What could the shuttle have been?

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:19:34 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

if shuttle C had been built its likely the shuttle would still be
flying today.........

More likely, Shuttle would have retired a few years ago and Orion or
something like it would be flying atop Shuttle-C today.

Why? The long pole in the tent was never lack of an adequate launch
vehicle. Either of the EELV's would serve this purpose adequately.
Prior to Griffin taking over NASA, there were studies done and papers
written to support this.

Griffin's goal of building and flying Ares V, with Ares I hiding much of
the development costs necessitated new studies which "proved" EELV's
weren't up to the task.

Note that the first (unmanned) Orion test flight will be launched on an
EELV. If NASA could launch Mercury and Gemini on slightly modified
ICBM's, Orion could just as easily fly on slightly modified EELV's.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article 2ec26a92-9b36-42fa-af5b-
, says...

well to all employeed, and the space coast the shuttle would still be
flying.....

C would do heavy deliveries, and perhaps capsules.

plus the unique shuttle abilities would still be supported........

this was a obvious solution...........

This was a proposed solution, but there was never enough funding, or
political support, for Shuttle C. It's high development costs and high
operational costs could never be justified.

The real problem with NASA manned spaceflight has never been lack of
ideas, it's been lack of funding for the (expensive) ideas that it
repeatedly comes up with.

The first step in any sustainable NASA manned space effort ought to be
the realization that its budget simply will not increase. It then
follows that any proposed new manned space program needs to fit within
existing budgets, with a healthy margin to handle unforeseen development
problems, which always crop up.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:23:45 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

More likely, Shuttle would have retired a few years ago and Orion or
something like it would be flying atop Shuttle-C today.

Why?

Politics, of course.

The long pole in the tent was never lack of an adequate launch
vehicle. Either of the EELV's would serve this purpose adequately.

Agreed. But the idea has been repeatedly and vehemently killed in
Congresses controlled by both parties, so there really isn't any point
in arguing the matter any more.

Prior to Griffin taking over NASA, there were studies done and papers
written to support this.

And Congress had a severe allergic reaction to it. The answer was no.
Not just 'no', but 'hell no'. Not enough pork to go around.

This isn't what killed Shuttle-C, though. Shuttle-C was killed because
of Yet Another Space Station Budget Overrun circa 1991 (an overrun
which got Space Station Freedom killed a year later.)

Griffin's goal of building and flying Ares V, with Ares I hiding much of
the development costs necessitated new studies which "proved" EELV's
weren't up to the task.

True, but Shuttle-C's availabliltiy from about 1995 would have
rendered the "1 1/2 launch" architecture irrelevant. NASA would have
been able to use Shuttle-C as its "Ares I" and move on to a more
modest Ares V (since Shuttle-C was much more capable than Ares I.)

Note that the first (unmanned) Orion test flight will be launched on an
EELV.

Only because Ares I was canceled 18 months ago. If NASA had Shuttle-C
since the 1990s, Ares I would not have been necessary and Orion would
probably be flying by now. They could have moved straight on to Ares
V/SLS/DIRECT.

If NASA could launch Mercury and Gemini on slightly modified
ICBM's, Orion could just as easily fly on slightly modified EELV's.

Could, sure. But will? No. Congress specifically wrote their spending
bill to say that NASA couldn't do that. They have to use Shuttle
heritage. And the space state politicians are already circling their
wagons for the coming budget battles. This isn't going to change.

Brian

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:23:45 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

More likely, Shuttle would have retired a few years ago and Orion or
something like it would be flying atop Shuttle-C today.

Why?

Politics, of course.

The long pole in the tent was never lack of an adequate launch
vehicle. Either of the EELV's would serve this purpose adequately.

Agreed. But the idea has been repeatedly and vehemently killed in
Congresses controlled by both parties, so there really isn't any point
in arguing the matter any more.

Prior to Griffin taking over NASA, there were studies done and papers
written to support this.

And Congress had a severe allergic reaction to it. The answer was no.
Not just 'no', but 'hell no'. Not enough pork to go around.

This isn't what killed Shuttle-C, though. Shuttle-C was killed because
of Yet Another Space Station Budget Overrun circa 1991 (an overrun
which got Space Station Freedom killed a year later.)

Griffin's goal of building and flying Ares V, with Ares I hiding much of
the development costs necessitated new studies which "proved" EELV's
weren't up to the task.

True, but Shuttle-C's availabliltiy from about 1995 would have
rendered the "1 1/2 launch" architecture irrelevant. NASA would have
been able to use Shuttle-C as its "Ares I" and move on to a more
modest Ares V (since Shuttle-C was much more capable than Ares I.)

Note that the first (unmanned) Orion test flight will be launched on an
EELV.

Only because Ares I was canceled 18 months ago. If NASA had Shuttle-C
since the 1990s, Ares I would not have been necessary and Orion would
probably be flying by now. They could have moved straight on to Ares
V/SLS/DIRECT.

Ares I was never necessary from an engineering point of view. Ares I
was invented as a tool to hide some of Ares V's massive development
costs. Again, the EELV's were available and would have been sufficient
for Orion.

If NASA could launch Mercury and Gemini on slightly modified
ICBM's, Orion could just as easily fly on slightly modified EELV's.

Could, sure. But will? No. Congress specifically wrote their spending
bill to say that NASA couldn't do that. They have to use Shuttle
heritage. And the space state politicians are already circling their
wagons for the coming budget battles. This isn't going to change.

This was well after Griffin pitched *his* chosen ESAS architecture to
the politicians, supported by a study where the appendices were never
released (because it really wasn't the best solution).

I'll admit that Griffin was good at giving the politicians what they
wanted. Unfortunately for him, the political solution wasn't a good
engineering one, and Ares I turned out to be a real dog. On top of
that, Ares I redesigns impacted Orion repeatedly.

If it weren't for Ares I, Orion would already be flying on EELV's.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker