ITT: things that never saw their true potential
>>1292390Wait, nevermind, OP is a faggot who didn't have any potential in the first place.
>>1292388I don't know. Th Su-15 was just an interceptor that was meant to shoot down B-52's over the Pacific. In fact I think it only shot down 2 airlines in it's service.Now. take the Heinkel bomber 177. Maybe if they got most of the problems fixed early on. Maybe if the Germans had a few hundred built at the start of the war to Bomb england. Maybe if they didn't waste it on dive bombing.Who knows how it could have effected the war.
You want >>>k
Both of these unironically
The FEF class was meant to pull rakes of heavyweight Pullmans at 110 to 120 mph across the American heartland after WW2 but instead they were just replaced by diesels. I know 844 survived but we never got to see it or any of its sisters do 110 mph nonstop Kansas City to Denver for "The Pony Express" which was planned and for which roadbed improvements had been made. Tentative schedules put that journey at 6 hours 45 minutes, vs. the current 9 hours by car.
I don't know what to think of the Lear Fan. Probably should have somehow lighten the design and somehow further it's reach. Interesting design nonetheless.
>>1292720Obsolete by the time it flew. Impressive aircraft though. Glad one got preserved.
The buffalo subway.The Rockefeller era vision for an underground highway and full modernist city on downtown Albany.
>>1293928ill at least take solace in the fact that there is an alternate universe out there where this happened and all forms of transportation can co-exist in US cities.
>>1293960complete meme. current rockets do just fine for their purpose, I.E. wasting money because space exploration is nothing more than a propaganda front. there is literally nothing of value up there, and there never will be, and it seems like almost everyone aside from the murricans agree and arent wasting their time with such a retarded concept.
airships. everyones piss their pants scared of hydrogen because muh hindenberg
>>1293989the only thing thats scary about airships is the cost.
>>1293992how much is that cost due to using helium instead of hydrogen?
>>1293963>there is literally nothing of value up there, and there never will beDo you have stairs in your house?
>>1293963>there is literally nothing of value up there, and there never will be, and it seems like almost everyone aside from the murricans agree and arent wasting their time with such a retarded concept.Yeah except for giant fucking planet sized spheres of fossil fuels, water, and life more intelligent than us.>inb4 we'll never run out of space and resources on earthjust lol
>>1294061We may run out of space and resources on earth but we certainly won't ever run into planets with liquid water and intelligent life. Ever.This is not some "hurr durr we don't have the science and tech yet." No, we do already know enough about the science to know that reaching other star systems is impossible. Now, and in a million years, too.The only way to do it would be to build an artificial world humans can live on long term and maybe let it coast in the right direction, so the descendents of the original "pilots" will reach a new world in 5000 years or so.
>>1294066- Nothing will ever replace the horse - and even if, it would suck the air right away from you so noone could ever drive that fast- How should a plane fly? Its heavier than air... So dumb... Don't even try it.
>>1294108>"hurr durr we don't have the science and tech yet."
>>1292808I mean, the A380 was a super high capacity jumbo designed for airports with very limited slots. It works perfectly for airports like London Heathrow and London Gatwick, but as soon as you think about other major hubs like Amsterdam Schipol, then the thing which makes the A380 competitive goes away.The A318 was sort of a similar sort of deal, but for regional and STOL airports. Higher seating capacity for much, smaller airports, the size of a medium-haul narrow-body with the performance of a regional jet.The fact that both of them are reaching the end of the line is a sign that Airbus understands niche problems and has niche solutions for them, but you don't make a business out of niche products. DeHavilland Canada worked that one out too late.>>1293960Aerospike engines are unironically one of the best designs for launching payloads into LEO. The X-33 Venturestar would have been a good replacement for the Space Shuttle, not dealing with any of the safety issues the Space Shuttle had and not dealing with any of the dumb fucking design problems the Space Shuttle ran into, because the USAF funded the Space Shuttle because they thought they could use it to steal Soviet spy satellites and launch nuclear weapons platforms into LEO from Vandenburg.ARCA is working on an Aerospike engined rocket which will be used for the small sat market, but they're a small start-up, so they're on the slow side of things.
>>1294066>We may run out of space and resources on earthNo, we literally wont.It's all artificial scarcity designed to panic you, the taxpayer, into willingly giving more money so the company owners can get subsidies because of lobbying.
>>1294037Not as much as maintenance and infrastructure.Planes made airships obsolete.
The shuttle was supposed to be just a small part of a massive and ambitious program that included:1. A reusable low-cost earth-LEO transport system (the "space truck")2. An orbital station for staging and refueling3. An interplanetary nuclear-propelled (think NERVA) vehicle fleet4. A moon base5. A Mars colony, and beyondThe idea was that the low-cost shuttle would ferry people and cargo to the orbital station. From there, the nuclear vehicles (which would never have landed again on earth) would transport the people/cargo to their ultimate destination. Those destinations initially included a fully-fledged moon base and a rudimentary automated station on Mars.This was 1971. Congress were sick of space by now, and such a massively ambitious and expensive program just didn't jive with the public mood at the time. The moon base was the first to go, and the semi-occupied Mars colony was downgraded to a simple Apollo-style Mars landing. But this, too, was too much, and the program was further gutted to only the low-orbit station, with a reduced size and purpose. With no massive space station as a staging ground and no Mars/moon destination to go to, the interplanetary spaceship fleet became redundant, and was dropped as well.What remained was the truncated space station plan which would eventually become Skylab (and then, with Soviet experience with modular stations, the ISS), and the space shuttle program, which was now more or less useless.The shuttle program was further sabotaged by Cold War politics. Instead of going with one of the simpler, smaller and more ballistic designs, NASA was forced to choose a large and aerodynamic design out of fear that the shuttle could be captured by the Soviets in the case of an emergency re-entry. This plane-like design has proven to be overly complicated and expensive. The space shuttle program is rightfully seen as a failure.
>>1293963fuck off, conspirabot
>>1294119The problem with the X-33 is that physics causes SSTO via any chemically-fuelled propulsion to be a useless meme.
>>1296752>The shuttle program was further sabotaged by Cold War politics. Instead of going with one of the simpler, smaller and more ballistic designs, NASA was forced to choose a large and aerodynamic design out of fear that the shuttle could be captured by the Soviets in the case of an emergency re-entry.The winged design was for cross range, but not out of fear of soviet capture but because they wanted it to be able to take off and land without completing an entire orbit.The largeness was so it could fit inside some retarded military hardware the airforce wanted and steal soviet satellites.
>>1296752>The space shuttle program is rightfully seen as a failure.Brainlet tier
>>1296780No UBy the time the Space Shuttle was built, the mission for which it was conceived had been long dead and buried. The Orbiter turned out to be a maintenance headache, and never even came close to achieving the 2-week turnaround time that NASA promised. The entire STS system turned out to be extraordinarily fragile, and plagued with an increasing number and complexity of launch and mission constraints.
>>1297127DuuuUUUUuuuUHHHHhhHHHhhh Shuttle a failur b/c complexcated
>>1297127The ISS literally could not have been built without the Shuttle.
So many things....
>>1296780>The space shuttle program is rightfully seen as a failure.It was a failure before it left the drawing board.You had enough thrust (and ∂V) at lift off to put 90+ tonnes into LEO.Instead, you use that to accelerate 20 tonnes of useful payload and 70 tonnes of wing, fuselage and other unnecessary bolt-ons into orbit, that can only go a very limited distance from earth.Never mind that there's no launch escape system so if something goes wrong on take-off you get deep-fried crew.
>>1297570Should be ∆v, not ∂V.>>1297390A Saturn V derivative could have easily achieved it. It could have been built for cheaper and with fewer, larger modules like a modular skylab.
>>1292388Su-15 absolutely saw its full potential. It has three confirmed kills, with only one loss in air combat, it has basically the best air combat stats of all Soviet or Russian fighter aircraft. Korean Air Lines flight 007, a Boeing 747, with radar guided missile. Korean Air Lines Flight 902, a Boeing 707, with IR-guided missile. Transporte Aéreo Rioplatense charter flight, a Canadair CL-44, it was returning to Tel Aviv from Tehran when it strayed into Soviet airspace. It was involved in smuggling weapons from Israel to Iran. That was taken down with mid air collision, pilot was likely going for gun kill, but misjudged the distance.
>>1297463All you deserve desu>>1297570>Shuttle flies 133 successful missions>It was a failure before it left the drawing board!
>>1297658Design was compromised early on. Shuttle never delivered the one thing it was supposed to deliver. Cheap operations on earth orbit. It was far more expensive than expendable capsules.
>>1297681The Shuttle could do a few things that rockets couldn't like bring cargo back to Earth or facilitate repairs in orbit (especially with the manipulator arm). It also could carry a larger crew than rockets of its time.
>>1297769In original 60's proposals shuttle was much smaller and launched from back of aircraft. It would have been capable of doing pretty much everything the realized shuttle could do, aside from launching oversized satellites. In some cases it would have meant just more flights. Making it big made it dangerous to the crews and extremely expensive to operate, that happened because NASA was forced cooperate with military and intelligence agencies that wanted bigger payloads to orbit, to save money.
>>1297769These are post-hoc rationalizations.The shuttle had exactly one main goal: Make travel to/from low-earth orbit cheap and frequent. It failed, therefore it is a failure.It doesn't matter how cool you think the paintjob is or how many gadgets it has stuffed onboard. I'm not even saying the shuttle was a "bad" program, just that on an objective measure it failed to fulfil its primary purpose.
>>1297570The main point was reusability. It doesn't really matter if delta-v is "wasted" on carrying the shuttle along with the payload, because the cost of that "wasted" fuel is miniscule compared to the cost of building an entire fucking rocket for every launch.Where the shuttle program failed was in operational and maintenance costs, not the "wasted" delta-v.(Of course the shuttle was also useless for launching anything massive enough for any serious mission beyond LEO, but that isn't really fault with the shuttle itself. It was never designed for it. Under the original plan, there would have been other vehicles, permenantly residing in space, to take the shuttle's cargo and passengers to their ultimate destination.)
Canadian aviation in general.
>>1297790Noeven as a Canadian I have to admit that Canada has been punching above it's weight in aviation since the DHC-2 Beaver. We simply don't have the population or economy to support an industry of our own so we supply the US. We have some great engineering schools but can't pay our engineers what they would make in the States, so they go South. Brain Drain has been a problem of Canada as a whole for decades
>>1297779That was eliminated very early in the design stage, probably because it wasn't practical with the technology of the day.>>1297781>These are post-hoc rationalizations.They're not. The Shuttle did a number of things rockets couldn't do and it was designed that way from the start.Still, 133 successful missions is a """failure""" in retards' eyes because some dipshit on Youtube said rockets are easier
>>1297795It was eliminated because the shuttle was made larger to accommodate USAF/CIA/NRO payload requirements.
>>1297832Then explain the DoD-centric STS flights in the 1982-1992 time period
>>1298268because it was available
>>1298333Because Shuttle was changed to meet DoD requirements.
>>1298531As originally planned Space Shuttle was supposed to have crew of 4 and 9 tons of cargo capacity to LEO. What they actually built had capacity of almost three times as much cargo to LEO and larger crew. All that was done to accommodate DoD requirements, as shuttle wasn't going to get funded if it couldn't lift DoD and intelligence payloads. DoD wanted much larger cargo bay, NASA wanted 40ft by 12ft cargo bay, military and NRO wanted 60ft by 15ft cargo bay. Launch platform was supposed to be 747 sized mach 3+ capable aircraft, that would zoom climb to high altitude before shuttle would light it's engines.
>>1296752>Congress were sick of space by now, and such a massively ambitious and expensive program just didn't jive with the public mood at the time.We had to fight communists in Vietnam. We could have gone to space or fight a war. There wasn't enough money to do both.
>>1298648Yeah only the DoD would have a use for such high payloads. No one else could conceivably want to launch something that heavy into orbit
>>1298531>Again, doubtfulThe DOD gave NASA money for the STS (after NASA went begging because Congress gave them a middle finger) so they had design input. This is not controversial.
>>1298685It was enlarged because a small shuttle didn't make sense
>>1298665Making the shuttle capable of launching heavy and large payloads turned it from inexpensive launch vehicle to expensive launch vehicle. Large and heavy payloads should have been launched with expendable launch vehicles, anything smaller with shuttle or in some cases large payloads that could be broken into parts should have been launched to orbit with shuttle and assembled in orbit. >>1298686Smaller shuttle would have been far cheaper to operate and actually capable of much faster turn around on surface, capable of making flights frequent. Larger shuttle was forced upon NASA by politicians who wanted all DoD payloads to be launched with the shuttle as well. That ruined the whole idea cheap orbital operations.
>>1298701>Making the shuttle capable of launching heavy and large payloads turned it from inexpensive launch vehicle to expensive launch vehicleSo?>Larger shuttle was forced upon NASA by politicians who wanted all DoD payloads to be launched with the shuttle as well.Not entirely true
>>1292388It still hurts.
>>1298758>So?Costs are absolutely irrelevant? >Not entirely trueIt is the reason why the shuttle was made bigger, but ironically by 90's shuttle wasn't big enough for most DoD and intelligence payloads so they went back to expendable launch vehicles that were more flexible to their needs.Shuttle was a gigantic and expensive mistake on all levels.
>>1299540>Costs are absolutely irrelevant?Never said that>It is the reason why the shuttle was made biggerThe Shuttle was needed to lift payloads into orbit, some military and others civilian, so it stands to reason it would be enlarged to accommodate them>Shuttle was a gigantic and expensive mistake on all levels.Nope. It could do things a rocket couldn't.
>>1299544>The Shuttle was needed to lift payloads into orbit, some military and others civilian, so it stands to reason it would be enlarged to accommodate themIncreasing the payload made the shuttle into expensive as fuck to turn around between launches and unsafe for astronauts.
>>1298784I want to believe
>>1301136astronauts are cheap.hell, people pay the fucking RUSSIANS to send them into space for tourist purposes.
>>1301136I'm sure if the designers could see into the future they would have tweaked the design
>>1301140Looks like something from Ace Combat 3.
>Can carry 9-12 people to LEO>Parawing allows for runway landing>Doesn't need to develop an entirely new dedicated rocket>Reusable>Built from pre-existing hardwareWould have been miles better than the space shuttle if they could have kept the Saturn V in production and made parts of it reusable
>>1297607>one lossOne of the SU-15s chased a Viggen over the Baltic Sea. He kept harassing the Viggen pilot by locking radar onto it. The Viggen pilot tried all sorts of evasive maneuvers but the russki was always behind him.The Viggen pilot then climed to maximum altitude, waited for the russki and dived straight towards the sea. The Viggen automatically pulled up just above the waves. The SU-15 is still down there.
>>1301805>Has no launch escape system like Mercury, Apollo, Orion, Soyuz, Dragon or Starliner>Instead uses ejector seats>Ejector seats either propel crew into the ground at about 50 mph shortly after launch or into the exhaust of the hypergolic fueled Titan II
>>1301813You're thinking of the Gemini. The Big G actually utilized an Apollo Abort tower.
>>1292388So much potential wasted...
>>13018103:2 kill:loss ratio is still positive and better than any Soviet or Russian plane with exception Su-27, those have apparently shot down 3 MiG-29's with no loss in Eritrean–Ethiopian War.
>>1301805If it was better they would have gone with that type of design and not the Shuttle
>>1301946The reason the shuttle was chosen was because it offered cheaper launches to LEO and had capabilities of returning satellites to earth’s surface. However, because it was “designed by committee”, it ended up being less safe, more expensive, and not as capable compared to other concepts devised at the time. To top it off, after Challenger, they were no longer capable of quick turnaround times for other missions, and the cost increased dramatically. They were far less reusable than previously expected, requiring a near complete tear down after each mission.
>>1301992There was nothing wrong with the Orbiter though. The increased cost and slow turnaround was due to the usual bureaucratic red tape and government ineptitude
>>1302008It didn't really need to be man-rated, though. Because it was made with this in mind, it drove up the cost of the whole program, both in the short and long term. If the Air Force really wanted the ability to retrieve satellites from orbit, there wasn't anything dictating that it had to also serve as the main crewed vessel. The Buran ended up proving that this could be flown autonomously anyway, so it ended up being redundant in that role. In my arrogant opinion, NASA should have used the Big Gemini as the main crewed vessel, kept the Saturn rockets (IB and V) in production, but adapted them for reusability, and developed something unmanned to carry out the role of orbital retrieval of in-space objects. I'm definitely being a monday morning quarterback, but I genuinely think that this could have been a smarter way for NASA to have carried out these programs.
>>1302013Correction: They didn't need to be manned, not man-rated
>>1292388Didn't this have terrible radar capability?
