Re: Space Shuttle criticizing will start once it has been retired



Derek Lyons wrote:
My view is that Congress and Nixon shoved the eternal tank SRB design
down NASA's throat because they were unwilling to fund the original concept of a mothership with the orbiter attached.

Your view is bull*** because there isn't any 'original' concept for
the Shuttle design to have strayed from, only a long line of ever
evolving designs constrained not just by cost, but also by technical
feasibility.

No, they did go with the chosen design (the "Baseline Shuttle") because it was the one that could be developed at the lowest cost even if operating costs per mission went up via the loss of the ET and the need to recover and re-certify the SRB segments after every flight.
The classic Faget design with a reusable winged booster and a lot more internal propellants in the orbiter would have seriously upped development costs and cut into payload weight simultaneously.
If this concept was actually doable: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/staipper.htm it would have made a hell of a lot more sense than what they actually came up with, particularly in that in its classified version it was supposed to use linear plug-nozzle engines on the orbiter.
If they had gone that route with StarClipper (drop tanks) it probably would have been successful.

Pat
.

Quantcast