35 Years ago today - Columbia STS1
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
Flooble said:
To be fair to the vehicle though, it was 2 vehicle failures out of 135 missions. The fact it carried seven crew (rather than 2 or 3 on the other launch vehicles) makes it look somewhat worse than it was.
That's true. Did it really need seven I wonder?The new Orion craft will seat up to six, so seven probably was a bit excessive.
Einion Yrth said:
Eric Mc said:
On a launch by launch basis, the costs involved weren't far off the cost of launching a Saturn V.
But a Saturn V could place almost ten times as much payload into low earth orbit.
Couldn't bring stuff back, though.But a Saturn V could place almost ten times as much payload into low earth orbit.
Flooble said:
Einion Yrth said:
Eric Mc said:
On a launch by launch basis, the costs involved weren't far off the cost of launching a Saturn V.
But a Saturn V could place almost ten times as much payload into low earth orbit.
Couldn't bring stuff back, though.But a Saturn V could place almost ten times as much payload into low earth orbit.
Einion Yrth said:
Couldn't bring stuff back, though.
A limited capability, to be honest. It was only used on a handful of missions and was completely non-cost effective.NASA was extremely nervy about bringing back duff satellites in the cargo bay. It caused weight and balance issues during re-entry and landing and there were also major safety concern due to the unburned propellants remaining in the satellites' fuel tanks.
The only significant payload that was worth bringing back was the Eldef (Extreme Long Duration Exposure Facility) which was as large as the bay and designed to be retrieved and brought back to earth in the Shuttle.
Most payloads you take into space, you don't really want to bring back.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 14th April 11:48
Dog Star said:
Article said:
At the end of the space shuttle program, NASA said the average cost to prepare and launch a mission was approximately $775 million. The lifetime cost of the shuttle program was $113.7 billion.
Good grief! I knew it was expensive but that is something else 
NASA was limited to a development cost of $10 billion at 1971 levels. I'm sure the actual costs were more like $100 billion.
It was assumed that the Shuttle fleet would carry out around 2,000 missions between 1977 and 1990. In reality, it carried out 135 missions (133 that actually worked) between 1981 and 2011.
It was assumed that the Shuttle fleet would carry out around 2,000 missions between 1977 and 1990. In reality, it carried out 135 missions (133 that actually worked) between 1981 and 2011.
I did realise though that in nearly twice the service life Soyuz (the capsule) has still not equalled the number of Shuttle missions. So despite getting nowhere near the 48 hour turnaround they originally talked about (laughably), it did manage a fair old mission rate. Especially with two long hiatuses after the accidents.
It's a little spurious to compare the two launch systems.
Soyuz (the manned version) is only one of many, many payloads that can be lofted into orbit by the R7 family of boosters. If you take these into account, you are looking at many hundreds of launches.
At the time the Shuttle was being pitched at Congress, it was proposed that 100% of ALL US launches would be carried on it and that ALL expendable boosters would be retired. On that score, the Shuttle also failed. Indeed, the US military were never comfortable with having to be solely reliant on the Shuttle and were actually quite relieved when, post Challenger, the notion that the Shuttle would be the US's only booster was quietly shelved.
Soyuz (the manned version) is only one of many, many payloads that can be lofted into orbit by the R7 family of boosters. If you take these into account, you are looking at many hundreds of launches.
At the time the Shuttle was being pitched at Congress, it was proposed that 100% of ALL US launches would be carried on it and that ALL expendable boosters would be retired. On that score, the Shuttle also failed. Indeed, the US military were never comfortable with having to be solely reliant on the Shuttle and were actually quite relieved when, post Challenger, the notion that the Shuttle would be the US's only booster was quietly shelved.
Interesting facts guys. Thanks
So, SpaceX.... what are they on for a per launch cost? I presume its favourable (especially if they can land the launch vehicle back on the floating pad in the sea. Though I'd like to see them do that a few more times before declaring their recent landing a success).
Is there a book or website somewhere that documents the birth of the Shuttle? I am guessing its going to be a fascinating read and not just from the engineering point of view.
So, SpaceX.... what are they on for a per launch cost? I presume its favourable (especially if they can land the launch vehicle back on the floating pad in the sea. Though I'd like to see them do that a few more times before declaring their recent landing a success).