>>1301146>tourist.Space tourism from Russian stand point is using excess capacity of some Soyuz launches to get some cash. They haven't launched a tourist in a long time. Tourists have paid 'em between 20 and 35 million in cash. In recent years they have billed NASA and ESA around 80 million per launched astronaut. >astronauts are cheap.Challenger disaster.>>1301805They would have needed to develop new launch vehicles. Titan IIIM and/or Saturn INT-20. Titan IIIM was larger evolution of Titan III with larger solid rocket boosters than earlier variants. Basically almost same thing that was manufactured as Titan IV-A couple decades after IIIM was cancelled. Probably most interesting Titan IV related plan was to use excess article Apollo capsule and lander for another moon landing in early 80's. They would have launched lander and crew with shuttle and followed by capsule on modified Titan IV built with light weight aluminium–lithium alloys, do orbital assembly on low earth orbit before going to moon.Saturn INT-20 was essentially 1st and 3rd stages of Saturn V with slight modifications and new interstage meant for earth orbit operations. Most major modification would have been modular engine configuration variant of S-IC for different mission configurations and to cut costs. Basically lower payload versions would have used less engines on first stage. Saturn INT would have probably made more sense out these options. Hardware cost of full Saturn V adjusted for inflation, not including R&D would be around 115 million. More launches over the years with derived designs would have probably lowered that cost due to economies of scale and R&D expenses being spread on more launches. >>1301946Most of its R&D had already been paid by USAF as Gemini B aka Manned Orbital Laboratory. That was essentially manned recon satellite.>>1302008Nothing wrong with no launch escape system or odd pieces of insulation falling from fuel tank to leading edge of wing.
>>1302085Interesting. I knew about Saturn INT-20, but I thought that Titan III was compatible. Even so, my point remains that components from pre-existing vehicles could be utilized without developing too much new hardware.On a related note, how feasible would it have been for NASA to make the INT-20 reusable? I’ve seen a few concepts for the Saturn 1B first stage utilizing a parawing; could a similar system work on the Saturn V 1st stage, or was it just too large to bother considering?
>>1302013>It didn't really need to be man-rated, though.Yes it did>>1302085>Most of its R&D had already been paid by USAFUnbelievable the government contributed money to a government project>Nothing wrong with no launch escape systemThere isn't. That's simply an opinion.
>>1302209>On a related note, how feasible would it have been for NASA to make the INT-20 reusable?I suspect Saturn V first stage would have simply too heavy for recovery with parawing. When it comes to issues with Titan family rockets with solid rocket boosters, couple of the unmanned missions have led to pretty huge fireballs with rapid unplanned vehicle disassembly due to segmented boosters. While none of five segment UA1205 failed, two of the longer UA1207's ended up fireball. They were planning to use those larger 7 seven segment boosters on manned launch systems as well. Picture and video related. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXBl03wVHOYGenerally I do like Big Gemini proposal, but in my opinion NASA would have been better off with Apollo D and possibly upscaled version of it as follow up.>>1302254Big Gemini was manufacturers proposal for NASA, using modified equipment from cancelled MOL.>That's simply an opinion.That leads to massive cost escalation on the program every time manned launch goes boom. It also causes a risk of cancellation by politicians and major publicity issues among voters.
>>1302304In 50% of Shuttle losses an escape system wouldn't have helped and after 100% of them the program didn't get cancelled
>>1302504This is before we mention all the Shuttle near misses, like STS-27, where the exact same damage occured to the heatshield to that of what happened to Columbia.The crew took photos of it by using the Canadarm, but because the mission was classified, they had to send the pictures by encrypted means, which lead to a garbled image. Engineers, unable to see the damage deemed the spacescraft safe to reenter.The only reason the spacecraft didn't break up on reentry was because the damaged tiles exposed a steel component which was able to withstand that reentry heat.... just about.There are a lot of instances where the Shuttle could have been in a loss of craft and crew disaster, but for some lucky reason, the mission was completed without issues.https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17623.0The Space Shuttle should have never flown in the first place, but that's what you get when you end up with a space agency which is at the whims of whoever is president. Remember: Nixon cancelled Apollo, Skylab B and future Saturn Nova rockets for Mars missions in favour of the Space Shuttle, because those were considered Kenedy's legacy.Constellation, Asteroid Redirect, Deep Space Gateway, and now, probably SLS, were all subject to the fact that presidents do not want to see the legacy of their predecessor occur during their terms.
>>1302551>but for some lucky reason, the mission was completed without issuesIt was a robust design>The Space Shuttle should have never flown in the first placeWrong. People only say this to make themselves appear insightful.
>>1293989That and the fact that bad weather was like the #1 killer of airships
>>1296778This, especially the stealing satellites part
>>1302555>It was a robust designnot as robust as a simple capsule >hurr durr no abort systempod + plane would be best
>>1302581>not as robust as a simple capsuleI think you'll find that there were more accidents and incidents related to capsules than Shuttle Orbiters
>>1302555>It was a robust design40% vehicle failure rate from 1981 to 2011 is not a robust design.A spacecraft which kills 14 people is not a robust design.For perspective, there have only been 3 manned Soyuz launch failures, Soyuz 18a, Soyuz T-10-1 and Soyuz MS-10, none of which were fatal. Only 2 Soyuz spacecraft failed on return to earth, Soyuz 1, where the parachute failed, and the Cosmonaut was killed on impact (leading to the change in design to the use of a 2nd backup parachute in case, still used today) and Soyuz 11, where the capsule depressurised on reentry, leading to the deaths of 3 cosmonauts from hypoxia (leading to the change in protocol, that everyone on board must wear their Sokol IVA suits on reentry with the visor shut in case of depressurisation, still done today).For further perspective, there has been only 2 major failures of the Apollo programme, Apollo 1, where 3 astronauts were killed in a pure oxygen fire during a dress rehersal (leading to the scrapping of Block I command modules) and Apollo 13, where the service module encountered a fuel cell tank explosion, resulting in the mission being aborted.>People only say this to make themselves appear insightful.The Space Shuttle was built because Nixon wanted his own spaceflight legacy, and he cancelled the idea of using the Space Shuttle for building a space station, because Nixon was also an idiot.The Space Shuttle could only carry 28 tonnes to LEO, while the Soviet Buran could carry 30 tonnes (however, the Energia could lift 100 tonnes to LEO without the orbiter). The Space Shuttle also had the issue of having a mission time limited by its fuel cells, to only about 17 days in orbit. Missions were almost always scheduled for shorter periods because of the risks of stranding crew in orbit with no power and no air in case no landing sites were available for weather reasons.If the US had proceeded with the Saturn Nova design, Nasa could have gotten manned missions to Mars in the 1980s
>>1302590>I think you'll find that there were more accidents and incidents related to capsules than Shuttle OrbitersThe Shuttle killed 14 astronauts.The Soyuz killed 4 and the Apollo killed 3.
>>1302618>>1302619>40% vehicle failure rate from 1981 to 2011 is not a robust design.>A spacecraft which kills 14 people is not a robust design.133 successful missions, 819 people carried safely into space, 180 payloads deployed, 52 payloads deorbited and returned to Earth.>Nixon was also an idiotCorrect. He created Amtrak and the EPA>The Space Shuttle could only carry 28 tonnes to LEO, while the Soviet Buran could carry 30 tonnesHow many payloads did the Buran put into orbit?>mission time limited by its fuel cells, to only about 17 days in orbitONLY OVER TWO WEEKS???? WHAT A FAILURE!!!!!!!>If the US had proceeded with the Saturn Nova design, Nasa could have gotten manned missions to Mars in the 1980sFucking lol
>>1302628>133 successful missions, 819 people carried safely into spaceSoyuz has 141 mission, of which only 4 were complete failures/aborts, 2 ended fatally. Soyuz has docked with other Soyuz spacecraft, 7 Salyut space stations, the Apollo Command Module, Mir and the International Space Station. Soyuz is also the only spacecraft that has ever performed a Station to Station flight, from Salyut 7 to Mir. Soyuz has been flying manned missions since 1967, it's actually a contemporary of the Boeing 737, and yet the Soyuz MS, the current generation of Soyuz is less fatal than the current generation of Boeing 737. I cannot be bothered to calculate how many people have been carried safely to space, but barring 3 launch aborts, 138 flights were successful to Low Earth Orbit, only 2 returns to earth have been fatal.>How many payloads did the Buran put into orbit?None, because the Soviet Union scrapped the Buran, because it realised that it was a dumb idea, and that existing platforms like the Soyuz rocket (which have launched over 2000 times) and the Proton (which have launched 417 with 370 successful missions) could do the same job for the same resources it required before the Buran.>ONLY OVER TWO WEEKS???? WHAT A FAILURE!!!!!!!It means that the Space Shuttle was limited to short duration flights into orbit. Meanwhile, the Soyuz can spend 30 days in orbit on its own, and about 6 months docked with a space station, meaning that the Soyuz could be used as a lifeboat if space station operations went wrong, and a space station had to be abandoned. Boeing Starliner can spend 60 hours in orbit on its own, but 210 days docked to a space station, SpaceX Dragon 2 can spend 1 week in orbit on its own but also 210 days docked.This meant that the Space Shuttle was only capable of short missions, while the Soyuz, and now the commercial space craft, can support long duration spaceflight missions to space stations, allowing for experiments and science on a long term basis.
