Why The US Took So Long To Replace Space Shuttle's Crew Capability
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лис 2018
- A rough guide to the history of space shuttle replacements and evolutions which never came into being because of politics, budgets and (very rarely) technical problems.
Sources:
astronautix.com/
nasaspaceflight.com
nasawatch.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle... - Наука та технологія
US politicians' plan for space travel aka "how morons waste money"
1) propose a new launch system that has some advantages
2) meddle with the concept to please some interest groups
3) cut funding because its too expensive mostly due to the meddling
4) be surprised that the programm is behind schedule after funding was cut
5) decide that it is so much behind schedule that you have to cancel the programm "to not waste money"
6) realize that you still dont have a new launch vehicle
7) repeat with step 1
I wonder how much money was wasted due to repeatedly cancelling programms "because they are too expensive" just to start with a new program shortly after
Why only fifteen likes?
And thus we get the apocryphal $400 hammer...
You forgot the steps where despite everything a spacecraft has almost been built and is ready to be put in action, and the program is cancelled. (X-33)
The total cluster that is SLS/Artemis/Gateway makes me wish they'd just take all of NASA's manned exploration money away and give like 10% of it to Elon Musk to do 100x more.
"This is the SLS, a spacecraft you think about so little you didn't realize that's not the SLS, it's the NLS from the 90s and _this_ is the SLS, except this isn't the SLS, it's the Ares V, *this* is the SLS."
The only spacecraft I think about is the one that carried all the horny space geckos :'(
Nice John Oliver inspired comment.
I wish he would have mentioned the Direct vehicles as well.
There's a reason I call it the "Senate Launch System." (Remember, NASA was careful to make sure there was at least one subcontractor in *every single Congressional district* for a *reason*...)
MCmadness110 your comment deserves more likes! So does the one you followed up on! Bump.
Let me get this straight. The US is flying very expensive engines that were designed for reuse, but in an expendable configuration. In order to save money. Do I have that right?
Yes, but the important part is the money goes to the contractor.....
@@scottmanley Richard Shelby gets a little bit of a bad rap in this video. I'm not saying he is an honest politician (no such thing!) but being from Huntsville, AL I think it is unfair to not highlight that Musk was trying to sabotage existing contractors lobbying through McCain to ban Russian engines. Why should people in AL lose their jobs just so people in CA have less competition? Thankfully Shelby was better at representing his constituency than Musk was at lobbying. In the end the money always goes to the contractor, just a matter of which contractor you support. I'm happy SpaceX has made it this far, I'm happy that ULA can continue to use proven engines until a domestic alternative is developed, it would be a stupid move to handicap our capabilities even further on whim of Musk and McCain. No one seems to have problems paying the Russians to ride on their rockets, so no harm in buying the engines.
@@michaelnelson3201 Except there have been great issues in paying for Soyuz, as prices have risen and it is used as a political tool in talks between the US and Russia.
Hiyu I’m not saying paying for Soyuz seats is good, but no one is saying we should stop buying seats because Russia invaded Crimea, that is why McCain wanted to ban the purchase of engines, but he somehow had no issue with literally sharing a rocket with them to the space station 🤔
This is what happens when you let politicians design rockets.
Hey, at least they've finished the mobile launch platform!
Which is leaning, and will not be suitable for the final design of the STS. So they're building another one.
I'm old enough to remember the moon landing in 1969 and most of kids at the time thought will be on Mars by the mid 80's or at latest mid 90's no doubt. Boy were we wrong and after seeing this video I can see why it never happened. What a bunch of mindless Bureaucracy at work. No wonder we are losing or tech edge in the world today.
allen wiedl You understand no man or human has ever stepped foot on the moon or 300 miles above the earths surface for that matter. And lived to talk about it
allen wiedl amen brother
al brown SOURCE?
@@staysea36 Your Pastor is wrong.
@@toasterbathboi6298 think about it,for one the van allen belts would cook them from the inside out in minutes
next the schuuman resanonance
7.83 herz
we need to be plugged in ,its the pulse of the earth its where our brain also 7.83 hz
gets its eletricity or frequency from
also there is no sound in space
no air
but on one video they show them pounding on metal making all kinds of noise
i find it strange that all blueprints and tech data for the most signifcant achievement mankind ever achieved
VANISHED
i could go on and on with red flags but i think you get the idea
not for me to convince you of anything
but i beg you
do some research
not for me but for you
Strategy 1: replace one over-budget program with another over-budget one, of course, with the same contractor.