Is there a book or website somewhere that documents the birth of the Shuttle? I am guessing its going to be a fascinating read and not just from the engineering point of view.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 14th April 12:19
I have quite a few Shuttle related books in my library - some of which go back to the era before the Shuttle even flew. It's quite educational to read the claims that were being made for the system in 1977 compared to the reality as told in the retrospectives that are now coming out.
I have the following -
- 1979
- 1979
Both of these books were published years before Columbia's first flight and are wildly optimistic about what the programme was going to do.
The next book I bought came out in 1983, just as the programme was moving up a gear and although more realistic is still infused with over optimism
The next batch of books have all come out in recent years and are obviously far more realistic in their assessment of the programme -
This book is by Dr David Baker, who also wrote the first book I show in this list - and he does refer back from time to time to the rather silly claims being made in his original book.
Still my favourite book on the Shuttle
These two books are by Nebraska University Press and are based on an oral history project they are carrying out on the history of NASA.
And finally Rowland White's new book on STS1
I have the following -
- 1979 - 1979Both of these books were published years before Columbia's first flight and are wildly optimistic about what the programme was going to do.
The next book I bought came out in 1983, just as the programme was moving up a gear and although more realistic is still infused with over optimism
The next batch of books have all come out in recent years and are obviously far more realistic in their assessment of the programme -
This book is by Dr David Baker, who also wrote the first book I show in this list - and he does refer back from time to time to the rather silly claims being made in his original book.
Still my favourite book on the Shuttle
These two books are by Nebraska University Press and are based on an oral history project they are carrying out on the history of NASA.
And finally Rowland White's new book on STS1
It's good to see the author can refer back to himself and doesn't try to pretend it never happened.
It is always a shame when politics gets in the way. I think that in the mid-70s there was a real chance of NASA ending up out of the manned spaceflight business altogether and the political games (e.g. allying with the military) were a grim necessity to retain funding and the hyperbole was driven from there. Much like the famous map which moved Australia 200 miles :-)
It is always a shame when politics gets in the way. I think that in the mid-70s there was a real chance of NASA ending up out of the manned spaceflight business altogether and the political games (e.g. allying with the military) were a grim necessity to retain funding and the hyperbole was driven from there. Much like the famous map which moved Australia 200 miles :-)
You can never separate politics from manned spaceflight when the agency devising the programmes and performing the flights is 100% dependent on government funding.
NASA was created by politicians.
It's first goal of putting a man into space was given to them by a politician (Dwight Eisenhower).
The goal of landing a man on the moon was a political goal (John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson).
And the Space Shuttle was yet another politically dictated programme (Richard Nixon and the Office of Management and Budget)
NASA was created by politicians.
It's first goal of putting a man into space was given to them by a politician (Dwight Eisenhower).
The goal of landing a man on the moon was a political goal (John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson).
And the Space Shuttle was yet another politically dictated programme (Richard Nixon and the Office of Management and Budget)
Eric Mc said:
You can never separate politics from manned spaceflight when the agency devising the programmes and performing the flights is 100% dependent on government funding.
NASA was created by politicians.
It's first goal of putting a man into space was given to them by a politician (Dwight Eisenhower).
The goal of landing a man on the moon was a political goal (John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson).
And the Space Shuttle was yet another politically dictated programme (Richard Nixon and the Office of Management and Budget)
Quite true. In many ways the reason humanity reached space and then did nothing much with it (manned) for 50+ years is because the progress was artificially accelerated by political posturing. So in many respects thinking "we went from the Wright Flyer to Vostok in less than 60 years, in the following 60 we haven't moved forwards" is a bit of a misnomer. Realistically advancement only tends to happen when there is an underlying commercial imperative. Sometimes it takes a bit of government pump-priming (the US Mail Flights for example) but if an endeavour cannot stand on its own two feet and make a profit it won't tend to last. NASA was created by politicians.
It's first goal of putting a man into space was given to them by a politician (Dwight Eisenhower).
The goal of landing a man on the moon was a political goal (John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson).
And the Space Shuttle was yet another politically dictated programme (Richard Nixon and the Office of Management and Budget)
It will be interesting to see where SpaceX goes with the Dragon.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff