What’s wrong with the space shuttle
Don’t miss Maciej Ceglowski’s history and analysis of the space shuttle:
Future archaeologists trying to understand what the Shuttle was for are going to have a mess on their hands. Why was such a powerful rocket used only to reach very low orbits, where air resistance and debris would limit the useful lifetime of a satellite to a few years? Why was there both a big cargo bay and a big crew compartment? What kind of missions would require people to assist in deploying a large payload? Why was the Shuttle intentionally crippled so that it could not land on autopilot? 1 Why go through all the trouble to give the Shuttle large wings if it has no jet engines and the glide characteristics of a brick? Why build such complex, adjustable main engines and then rely on the equivalent of two giant firecrackers to provide most of the takeoff thrust? Why use a glass thermal protection system, rather than a low-tech ablative shield? And having chosen such a fragile method of heat protection, why on earth mount the orbiter on the side of the rocket, where things will fall on it during launch?
Taken on its own merits, the Shuttle gives the impression of a vehicle designed to be launched repeatedly to near-Earth orbit, tended by five to seven passengers with little concern for their personal safety, and requiring extravagant care and preparation before each flight, with an almost fetishistic emphasis on reuse. Clearly this primitive space plane must have been a sacred artifact, used in religious rituals to deliver sacrifice to a sky god.
He then goes on to explain some of the useless requirements the Air Force added on to the project, which never even got used.
And, before I get flamed out of existence by my friends in the aerospace industry, let me point out that I think the space program was great, like, when I was in grade school. But come on Shuttle fans, give it up… we need a new vision of space exploration.
August 5th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Dammit, John, you spoiled it for me … I was going to point to this during the Blogathon tomorrow and jump on my biggest [and, honestly, only] complaint: his swipe at solid rockets.
Maciej gives a great analysis of what’s been bloody wrong with NASA since before the word Watergate was on anyone’s lips, but … bloody hell, man. Don’t rip solid rockets. Or, if you do rip them, have a frickin’ reason.
Pretty much everything else … I’m totally fine with his assessment. He notes quite well where all the wrong design choices were made for a re-usable platform. He just misses the boat on solids.
August 13th, 2005 at 11:08 am
I _love_ this part:
And of course, there was John Glenn, monitored inside and out, blood tested, urine sampled, entire organism analyzed for signs of accelerated aging. Close observation of the Senator suggested that there might not be any medical obstacles to launching the entire legislative branch into space, possibly the most encouraging scientific result of the mission.