Why is the Space shuttle crap?

Question

Because NASA keeps trying to Band-aid 30 year old Tech.
Scap this system or more will die. Those tiles are a joke. If we lose another Shuttle we will be a second rate super power. Maybe we can outsource NASA to people with fresh engineering skills.

Answer 1

Well Joik - (as in jerk misspelled?)

Fresh engineering skills like yours I assume? It's really easy to criticize, but I'll wager that you have never been required to design anything as complex as the light switch in the broom closet of the launch facility. All of these systems work, which is worth another wager as to whether you do. The tiles are a joke? Have you ever held one in your hand while the opposite side was being subjected to temperatures that would melt steel in seconds? Anyone who makes sweeping indictments of years of hard work by people sweating bullets trying to make sure noone gets killed in a really dangerous environment would be well advised to listen more and speak less.

Answer 2

The Shuttle is the best we have got.

What is wrong with it? Space is a dangerous place. Temperatures reach 5000 deg on re-entry. That will always be a risk.

There has probably been tile damage after every liftoff, but it was the fatal accident that brought it to light. Now they are just making sure all is well by inspecting after every docking with ISS.

That is why they are finding problems, because before the accident, they weren't looking.

And nobody has a better machine for getting to orbit and back.

Answer 3

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. The Space Shuttle is the single most technically advanced thing ever made by man. Think about that: the single most technically advanced thing ever made by man. But anything created by man is subject to failure. Considering all of the missions that have been flown and only two vehicles have been lost, NASA obviously knows what they're doing. More people in this country have died in car accidents today than have died in shuttle disasters over the course of the last 25 years.

Answer 4

Nasa is too cheap and the Americans need not to be so greedy.
There are Plenty of Other indiviuals with enough money to research hyper-drive technology and put more funding into Quantum Physics Projects like a Light speed generator. So basically Nasa needs to stop restoring antiques and get with real technology. We all like our classics But I think time we stopped watching re-runs the classics and working something and exciting. SUPER COOLED TITANIUM.

Answer 5

The Space Shuttle stretched our knowledge of astronautical engineering and hypersonic flight, but failed to live up to its promise of drastically lowering the cost of spaceflight due to its inherent complexity. The Shuttle was intended to lower launch costs to LEO from the then current $10,000 per pound of payload to around $100 per pound. Unfortunately, it didn't.

The planned replacement for the Shuttle, the Orion space capsule, utilizes an Apollo-style capsule design, but is larger and more advanced than the famous moonship. Orion will be safer and cheaper to operate than the Shuttle as well as capable of trips to the Moon . . . and beyond.

Answer 6

well you pretty much answered that already.
and I agree.

The Russian version is based on our space shuttle
but with some more advancements.
We definitely need to step it up a few notches,
maybe even a whole different design