Why can't we make a Space Shuttle launch vehicle that we don't have to check constantly for cracks?

Question

Is it a design flaw, bad materials, or what?

It's embarrassing, and dangerous!

Thanks.

Answer 1

The shuttle was designed as a multi-use vehicle. It was to loft massive payloads, be manned, be capable of self-sustaining missions of up to 10 days, and land on a runway.

It was thought that a fleet of shuttles would be easy & relatively cheap to maintain; if one part broke on one, you could scavenge it from another. Each shuttle was basically the same, so training & upkeep would only need to occur once, and it would be faster as experience grew.

But the complexity of the machine - all those factors in one machine - 2.3 million parts, volatile fuels, massive weights being lofted - prevented those goals from being accomplished. The Russians discovered early - their shuttle only had one un-manned flight - that the cost was immense, and it was *easier*, both from a technological view and an economical view, to launch more than one type of rocket for different missions.

Why you call it 'embarrassing', though... I don't understand. The simple fact that it flies at all is amazing - it's complexity, it's power, it's missions - It's an amazing machine. It lifts huge payloads & up to 7 astronauts at once. It's snagged satellites out of orbit & have repaired a few while in orbit.

The new "Orion" module will be amazing also - but it won't be able to do nearly as much as the shuttle.

Answer 2

Dont forget, the space shuttle was designed in the 1970's by a fat balding American.
The tile design is fundamentally flawed. What they should have done is construct the entire underside in one piece out of the same material as the tiles. The only separate pieces should be for the gear doors. Engineers reckon the shuttle can be brought down by someing as small as a tiny corner of a filler card sticking out shows the problems with thousands of tiles on a high speed vehicle.
But the big problem is the design of the tank. On the first few missions you will notice the tank (that you recognise as orange) was in fact white. It was a sort of paint that protected the foam and prevented the problem we have now of bits falling off at high mach numbers. The removed the paint to save weight so more payload could be taken on the shuttle.

As always, the flaws came about because of budget. When dealing with space and high speed you should never skimp on funding. Do it properly or not at all. But the infinite wisdom of succesive governments decided it wasnt necessary.
There is no point redesigning it now, its going to be retired in a couple of years (I am still amazed that some are still flying) but next time put the money it deserves into it.
Do international collaboration on the next gen shuttle. That would also help international relations. That way a lot of countries can have shuttles and not have to pay or rely on the states to get large satellites into orbit.

Answer 3

Any large orbital rocket launch is an INCREDIBLY violent, scary thing.Most people have no clue. And reentry is pretty extreme too. Except for the Shuttle, ALL orbital rockets and space craft are thrown away after one use. The shuttle is the only one that has to survive launch after launch. I think it does a pretty good job, but the safety inspections are extreme to make it as safe as it is. Of course these inspections would not be needed if we threw each shuttle orbiter away after each flight, like the Russians do with the Soyuz.

So I see your question as being akin to saying how some juggler who juggles 7 balls drops one now and then and complaining that it is embarrassing how bad he is compared to the other jugglers who almost never drop balls, even those other jugglers only juggle 3 balls.

Answer 4

The Space Shuttle, with its booster rockets at launch time, weighs around 4.4 _million_ pounds. In order to reach orbit after liftoff, that monstrous weight has to be propelled to "orbital velocity", or about 18,000 miles per hour. The force required for that is about 6.25 _million_ pounds of thrust, and subjects the craft to over 3G (3 times normal gravity), which is massively stressful on all of the launch equipment. It's very hard to engineer something using conventional materials to withstand that magnitude of force, the heat of the engines, the cold of the liquid propellants, and worst-case weather possibilities. The fact that the whole structure is able to get off the ground and only suffer a few cracks is impressive!

Answer 5

some of the pressurized tanks in the shuttles were designed for 10 years service. the shuttles are over twice that and still have to keep going.

ideally, about 1990 we should have said "Lets start a new fleet" it could have started flying 2000 and the old shuttles could be retired... due to the Challenger disaster, spending more money on a replacement fleet was not politically possible.

its always easier to sell people on a new war than on a new idea for space exploration.

another interesting tidbit of info... the original safety factor for the shuttles allowed for a 'catastrophe' every 100 shuttle flights. yup, they factored it in.

Answer 6

Its not really cracks.Its damage to the heat shield which is essential for safe reentry. The shuttle has always suffered tile loss which is painstakingly glued back on together with countless other checks plus the creation of a new external tank and and repaired/new solid rocket boosters means a very slow turn around between missions.

Answer 7

Design flaw. Reliance on an outmoded method that is part of an industrial complex to which we are too tightly bound.

The idea of putting an orbiter anywhere but at the top of the device designed to launch it is idiotic.

By the way, I recommend reading this article from 1980.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html

Answer 8

so, then, when you have this new ship, is it ok if we can go check it out for damages each time before we use it again? or should we make a new one each time too?


I'm not willing to pay that much $$$ out of my taxes

the shuttle reoprted cracks last time and landed JUST fine


everything has a design flaw eventually until we redesign it.

Answer 9

Some if those space shuttle capsules are over 20 years old. They just patch them up and blast them off again. I'm surprised we haven't had more space disasters. As long as we are funding Iraq and Afghanistan, it is unlikely the government will allot millions to NASA for new space capsules.

Answer 10

Bert Rutan already has. But Nasa contracts out to the lowest bidder.
Makes you feel proud doesn't it?