China’s state rocket company unveils rendering of a [SpaceX] Starship look-alike

[dbc]

are you stupid or what? Old one can retire, why don’t you develop and build new space shuttles if it’s so so good

why would anyone keep reusing a forty year old concept? New designs, new innovations keeps our engineers motivated. That’s like saying the Camel Sopwith was great why not keep making it - please don’t quote me and waste my time with nonsense.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

A simple question of why space shuttle is abandon by NASA that cannot be answered despite many inquiry.. seems like some want to avoid the embarrassment..

If it's really so critical. I can bet cost will not be a problem, right? The only answer I can get, it's over engineer, over complex answer trying to solve a solution. A big white elephant.

Why Did NASA End The Space Shuttle Program?

Why did NASA give up the Space Shuttle when it had no alternative launch vehicle? This question was originally answered on Quora by Robert Frost.

www.forbes.com

Why did NASA give up the Space Shuttle when it had no alternative launch vehicle? Those kinds of decisions aren't solely made by NASA. NASA is an agency of the government. Its direction comes from the government. In 2004, President Bush initiated the cancellation of the Space Shuttle, as part of his Vision for Space Exploration [1]. In a speech, he announced:

“…we will return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space Shuttle -- after nearly 30 years of duty -- will be retired from service…"

In that same speech he outlined the plan that would develop a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), return us to the Moon, and take us to Mars. As for financing that plan, he said:

“Achieving these goals requires a long-term commitment. NASA's current five-year budget is $86 billion. Most of the funding we need for the new endeavors will come from reallocating $11 billion within that budget. We need some new resources, however. I will call upon Congress to increase NASA's budget by roughly a billion dollars, spread out over the next five years. This increase, along with refocusing of our space agency, is a solid beginning to meet the challenges and the goals we set today. It's only a beginning. Future funding decisions will be guided by the progress we make in achieving our goals.”

Read that text carefully and you'll notice that it essentially says “we’re not going to give you the money needed to do this, so you'll have to take the money from existing projects.”

 

[lonelyman]

why would anyone keep reusing a forty year old concept? New designs, new innovations keeps our engineers motivated. That’s like saying the Camel Sopwith was great why not keep making it - please don’t quote me and waste my time with nonsense.

So basically you are saying space shuttle concept is bad and nasa don’t use that anymore

 

[Beast]

Please don't ask the chinese to use their brain because that's Ableism.

@waz @LeGenD

Look at this member language. I supposed he loses the argument and trying to provoke to get a reaction.

 

[Beast]

Why Did NASA End The Space Shuttle Program?

Why did NASA give up the Space Shuttle when it had no alternative launch vehicle? This question was originally answered on Quora by Robert Frost.

www.forbes.com

Why did NASA give up the Space Shuttle when it had no alternative launch vehicle? Those kinds of decisions aren't solely made by NASA. NASA is an agency of the government. Its direction comes from the government. In 2004, President Bush initiated the cancellation of the Space Shuttle, as part of his Vision for Space Exploration [1]. In a speech, he announced:

“…we will return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space Shuttle -- after nearly 30 years of duty -- will be retired from service…"

In that same speech he outlined the plan that would develop a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), return us to the Moon, and take us to Mars. As for financing that plan, he said:

“Achieving these goals requires a long-term commitment. NASA's current five-year budget is $86 billion. Most of the funding we need for the new endeavors will come from reallocating $11 billion within that budget. We need some new resources, however. I will call upon Congress to increase NASA's budget by roughly a billion dollars, spread out over the next five years. This increase, along with refocusing of our space agency, is a solid beginning to meet the challenges and the goals we set today. It's only a beginning. Future funding decisions will be guided by the progress we make in achieving our goals.”

Read that text carefully and you'll notice that it essentially says “we’re not going to give you the money needed to do this, so you'll have to take the money from existing projects.”

All I can interpret is, Congress claim this US space shuttle is simply too expensive and overblown their budget. US Federal are no idiot. Of cos they have taken a lot of consideration to stop finance the US space shuttle as it simply not worth the return with the exorbitant cost.

There are definitely better way to get man to mission and other job done in space. Also a big reason why Russian Buran space shuttle are quickly abandon once their budget drop.

are you stupid or what? Old one can retire, why don’t you develop and build new space shuttles if it’s so so good
instead go space ship approach


Chinese obviously have more able brains than Indians from what we achieved


blew up twice does not help either

The cost to make this shuttle reuse , is simply too costly compare to one time disposable spacecraft. So they decide to cut corner and result in disaster.

Worst of all space shuttle has no escape hatch when crapped happened during launch. High tech method to space? Lol..

More like flying coffin.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

@waz @LeGenD

Look at this member language. I supposed he loses the argument and trying to provoke to get a reaction.

LOL you just proven me right you know I'm not the one arguing here

Also you can clearly see I'm actually defending the chinese here from ableist languange. Where's my respect?