Strategy 2: finish one program 80%, then switch to a new program, until the new one is 80% done
Strategy 3: constantly changing goals with every new president, but keep the core module same regardless of its usefulness.
We spent $300 M every day in Afghanistan, for 20 years.
"We'll build the SLS from Shuttle components, it will save billions in R & D and will speed up the program significantly!"
.
10 Years Later:
"We just need another 10 billion and another decade or so..."
Wat.
sixstringedthing hell, SLS proponents say both things TODAY without a hint or irony.
@Frank Castle very hard if you need the project to run until your retirement date.
@Frank Castle "politics doesn't spend money to do things but do things to spend money"
Dr. Robert Zubrin, The Mars society
Politics
Oh man my KSP senses started tingling when that stage separation happened. I was expecting fireballs, especially after the upper stage _completely turned around_ o.o
Reminds me of many flights where my upper stage flips after separation and I just cut the engines until I'm facing the right direction again.
Mentally going, "I've killed Jeb again..."
The upper stage on Ares I-X was a boilerplate and was fully expected to yaw like that after separation, since it had no attitude control of its own. The mission was basically a test of the stability of the complete stack and if they needed to add some other form of controls to the SRB to get it up to staging; once the SRB burned out, the actual mission was over. (Indeed, to save money, they used a standard four-segment Shuttle SRB with a boilerplate fifth segment in place of the nose cone rather than using the five-segment booster actually planned for operational missions.)
Since the only thing in the upper stage was water ballast, there wasn't anything *to* fireball after recontact...
@@rdfox76 Wow great details thanks!!! :D
They didn’t mind their staging.
Man, watching that solid rocket booster contact its upper stage upon separation was disturbing at the very least.
They never recontacted. The upper stage was a boilerplate and unguided, and airflow around and between the stages induced the yaw in the upper stage, which was a predicted behaviour. If the rocket had been fully developed, the upper stage would have had attitude control, and staged at much higher altitudes where dynamic air pressure would have not been an issue.
It was by design.
Makes it look like a KSP video.
@@jasonosmond6896 ...go check out NASA's report on the mission... It contacted the boilerplate upper stage upon separation.
It looked like the booster nearly hit the tower on take off too.(7:10)
7:55 "100% FRATRICIDE by SECONDARY RADIATIVE WILTING of NYLON CHUTES"
That there is a brutal sentence.
Ah, bureaucracy. A GREAT reason to hold off on developing space ships.
Jared Hardegree Bureaucracy. For when you really really love talking about the thing, but not doing it.
"the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
@@fr3nchy226 Sid Meier INTENSIFIES
Nope it's politics. Burocracy has literally nothing to do with this.
One of the problems here is that to a congressperson their district matters, the greater good for the country or even humanity is really only an added bonus for them. Which is annoying in Space exploration but horrefiing when it comes to something like global warming.
I'm actually amused that the USSR, supposedly bureaucracy's paradise was amazingly efficient at the desings and lauches of spacecraft while the US has all the bureaucratic problems possible that keep them doing the same thing over and over: First designing something amazing on paper, second doing a few tests on a smaller scale, third being almost there, aaand finally cancelling it
before watching:
shortsightedness and pork barreling
after watching: yep
Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was...
The running theme seems to be politicians keeping the shuttle contractors in work. Something tells me that since they never got the Shuttle out of prototype phase, despite it being a workhorse for decades, they weren't the people for the job for it's replacement.
The shuttle was a mess pretty much from the requirements phase. Engineering-wise it's pretty good, but the government and NASA gave the designers so many conflicting requirements (e.g. the capability to capture satelites and bring them back to Earth) that it was pretty much impossible for it to be very good at anything. The problem we've had for decades is that no one can agree on a focus for NASA, so programs get cancelled, their budget gets rearranged, and their priorities get shifted. In the end, this leads to not much actually getting done, in spite of all the people working on it. Few seem to have the political will to give NASA clear and consistent leadership.
I stand corrected and am in agreement. If there was some modicum of consistency from administrations over the years, then we'd already have at least the equivalent of a truck stop on the Moon by now.
