
Look at the history of other complex systems which ” push the envelope”. How many shuttles do you see flying on a regular basis?
Even if USA proposal was to have commenced, the shuttle at this iteration would require some gov support.

Eventually it could evolve into a financially sound operation.  DOD operation would be integrated into shuttle services.  Other LV would of course continue to be used for missions appropriate to those LV’s.

The shuttle would continue to evolve into an improved design.  The shuttle concept supports a logical progression to earth orbit and to other destinations more distant from earth.
Failure to utilize the shuttle and improve it will essentially cede control of China.

Commercially operated shuttle for 1/3 cost
NASA knew right answer– operate shuttle commercially–wanted to spend more
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 8:52 PM 0 comments  There was a solution and NASA knew it. That solution was to commercialize the STS Space Shuttles and use them in conjunction with a new Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch vehicle, such a Shuttle-C. Shuttle-C could have been built for about $10 billion or about the same money wasted on Constellation before it got cancelled. A Shuttle-C could have lifted some 70,000kg into space. Sharing resources, facilities, and even missions would have reduced the cost for both the Commercial Shuttles and the Shuttle-C. NASA demonstrated the ability to operate the Shuttles at reduced cost when it started shifting people from the bloated Shuttle program to Constellation because this reduce Shutle flight costs from about $1.3 billion to only $750 million. Something NASA kept sayind couldn’t be done. The simple fact is the Shuttles died because NASA and the Aerospace Industry didn’t want a couple of billion dollars a year flying the Shuttles, they wanted the $200 Billion + building Constellation. At the price you could have flown the Shuttles on over 200 missions. So the Shuttles died and our manned space program was slaughterd for pork. Now they are promoting SLS, which is a vehicle with no mission other than pork.
What kind of people are leading US Space Program? Are they Brain Dead?
What kind of people are leading US Space Program?? Are they Brain Dead?
Posted on January 15, 2012 by Bob
We have a capable, reliable vehicle in a museum on which we have spent 100 of billions. We depend on this capability to service systems in orbit (HST, ISS, unknown national security assets) on which we have invested 100 or more billions. Replacement vehicles are 10 years or more away and none of them have the capability of the shuttle such as payload, use of arm, EVA capability, runway landing. We are spending 60 million 6 times a year for Russian transport to the station on a vehicle which does not meet NASA’s manned rating requirements ( read ASAP minutes on this subject, read NASA analysis of Soyus & Hale blog).

Failure to continue the shuttle concept will result in an inferior design solution.  The commercial solutions now in work greatly under estimate the difficulty of the mission and are not adequately
funded.

The shuttle is unbelievably capable, three papers cover its history and potential they are:
The Case to Save the Shuttle
On the Early Retirement of the Shuttle
Nonsensical retirement of the Shuttle.
Plus Commercialization of shuttle by shuttleCom .
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 8:13 PM 0 comments