why still using sts, when delta4 hvy can lift more paylad, no risk to life?

Question

ot seems to me that the space shuttle is obsolete. why risk a crew of astronauts when you can lift an iss module via delta iv heavy? it really dosnt make sense. the shuttle was an incredible accomplishment for its time but its cost 14 lives (5 times as many as the apollo program!). it cant possibly be less reliable then the sts, few vehicles are. how on earth did the sts get to be "man rated"?

sts is not cheaper, factor in the capital and development costs. most of all factor in the cost in lives and training and future potential of the astronauts.

every time the sts goes up its got to spend half the mission maximizing its odds of ever returning. they go over this thing with a fine tooth comb before returning. launch a DIVH and if it blows up, launch another. you dont bury 7 astronauts and suspend missions for 2 years (and still not rectify the problem 100%).

i find it hard to believe that 3 rs68 have more of a vibration load then 2 srb's!
more of a g load 6 million lbs over 2 mins, vs 2.1 million lbs over 6 minutes. we should be launching humans on d4hs! they dont take such a beating!

maybe nasa says its better, why?

oh bty for all those who care, its environmentaly friendly.

frist of all the d4h dosnt give a rougher ride it gives a smoother ride, in terms of vibration and g load. second, the docking and manual manipulation of the module can be performed by the occupants of the iss.

i agree soyuz current gen is better than sts as far as crew safety. d4h is 6 for 7 which is not really good. soyuz may be the answer until nasa "matures" a vehicle.

Answer 1

The shuttle's only advantage is that it can carry a specially trained construction crew to install the new section to the station. This is inherently safer than having the regular crew take on a new assembly project without the training.
The DIV heavy is not at this time man rated and isn't necessary the Soyuz system is a mature capsule booster combo with a very good safety record and extreme reliability.
If you want to replace the sts for crew transfers use the Soyuz Progress. Much cheaper.

Answer 2

The Shuttle has room for a crew of 7 to do the work, a robot arm to put the component into place on the station and a payload bay to carry the module. All the modules for the space station have been specifically designed to be carried in the Shuttle payload bay and attached to the station with the arm. It would be harder than you think to adapt a module to ride up on a Delta, with its higher G load and vibration level, different mounting points, and no docking mechanism or robot arm or crew of workers to place it in the correct spot on the station. NASA says it is impossible. They know better than I do so I will at least believe it is so hard that it isn't worth trying. It is all in the details, and if you start looking at all the details that have to be exactly right for any space activity to work, it boggles the mind! Recall that a Progress vehicle that was designed to dock with the Mir space station went off course and bumped the station. It caused a leak that was never found and a whole section of the Mir had to be sealed off and abandoned permanently. Now you want to take a module with no docking capability or even any thrusters, and somehow make it put itself on the station in the right place? Even if the necessary control system and thrusters could be added to the module at reasonable cost and without increasing the weight so much that a Delta couldn't carry it, and its structure could be altered to mount in the different shape and size Delta and withstand the rougher ride to orbit that a Delta gives, the chance of an accident like happened to Mir is to too great. Much safer and simpler for the Shuttle to dock under control of the onboard pilots, and use the arm to pull the module out and place it carefully in the right spot.

Answer 3

The answer is pretty simple:

d4h = $250 million/launch
sts = >$1 billion per launch

Both vehicles are incredibly inefficient, but the shuttle is more inefficient and therefor preferable to the launch industry.

Any more questions?

Answer 4

STS is cheaper and the Delta's have blown up also.

Answer 5

sts is cheaper