>>1302693>Soyuz has 141 mission, of which only 4 were complete failures/abortsHigher failure rate than the Shuttle>because it realised that Buran was a dumb ideaThey developed it and flew it once and retired it because it was dumb not because of the dissolution of the USSR>It means that the Space Shuttle was limited to short duration flights into orbit.So? We had Skylab and the ISS for longer endurance missions>the Soyuz, and now the commercial space craft, can support long duration spaceflight missionsHow many payloads have they returned to Earth? How many repairs and construction missions have they performed using a manipulator arm?Shuttlelets BTFO
Highly enriched weapons-grade autism.
>>1302763>Skylab reentered before the Shuttle could visit it>ISS didn’t exist until 17 years after the first Shuttle flight
>>1302769Thanks for proving my point.
>>1302766>Soyuz has 141 mission, of which only 4 were complete failures/aborts>Higher failure rate than the ShuttleSerious question: How many of those Shuttle astronauts made it out alive during a flight failure vs Soyuz ones?
>>1302773In terms of outright failures, only 2 soyuz missions actually fall into this category, resulting in 4 deaths total. The shuttle had 2 failures also, but these resulted in 14 deaths total.
>>1302773>>1302775The same amount (100% of the crew was killed in each mission)
>>1302773For the 3 Soyuz launch failures, the Launch Escape System performed as expected and the crews of each were only subjected to about 6Gs.For the 2 fatal Soyuz missions, Soyuz 1 had a main parachute failure, which lead to the the single cosmonaut being killed on impact and Soyuz 11 had a rapid depressurisation during atmospheric reentry, which resulted in the 3 crew members being killed by hypoxia.For the Challenger Disaster, the SRBs failed, due to frozen O-rings and burning propellant escaped and set fire to the External Fuel Tank, causing an explosion, leading to the complete destruction of the orbiter. Some of the crew survived the initial explosion and managed to turn on their emergency air supplies, but all were killed when the broken off cockpit and mid-deck impacted the sea.For the Columbia Disaster, ice which had built up on the External Fuel Tank from fueling fell off around Max-Q (Maximum Dynamic Pressure) and took a large piece of insulating foam with it. This impacted the thermal tiles on the Orbiter and caused a large hole. As a similar thing has occurred on STS-27 with no loss of orbiter or crew, and as there was no rescue option, the decision was taken to proceed with reentry as planned. The hole in the heat shield allowed for far higher temperatures as were permitted in the design to reach the air frame, the parts lost structural integrity and far more surfaces were exposed to atmospheric heating. The orbiter burned up destructively and sprinkled debris over Texas and Louisiana.Following the Columbia Disaster, it was decided that all further missions should be to the ISS, with limited exceptions to service the HST. Should the heat shield be damaged like that again, the crew would stay on board the ISS and either return on Soyuz capsules or on a rescue Shuttle mission.
>>1302776Soyuz T-10aSoyuz MS-10Are you sure?
>>1292810love the photo
>>1302811Read the post I was replying to
>>1298784All that potential....lost.
>>1293963t. Europoor upset more money isn't being diverted towards importing even more muslim gangs.