 

[Whizzack]

dead end? on the contrary, NASA does not want to lose competency in developing HYDRLOX engines and rockets. Sure HYDROLOX is a tricky fuel, requiring complex engineering as opposed to Kerosene or Methane but the RS-25 has the one of the highest trust to weight ratio and out performs even the RD-180 in safety and reliability. it's important for NASA to have a diverse stable of engines and so we have the Hydrolox, Kerolox and Methane Oxygen options available to us.

The complexity in Kerolox closed stage engines involve creating exotic materials that can withstand the heat of oxygen rich combustion while the complexity in hydrolox engines involves handling hot hydrogen. The US solved both challenges the Russians did not while the Chinese have a HydroLox engine but it is a simple less efficient open stage design.

Saturn V payload is 154 tons not 140 tons.
and yes SLS has both Saturn V and the LM9 beat in pure payload not 'injected mass' to LEO.

SLS is a dead-end not because of any one specific engine tech or propellant it is using.. it's a dead-end because of its overall architecture... for one, SLS is very expensive and it can never be modified to become reusable... The RS-25 might be the best Hydrolox engine around, but it's also the most complex and expensive engine, because it was an engine originally designed to be re-startable and reusable (it's used by the shuttle afterall)... however in SLS it will be used just as an expendable engine... see the irony there..?

NASA should have really invested in a brand new rocket and engine design (be it reusable or expandable) instead of forcibly adapting legacy hardware / architecture to which it's not particularly suitable... the end result is SLS a rocket as big as Saturn V (with slightly higher thrust even), but with much less LEO payload capacity compared to Saturn V (~100T vs ~140T) while costing so much more... SLS is a dead-end design no matter how you see it... I see the Chinese being more flexible and reasonable in their heavy-lift rocket design in this case.

Hydrolox is an excellent propellant actually, it has the best ISP (efficiency) compared to Kerolox or Methalox, but as you've mentioned, it requires complex and tricky engineering to use and handle.. and that means it will always be more expensive than Kerolox or Methalox engines... Also thrust wise, Hydrolox is the weakest of the 3 propellants... and that is why Hydrolox is best used in the upper stages, where its high ISP will really make a difference... and that's why in Saturn V, Kerolox is used in the 1st stage (for its higher thrust ) while Hydrolox is used in 2nd & 3rd stage (for higher ISP)...

Performance wise, Methalox is roughly somewhere in between Hydrolox and Kerolox in both thrust and ISP... So SpaceX using it in all stages of Starship is more for simplicity, ease of handling and cost efficiency rather than for pure performance.. and I honestly think that it's an excellent architecture overall.. now they only need to show the feasibility of orbital cryogenic fuel storage and transfer..

 

[dbc]

space shuttle has no escape

That‘s not true the Shuttle had a crew escape system called RTLS abort and It was conceived by man named Winston Goodrich.

 

[Beast]

That‘s not true the Shuttle had a crew escape system called RTLS abort and It was conceived by man named Winston Goodrich.

That is no escape but just an abort system. Can it be like ejection type or escape tower of space dragon, Soyuz or Shenzhou with rapid separation from boaster? Stop playing with words. You are in a losing end.

Let me repeat, US space shuttle is a flying coffin.

 

[dbc]

can never be modified to become reusable

The Space Shuttle used a cluster of three RS-25 engines mounted in the stern structure of the orbiter, with fuel being drawn from the external tank. The engines were used for propulsion during the entirety of the spacecraft's ascent, with additional thrust being provided by two solid rocket boosters and the orbiter's two AJ10 orbital maneuvering system engines. Following each flight, the RS-25 engines were removed from the orbiter, inspected, and refurbished before being reused on another mission.

RS-25 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

RS 25 is designed to be reusable, NASA chose not to pursue reusablity on SLS.
Also SLS payload to LEO is 180 tons, 140 tons is injected mass. If you want to compare apples to apples. Kerosene is not an option for interplanetary manned flights unless the Chinese plan to produce and refine kerosene on the moon. to keep it simple, you can make hydrogen and methane on Mars you cannot make a complex super refined hydrocarbon fuel like kerosene. The Chinese went with kerosene because they adopted Soviet designs. It speaks volumes that they rely on solid propellant UDMH for their manned missions so far, we shall see if that changes in the future.

That is no escape but just an abort system. Can it be like ejection type or escape tower of space dragon, Soyuz or Shenzhou with rapid separation from boaster? Stop playing with words. You are in a losing end.

Let me repeat, US space shuttle is a flying coffin.

yes it was an emergency crew escape system see image of the system being tested..please stop lying.

Crew Escape System, Shuttle

The Space Shuttle Crew Escape System consisted of two spring-loaded telescoping poles in a curved housing mounted on the middeck ceiling. A magazine at the end of the pole held eight sliding hook and lanyard assembles.

airandspace.si.edu

 

[Whizzack]

Following each flight, the RS-25 engines were removed from the orbiter, inspected, and refurbished before being reused on another mission.

Of course they did..? What did you expect..? I'm sure SpaceX does the same with all their returned rocket and engines..

RS 25 is designed to be reusable, NASA chose not to pursue reusablity on SLS.

Hence the irony... they could've used a simpler, less complex and cheaper engine if it's going to be expendable...

