28 ms·

1903 - 1947 - 1969 - 2020, so 22 years not 12 (sorry, it just didn't feel right so had to check).

avmich 6y ago
12 years after Armstrong was the first Columbia flight. We definitely did a lot in space since the one small step. The whole concept of orbital stations went from idea to everyday reality. Commercialization of space - like, successes of Ariane-4 and then Dennis Tito and others is also a significant step. We're expecting more any year now.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  In some sense, the space shuttle was a step to the side. The original idea was to get travel to orbit almost on level of airliners, reasonably priced and with short turnaround times, a mission every week or so. The final design of the space shuttle was not able to support this kind of use. Very expensive and refurbishment demanded a lot of human work. So it sapped a lot of money and workforce from the space program.
  - qayxc 6y ago
    > The final design of the space shuttle was not able to support this kind of use It very well could have been. The trouble was that the initial cost projections called for 50+ flights per year, but demand only warranted 3.5 flights per year on average. It's a fate that every heavy orbital transport system shared so far - just look at the Falcon Heavy. How many launches did it have? Two (technically three, if you include the maiden flight)? That's 1 flight per year with another two classified DoD payloads scheduled for next year. There's simply no demand for heavy lift vehicles outside of building space stations and DoD contracts. In the end STS was too big and expensive for just ferrying people into space and too complex for just getting payloads into LEO. It could've made up for that by always doing both, but there simply wasn't a destination in LEO for people to go to and not enough 27.5t LEO payloads (~10t GTO). For instance in 1985 there were only 25 orbital launches in total, 9(!!!) of which Space Shuttle launches and 6 other US rocket launches. Nowhere near the envisioned weekly or even just fortnightly launch cadence required to get the cost down.
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      Yes, the demand wasn't there. The space shuttle had enormous LEO capacity, far exceeding actual needs. At least routine needs. As you say, two to three times a year... AFAIK the final design of the heat shield did not allow for much shorter turnaround time than several weeks. It was necessary to inspect around 30 thousand tiles by "eye and hand" and those tiles were unique, so replacements had to be precision made. This is a system that just eats time of qualified people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protection_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protecti...
      - qayxc 6y ago
        I wonder what SpaceX will do about that. They also use tiles and they will need to inspect them after each flight, too. Today we have new techniques available. I think the shuttle could be inspected much quicker now than 10-20 years ago - AI can help a lot with automated checks and 3D-printing as well as simplified tile layout (like the Soviets used for Buran) would also shorten inspection time and reduce cost. I honestly see the main risk with Starship in the heat shield. Musk loves to take unnecessary shortcuts like no flame deflector tunnel on the launch pad which lead to completely avoidable problems (like the SN8 static fire that destroyed an engine due to debris from the launch pad). The Shuttle had foam damaging tiles and Starship may have debris from the launch or landing damage heat tiles. They will have to be very careful with that and not be arrogant about it.
melling 6y ago
Thanks. Fixed it. We went to the moon in half the time it took us to go from first flight to the speed of sound. We accomplished a lot in about 70 years.

12 years after Armstrong was the first Columbia flight. We definitely did a lot in space since the one small step. The whole concept of orbital stations went from idea to everyday reality. Commercialization of space - like, successes of Ariane-4 and then Dennis Tito and others is also a significant step. We're expecting more any year now.

inglor_cz 6y ago
In some sense, the space shuttle was a step to the side. The original idea was to get travel to orbit almost on level of airliners, reasonably priced and with short turnaround times, a mission every week or so. The final design of the space shuttle was not able to support this kind of use. Very expensive and refurbishment demanded a lot of human work. So it sapped a lot of money and workforce from the space program.
- qayxc 6y ago
  > The final design of the space shuttle was not able to support this kind of use It very well could have been. The trouble was that the initial cost projections called for 50+ flights per year, but demand only warranted 3.5 flights per year on average. It's a fate that every heavy orbital transport system shared so far - just look at the Falcon Heavy. How many launches did it have? Two (technically three, if you include the maiden flight)? That's 1 flight per year with another two classified DoD payloads scheduled for next year. There's simply no demand for heavy lift vehicles outside of building space stations and DoD contracts. In the end STS was too big and expensive for just ferrying people into space and too complex for just getting payloads into LEO. It could've made up for that by always doing both, but there simply wasn't a destination in LEO for people to go to and not enough 27.5t LEO payloads (~10t GTO). For instance in 1985 there were only 25 orbital launches in total, 9(!!!) of which Space Shuttle launches and 6 other US rocket launches. Nowhere near the envisioned weekly or even just fortnightly launch cadence required to get the cost down.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Yes, the demand wasn't there. The space shuttle had enormous LEO capacity, far exceeding actual needs. At least routine needs. As you say, two to three times a year... AFAIK the final design of the heat shield did not allow for much shorter turnaround time than several weeks. It was necessary to inspect around 30 thousand tiles by "eye and hand" and those tiles were unique, so replacements had to be precision made. This is a system that just eats time of qualified people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protection_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protecti...
    - qayxc 6y ago
      I wonder what SpaceX will do about that. They also use tiles and they will need to inspect them after each flight, too. Today we have new techniques available. I think the shuttle could be inspected much quicker now than 10-20 years ago - AI can help a lot with automated checks and 3D-printing as well as simplified tile layout (like the Soviets used for Buran) would also shorten inspection time and reduce cost. I honestly see the main risk with Starship in the heat shield. Musk loves to take unnecessary shortcuts like no flame deflector tunnel on the launch pad which lead to completely avoidable problems (like the SN8 static fire that destroyed an engine due to debris from the launch pad). The Shuttle had foam damaging tiles and Starship may have debris from the launch or landing damage heat tiles. They will have to be very careful with that and not be arrogant about it.

melling 6y ago

Thanks. Fixed it. We went to the moon in half the time it took us to go from first flight to the speed of sound. We accomplished a lot in about 70 years.