>>1297779>that happened because NASA was forced cooperate with military and intelligence agencies that wanted bigger payloads to orbit>>1296752>>1296778>largeness was so it could fit inside some retarded military hardware the airforce wanted and steal soviet satellites.And after Challenger the USAF decided to scrap these ideas and work began on the X-37 for that purpose instead. The design decisions the USAF forced onto NASA for the Shuttle which ended up contributing to its inadequacies and failures were never even utilized for their intended purpose by the Air Force.Why didn't they just design their own fucking variant from the start instead of forcing those requirements onto NASA, fuck
>>1305745>Why didn't they just design their own fucking variant from the start instead of forcing those requirements onto NASABecause NASA was really strapped for cash. After the Apollo missions, the US just didn't care about space anymore. The Moon missions were cancelled and the last Saturn V to launch was for Skylab, which took an upper stage and converted it into a "dry workshop", basically putting a pressurised habitat inside what would have been cryogenic fuel tanks.Then the money dried up for Skylab as well, and the last thing they got funded was Apollo-Soyuz.Nixon really sucked NASA dry. Remember, the plan was for the Space Shuttle to build and service a space station in LEO, but Nixon cancelled that. It wasn't until DoD money and USAF money came in, that funding for the Space Shuttle allowed for the R&D to be completed, which included the requirements for the Space Shuttle to be able to fly into Sun Synchronous Orbits as well if launched from Vandenburg AFB.This "national security" aspect to the Shuttle meant that it was not available for international cooperation. In response to requests by ESA for cooperation on the Space Shuttle being rejected, CNES paid for their astronauts to fly with Soviet crews to Mir and CNES together with ESA developed the Hermes space plane, which would be used for missions to LEO and would be launched on an Ariane 5 (which is why Ariane 5 is human rated).After Challenger, the USAF ended their funding and construction of a Shuttle facility at Vandenburg AFB stopped. They even tested the launch pad with Enterprise and a dummy extenal tank and SRBs. Although DoD missions continued for a few years after Return to Flight, it prompted NASA to seek out ESA support, which lead to Spacelab's construction by DLR and the flying of German, French and Spanish mission specialists on these missions.The Shuttle was great for Shuttle-Mir and the ISS missions, but without a space station, the Space Shuttle was useless.
>>1305751Speaking of Ariane 5 being human rated:All the way back in 2013, it was looking like SLS might never be actually approved to fly, and there was a lot of speculation of what on earth could launch it. It was around this time that ESA got into the collaboration with NASA with the Orion capsule, the only thing to survive the Constellation Program, and ESA proposed the use of the ATV's service module for the Orion. It became the European Service Module, and that, along with Orion, are the only parts of SLS which are completed and ready....In 2013, ESA and CNES proposed the use of Ariane 5 for human spaceflight missions to the Moon, especially if SLS was considered a paper rocket in 2013. The proposals were looked into, and it was suggested that Ariane 5 with a ECS upper stage (cryogenic fueled) could do missions to the Deep Space Gateway and missions to the Moon.NASA rejected this proposal, however, and decided to instead press ahead with SLS development.Now, Ariane 6 is on the horizon. While it's not human rated, with the way things are now, the only thing which really needs to be done to make it so, would be software alterations to allow for safe abort conditions. Meanwhile, SLS is in development hell, as Boeing has announced a signficant delay, maybe up to 2 years on the main cryogenic booster stage of SLS. This means that SLS won't be ready in time for EM-1. Falcon Heavy is too narrow a diameter and Delta IV Heavy won't have the lift capability.
>>1305760SLS was a mistake, we should have gone with Jupiter DIRECT. Instead, US manned spaceflight is still years behind
>>1305771RS-68s are pretty hard to human rate. They are a "low cost" version of the RS-25, which were used by the Space Shuttle as the SSMEs and will be used for SLS (if it flies). The RS-68 is currently in use in the Delta IV as the "Common Core" which is used for both medium and heavy varients. The main issue with the RS-68 is because they use an ablative engine bell design, which is graphite. As the engine runs, the graphite ablates away and turns the exhaust red.The RS-25 uses active cooling, liquid hydrogen is passed through the engine bell, which stops it from being melted by the sheer heat of the exhaust. This creates the weird situation, where ice will form on the outside of the RS-25, but any metal in the exhaust would be immediately melted.A cleansheet engine design would have been needed. Blue Origin's BE-4 would have been good, but that means moving to a liquid methane system, which mandates a totally new cryogenic fuel tank design, as methane is far more energy dense than hydrogen, but more oxygen is required to have a complete combustion of the methane.
>>1305745I'd like to know why the USAF parked an X-37 for years at a time in orbit for testing reasons.
>>1305751>>1305760There are plenty of programs that were cancelled and more than one reason why Ariane 5 is certified for meat cargo.