Also SLS payload to LEO is 180 tons, 140 tons is injected mass.

Lol..! Not even NASA ever claimed that high performance for SLS.. Any source/links...?

Kerosene is not an option for interplanetary manned flights unless the Chinese plan to produce and refine kerosene on the moon. to keep it simple, you can make hydrogen and methane on Mars you cannot make a complex super refined hydrocarbon fuel like kerosene.

As I mentioned before, kerolox is best for the 1st stage rocket... any Mars / Lunar lander, don't need to use Kerolox, can use anything else they see fit... not sure what it got to do with SLS though..

The Chinese went with kerosene because they adopted Soviet designs

So SpaceX's Falcon 9 is also a Soviet adaptation...? They use it because kerolox has higher thrust and higher energy density compared to hydrolox.. and easier to handle too.

It speaks volumes that they rely on solid propellant UDMH for their manned missions so far, we shall see if that changes in the future

I believe the LM-1 to LM-4 series rockets are all legacy rockets based on ICBM designs.. hence the toxic fuels... they now are already beginning to move to their newer gen non-toxic rocket series, the LM-5 to LM-8, for routine launches... Their only man-rated rocket so far is the toxic fueled LM-2F, used to launch the Shenzhou... but they are already working on a next-gen crew vehicle which will probably launch on a variant of their current LM-5 rocket...

 

[Beast]

yes it was an emergency crew escape system see image of the system being tested..please stop lying.

Crew Escape System, Shuttle

The Space Shuttle Crew Escape System consisted of two spring-loaded telescoping poles in a curved housing mounted on the middeck ceiling. A magazine at the end of the pole held eight sliding hook and lanyard assembles.

airandspace.si.edu

Loll.. you expect the astronaut to batch out from the shuttle when the rocket was ascending half way to space? How pathetic are u compare it to escape hatch of dragon, Soyuz and shenzhou...

The crew escape system was intended for emergency bailout use only when the orbiter was in controlled gliding flight and unable to reach a runway

As I say, stop playing with words. Space shuttle is not where safe compare to capsule model. The most dangerous part of space rocket is when is ascending and launch.

Of course they did..? What did you expect..? I'm sure SpaceX does the same with all their returned rocket and engines..


Hence the irony... they could've used a simpler, less complex and cheaper engine if it's going to be expendable...


Lol..! Not even NASA ever claimed that high performance for SLS.. Any source/links...?



As I mentioned before, kerolox is best for the 1st stage rocket... any Mars / Lunar lander, don't need to use Kerolox, can use anything else they see fit... not sure what it got to do with SLS though..


So SpaceX's Falcon 9 is also a Soviet adaptation...? They use it because kerolox has higher thrust and higher energy density compared to hydrolox.. and easier to handle too.


I believe the LM-1 to LM-4 series rockets are all legacy rockets based on ICBM designs.. hence the toxic fuels... they now are already beginning to move to their newer gen non-toxic rocket series, the LM-5 to LM-8, for routine launches... Their only man-rated rocket so far is the toxic fueled LM-2F, used to launch the Shenzhou... but they are already working on a next-gen crew vehicle which will probably launch on a variant of their current LM-5 rocket...

LM-5 , I think is just a LM-7 adapt for crew mission. LM-2F is continue to used becos of their safe track record and until LM-7 series are very mature before they do the switch over.

 

[dbc]

As I say, stop playing with words. Space shuttle is not where safe compare to capsule model. The most dangerous part of space rocket is when is ascending and launch.

There you go moving the goal post. You said the space shuttle had no emergency crew escape.
Now that you know it had one it isn't good enough for you.

Of coarse, a simple capsule design is safe, the Chinese, Russian and American capsules all have the same emergency escape mechanism. Watch below 2:42.

The capsule separates from the rocket in the event of an emergency and it was exactly the same for the shuttle. The orbiter would separate from the booster and self propel to a lower orbit or return to base.

If needed the shuttle crew were able to exit the orbiter using RTLS abort but the crew of the capsule cannot. So the shuttle had one more safety measure compared to the capsule.
On the whole a simple capsule design is safer but extremely limited. I can't think of a capsuled crew ever accomplishing anything beyond a simple docking procedure.

RTLS didn't exist prior to the Shuttle challenger disaster and was designed following the recommendations of the panel that studied the accident.

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1410537991236243461

Super Heavy ready for ground testing

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

All I can interpret is, Congress claim this US space shuttle is simply too expensive and overblown their budget. US Federal are no idiot. Of cos they have taken a lot of consideration to stop finance the US space shuttle as it simply not worth the return with the exorbitant cost.

There are definitely better way to get man to mission and other job done in space. Also a big reason why Russian Buran space shuttle are quickly abandon once their budget drop.

The cost to make this shuttle reuse , is simply too costly compare to one time disposable spacecraft. So they decide to cut corner and result in disaster.

Worst of all space shuttle has no escape hatch when crapped happened during launch. High tech method to space? Lol..

More like flying coffin.

The bottom line is the Space Shuttle can't land on Mars or the Moon.