3 ms·

> It is just that "shuttles" are just a bad idea to start with. Shuttles are a fantastic idea. Just because the implementation wasn't brilliant doesn't make th

> It is just that "shuttles" are just a bad idea to start with. Shuttles are a fantastic idea. Just because the implementation wasn't brilliant doesn't make the idea bad. Then again I'd strongly disagree with your claim that the Shuttle program was bad in the first place. It had a very successful and impressive 30 year carrier. The comparisons of the Shuttle vs. the Soyuz are bad in the first place as the two platforms are vastly different in lifting capability. The correct comparison would be the Shuttle vs. the Proton-M/K, and the Protons are far from reliable (Proton-M has had 8 failed launches since 2001). Without the Space Shuttle we wouldn't have the ISS for example. > Sounds like historically their design is just better. Better than what? The Saturn V is the only rocket that has propelled humans to the moon, and the entire Saturn family has zero deaths. And the Saturn V remains to this day the heaviest lifter mankind has created (NASA's SLS and China's Long March 9 are in development to surpass the Saturn V)

rdtsc 13y ago
> Just because the implementation wasn't brilliant doesn't make the idea bad. We have two countries that tried to build them and in the end it is still 60s tried and true technology that puts man in space. Some of those reasons are price, some politics. But that needs to be factored in the end. Formulas and blueprints don't launch people into orbit. Another way to put it, if the idea is so complicated that nobody got it to be implemented properly and no country is actively working on a new design, I say there is something with the idea. > Without the Space Shuttle we wouldn't have the ISS for example. That is true. But just like the idea that shuttles are great just that nobody engineered them well enough (yet?) one can also say well hypothetically if NASA had an equivalent program to Soyuz maybe they would have had more money in the pocket to build an even bigger and better ISS, or ISS would have been there a lot sooner. > Better than what? Better for fairly regularly flying people into orbit or to orbital space stations. Saturn V is awesome. That's great, I agree. If we were to still fly to the moon that would be the vehicle to use.
- kllrnohj 13y ago
  > We have two countries that tried to build them and in the end it is still 60s tried and true technology that puts man in space. Some of those reasons are price, some politics. One country succeeded, and the other stopped being a country. In neither case did the idea fail. > Another way to put it, if the idea is so complicated that nobody got it to be implemented properly and no country is actively working on a new design, I say there is something with the idea. No, that's called learning from experience. There's nothing wrong with the idea. It's an idea still actively being explored by a variety of people as well, and the tech developed for the Shuttle programs lives on the SLS and Ares vehicles that NASA is replacing the Shuttle with. > one can also say well hypothetically if NASA had an equivalent program to Soyuz maybe they would have had more money in the pocket to build an even bigger and better ISS, or ISS would have been there a lot sooner. We can state with certainty that the ISS would have happened a lot LATER if all we had was Soyuz vehicles, if it would have happened at all. Soyuz lacks the capacity to build the ISS or to do space walk repairs. There's a reason Proton was used more than Soyuz was in the construction of the ISS. Soyuz is good for some things, building space stations, repairing satellites, or getting to the moon/mars are all not on that list. Also you do realize the Shuttle wasn't the only NASA vehicle, right? NASA does have Soyuz-class vehicles, such as the Atlas or the Delta (Atlas-Centaur alone has more flights than the Shuttle)

rdtsc 13y ago

> Just because the implementation wasn't brilliant doesn't make the idea bad. We have two countries that tried to build them and in the end it is still 60s tried and true technology that puts man in space. Some of those reasons are price, some politics. But that needs to be factored in the end. Formulas and blueprints don't launch people into orbit. Another way to put it, if the idea is so complicated that nobody got it to be implemented properly and no country is actively working on a new design, I say there is something with the idea. > Without the Space Shuttle we wouldn't have the ISS for example. That is true. But just like the idea that shuttles are great just that nobody engineered them well enough (yet?) one can also say well hypothetically if NASA had an equivalent program to Soyuz maybe they would have had more money in the pocket to build an even bigger and better ISS, or ISS would have been there a lot sooner. > Better than what? Better for fairly regularly flying people into orbit or to orbital space stations. Saturn V is awesome. That's great, I agree. If we were to still fly to the moon that would be the vehicle to use.

kllrnohj 13y ago
> We have two countries that tried to build them and in the end it is still 60s tried and true technology that puts man in space. Some of those reasons are price, some politics. One country succeeded, and the other stopped being a country. In neither case did the idea fail. > Another way to put it, if the idea is so complicated that nobody got it to be implemented properly and no country is actively working on a new design, I say there is something with the idea. No, that's called learning from experience. There's nothing wrong with the idea. It's an idea still actively being explored by a variety of people as well, and the tech developed for the Shuttle programs lives on the SLS and Ares vehicles that NASA is replacing the Shuttle with. > one can also say well hypothetically if NASA had an equivalent program to Soyuz maybe they would have had more money in the pocket to build an even bigger and better ISS, or ISS would have been there a lot sooner. We can state with certainty that the ISS would have happened a lot LATER if all we had was Soyuz vehicles, if it would have happened at all. Soyuz lacks the capacity to build the ISS or to do space walk repairs. There's a reason Proton was used more than Soyuz was in the construction of the ISS. Soyuz is good for some things, building space stations, repairing satellites, or getting to the moon/mars are all not on that list. Also you do realize the Shuttle wasn't the only NASA vehicle, right? NASA does have Soyuz-class vehicles, such as the Atlas or the Delta (Atlas-Centaur alone has more flights than the Shuttle)