5 ms·
> PS: It was also horribly compromised based on Airforce requirements yet never flew a single Airforce mission. The shuttles flew a few DoD missions, including
by Crito 12y ago
> PS: It was also horribly compromised based on Airforce requirements yet never flew a single Airforce mission.
The shuttles flew a few DoD missions, including I believe at least one for the Air Force (a DSCS satellite during STS-51-J I believe? Maybe others, which DoD mission was for who isn't nicely broken down anywhere that I can find. It looks like most were for the NRO).
However none of the Shuttles ever flew a polar orbit mission; an ability that the Air Force demanded but never used. The large cross-range capabilities of the shuttle (necessitating such large wings) was for polar orbit missions, so those massive wings were dead weight caused by the Air Force.
- sitkack 12y agoFunny because wasn't the shuttle-c used for military missions and it has almost no wings.
- Retric 12y agoI should have been more clear. The airforce had two mission profiles outside NASA's goals. Polar orbits AND capturing Russian satilites. Neither of those missions types where ever flown. The Airforce ended up having a huge impact on the design including much larger cargo bay etc but it was those two mission profiles that really fucked up the design. If NASA had gotten it's way the shuttle would have been more reliable and cost less than 1/3 as much per mission at the cost of significantly lowered cargo capasity. Intact both shuttle disasters can be traced back to these compromises.
- TorKlingberg 12y agoNot that I disagree with you, but capturing Russian satellites may be the kind of thing you want the ability, but are not actually planning to do it.
- tomswartz07 12y agoFunnily enough, Russia 'copied' the shuttle design for the Buran. That ship was almost exclusively designed for millitary use. It was speculated that they planned to carry nuclear weapons up in the cargo bay.
- sitkack 12y agoI know, wouldn't a constellation of nukes in low earth orbit be amazing. It would only take 200 to 300 seconds to deorbit from LEO.
- harywilke 12y agoAsk the people of Palomares Spain how much they like that idea. They had a couple of nuclear bombs accidentally drop out of the sky there after a mishap in the 60's when the US had nukes in the air at all times.
- ufmace 12y agoFrom what I've read, the idea doesn't actually work very well. Since they're in orbit, you only have a relatively small window per orbit to get it to hit any particular place. If you want to be able to hit any particular place with that kind of notice, you need like dozens of them in the same orbit. Maybe a bunch of orbits, depending on how the cross-range capability is. You could well end up with a constellation of hundreds in orbit. You're better off putting those weapons on surface-based ICBMs. It'll take a little longer to get to target than the idea case in orbit, but you can launch all of them at a small area at once if you need to. They're a lot easier to maintain and decommission on the ground too - worth considering, since I think we'd all rather not ever have to use the things.
- 12y ago