Boeing: Space shuttles to last into next decade

In article ,
(Jay Masino) writes:

That's interesting, since NASA routinely sends payloads into orbit on
spacecraft other than the shuttle. The three that I work on (EOS/Terra,
EOS/Aqua, EOS/Aura) are all non-shuttle payloads. If I remember right,
Terra and Aqua were launched using Atlas Centaur rockets, launched from
Vandenburg AFB in California.

Oh, they do now, but only after the Challenger disaster left us almost
completely without any launch capability!

The Shuttle's purpose was more than just lifting payloads. It's both a
scientific platform, as well as a on-orbit repair station.

The "on-orbit repair station" concept was a non-starter for two reasons:

1) The shuttle only reaches a low orbit of a couple hundred miles. There are
few satellites in that orbit. Almost all are in higher orbits between 10,000
and 22,000 miles.

Of course, NASA had an answer for this. In the '70s, NASA actually
contemplated a "rover", which would be carried up and deployed by the shuttle,
would boost itself up the required higher orbit, retrieve the errant satellite,
bring it back to the shuttle, which would then return to earth. Of course,
after the shuttle concept was sold, the "rover" concept was shelved as both too
expensive and unworkable.

2) It never made economic sense to "repair" satellites. Most of the cost of a
satellite is in R&D, launch, and support operation. When one fails, the
operator really doesn't want it back. They'd rather launch a new, updated one.
(when's the last time you took your consumer electronics in for repair vs just
replacing it? Does it make sense paying $300 to fix your 486 PC when you can
get a brand new one for $400?) Either way, there aren't many satellites worth
half-a-billion, which is what a shuttle launch costs.

John

In article , Bob Fry
writes:

Finally, building the rails and buying cars is hugely expensive and
only possible because Uncle Sugar picks up most of the bill--like the
Shuttle.

But it does generate generous political cash donations from contractors, and it
employ hundreds of people who pay union dues and will always vote the
status-quo.

John

In article ,
(Jay Masino) writes:

For a small satellite, that may be true, although the turn around time
may be important, depending on the mission. For a large, expensive
satellite like Hubble, I doubt that "relaunching a new copy" is a viable
short term fix to any problems it might encounter. The next generation
space telescope is still several years away.

For what we've wasted on the shuttle, we could have launched a dozen Hubbles.
Loosing two or three would have been a non-issue.

John

In article , BZ
writes:

This means that much more power is needed from the engines.

Actually, it meant that payload had to be reduced to the point to where the
shuttle could boost little more than itself to these orbits, making it useless.

John

In article ,
(JohnMcGrew) wrote:


For what we've wasted on the shuttle, we could have launched a dozen Hubbles.
Loosing two or three would have been a non-issue.

John

Not to mention that forcing the Hubble to be launched by the shuttle
(for political reasons) meant that the Hubble was limited to a much
lower orbit than would have otherwise possible and desirable: view of
some of its targets periodically obstructed by Earth, and exposed to
substantially more space debris.

In article , AES/newspost
writes:

Not to mention that forcing the Hubble to be launched by the shuttle
(for political reasons) meant that the Hubble was limited to a much
lower orbit than would have otherwise possible and desirable: view of
some of its targets periodically obstructed by Earth, and exposed to
substantially more space debris.

But hey, it employed and enriched allot of donors & voters. And when it
eventually gets zinged by a piece of space debris, we'll have to go up and fix
it again, making for a spectacular IMAX film.

I am afraid that in 50 years or so when the definitive history of this period
is written, the Shuttle will go down like the Concorde: A technical
achievement certainly, but a total commercial/economic failure.

John

In article ,
(JohnMcGrew) wrote:

I am afraid that in 50 years or so when the definitive history of this period
is written, the Shuttle will go down like the Concorde: A technical
achievement certainly, but a total commercial/economic failure.


At the taxpayer's expense in both cases, and in the first case at least
accompanied by a great deal of corruptive dishonesty on the part of
those promoting it

In article , AES/newspost
writes:

At the taxpayer's expense in both cases, and in the first case at least
accompanied by a great deal of corruptive dishonesty on the part of
those promoting it

Such things are usually at the taxpayers expense. If they were worth doing
economically, someone else would have done it on their own.

John