Shuttle Discovery on its last flight

[WA4BRL]

The Space Shuttle was a magnificent machine. It was intended and sold to congress as an inexpensive, safe, and efficient means to get men and materiel into, and home from, low earth orbit. Wonderful as it was, it never came close to resembling any of those criteria. It was in fact a morass of over-engineering in some areas, and serious engineering compromises due to budgetary constraints in others. Major components of the system were declared man-rated that should/can never have been so. The shuttle could not fly without management waiving many various safety protocols on every flight, and it was far too expensive on a per-launch basis to ever have been approved.

The vehicle costs of each shuttle mission has been estimated at anywhere from half-a-billion dollars to one-billion dollars per launch. To be fair, the one-billion estimate includes development costs, but then the half-billion figure does not include many refurbishment expenses necessary to the vehicles and launch complex necessary before the next mission takes place. Neither figure includes the loss of the Challenger and Columbia vehicles, or wreckage-recovery and investigation cost in those accidents as part of the total shuttle system operation expenses. So I believe the true cost per launch to be between the two figures if not slightly more than the higher.

NASA should follow the lead (yes lead) of the Russian space program and their long-time use of scalable Big Dumb Boosters (BDB) as core of their system. Most of their rockets are low-tech, built of off-the-shelf components, built to low but repeatable tolerances, heavier and thus more easily handled assemblies (tougher -- will take more abuse and still work), and cheap enough to discard after each use. Even though the large booster is less efficient in operation, its total cost of operation is cheaper because it is easier to build and operate. Even prior to Russia's new found oil wealth, they were able to sustain a consistent space program due to their simple, basic, and inexpensive solutions to achieving orbit.

Cutting-edge technology is almost always the most expensive path to a goal. And the cutting-edge is certainly not the safest choice for operational systems. Ask any test pilot. Or the families of the last crews of Challenger and Columbia. Tried-and-true may not be as exciting, but is can be counted upon for reliable service, and failures are usually not catastrophic. NASA wowed us for many decades with their amazing accomplishments. I believe that the time has come for them to wow us with safe and efficient operations.

[WA8FOZ]

Big Dumb Boosters (BDB)

YES - YES - YES! The shuttle was the product of brilliant engineers who were handed a foolish set of goals by bean-counters and politicians, enabled by a fickle and ignorant public. Now that LEO work is getting privatized, perhaps NASA will concentrate on BDB-based projects leading to lunar colonization and eventual Mars visits, preceded by extensive robotic work.

All this will take more money and knowledge of logistics and human matters than we now have...but someday....Too bad we lost 30 years of opportunity during the Shuttle era.

[KK4AMP]

... and serious engineering compromises due to budgetary constraints in others...

There were some factors other than budget that made the SRBs multi-section and shipped across 2/3rds of the country.

Space Fun Fact: US Astronauts measure the subjective severity level of motion sickness in a unit of measure known as "Garns".

...Hey, that's the name of a guy that flew on the STS-51D mission before Challenger, wasn't it?

[KF5OYO]

I've been a part of the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) program since 1996, testing them at Stennis Space Center. To my knowledge, only one engine suffered problems in 30 years of use for the Space Shuttle.

[KA9JLM]

I've been a part of the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) program since 1996, testing them at Stennis Space Center. To my knowledge, only one engine suffered problems in 30 years of use for the Space Shuttle.

Nice.

I worked on the cameras that inspected the inside of the engines.

It was some cool stuff.

[WB2WIK]

I've been a part of the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) program since 1996, testing them at Stennis Space Center. To my knowledge, only one engine suffered problems in 30 years of use for the Space Shuttle.

They have demonstrated nothing short of amazing reliability: >99.9% reliability over that time.

They were all built here in the San Fernando Valley by Rocketdyne (then Boeing, then Pratt & Whitney -- but always the same facilities, very close to me) and tested at the Santa Susana test range just up the hill. When they tested the SSMEs the noise was like thunder and the ground shook like a small earthquake for the duration of the tests.

Some info: http://www.rocketdynearchives.com/engines/ssme.html

[KF5OYO]

I followed my dad, he was the program manager of the cal lab. I stared out as a electrician, running conduit and cables all over the test stands. Got to see some awesome up-close night firings. I moved to the cal lab in 2001, still here, just a tech writer now, writing electronic calibration procedures for Nasa.

[KK4AMP]

...he was the program manager of the cal lab...I moved to the cal lab in ... writing electronic calibration procedures for Nasa.

PMEL FTW!