Schrödy Brodie
USA has a replacement, except it's Top Secret TR-3B,
using UFO (antigravity & ZPE
propulsion) Built from Black
Budget which would take a
POTUS EO to disclose & would
mean releasing current technology to the public// deemed too disruptive to
Monopoly special interests (oil, Banksters , carbon credits)
@@davidporowski9512 Are you from the Time Travel page on FB?
Shuttle was a jsck of all trades master of none, craft. for its time it was really incredible, but it aged poorly and failed at the one thing that it was supposed to do above all else, lower the cost of access to space. Arguably as it was built on the jobs program model of Apollo it had no real chance of doing that, however the biggest problem was mission creep, it had to do everything as it got more expensive. We could get into cost plus motivating contractors to be inefficient, but thats another problem.
The real problem with Shuttle Derived Launchers is that it SOUNDS easy, in theory, but the more you diverge from what the various parts were originally intended to do, the more you are re-engineering everything just to keep a little bit the same. And because it sounds easy but is expensive and takes a while it is more susceptible to mission creep, which is one of the root causes of Shuttle's problems.
As an American, I'm just embarrassed. Man in LEO - we've been doing it since 1951. And now we're bogged down in political nonsense the precludes accomplishing this very simple mission. Meanwhile we rely on Russia - a political power with whom we do not have the best relationship - to just keep getting the job done with 1960's tech. Sometimes, it's not about innovation. It's just about getting there. ffs.
Nah gagarin flew in 1961 and it was not even LEO. Just suborbital trajectory. I do not remember who was the first in leo
@@spinningsquare1325 Gagarin flew exactly one orbit. The first suborbital spaceflight was by Alan Shepard in May of 1961.
You went to the moon, don’t be embarrassed
It's because the space race is over and there's no more evil commies to beat to the moon maybe if the soviets challenged America to mars humanity would have advanced immensely than how it has in our timeline.
Last time I was this early, NASA still had launch capability.
Last time I was this early the shuttle contractors who are getting that money to this day still built shuttles
They NEVER had any capability.
@@roar40s What about the Saturn V you dickweed? It carried people to the moon, you might remember it...
It said NASA written on it, I don't think that was a prank bro.
@@DaybreakPT Yeah, sure it did...
After Challenger, it was interesting watching congressional hearings with NASA. Through the '80s and '90s you'd have a myriad of approved projects that were then scuttled/modified a couple of years on with changes of Congress and the White House. It's amazing that NASA gets anything done at all. Which goes a long way to explaining why SpaceX (and soon Blue Origin once they start consistently/frequently leaving the atmosphere) are more beholden to their CEO's vision than that of the congressperson of the month.
Well, the way political lobby works in USA also doesn't help. I mean, look at the F35. I don't have data on this, but I can guess those Shuttle contractors put quite the hefty amount of money on political lobbying, which ends up working for them pretty well, while not working so well for Nasa itself...
The people who decide NASA's budget don't know jack shit about any of the technical aspects of NASA, let that just sink in for a hot second. How can you assess how much money it should cost to make a thing, how valuable the thing is, and how the thing will be of value in the first place if YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE THING IS?!
It's literally political capital for them, it takes some pretty serious education and experience in the field to give accurate estimates on building a LEO-return vehicle or a fucking Mars-return capable vehicle. No one can just name that price like it's The Price is Right.
@@iconicfury Thx to SpaceX and other private contractors they are getting a baseline on everything nowdays.
Both Space X and Blue Origin aim at replacing the current NASA contractors. They may talk about developing a private market but with the costs of going into space I don’t see space tourism becoming a profitable business any time soon.
The government with its deep pockets is still the best customer and lobbying (which let’s face it, is legalized corruption) is an obligated route to getting government contracts. Only time will tell if these new players will result in more efficiency and faster progress.
@Carlos Saraiva I worked in the space industry and dealt with the federal bureaucracy while in the thick of it in DC. I'm more than cynical enough not to pollyanna anyone's proposals or be disappointed when they inevitably change. Despite their contractual ties, there is still a qualitative difference between the traditional space-cos and the maverick commercial sector.
how about we stop the shuttle and its predecessors, how about some Saturn-derived vehicles??
No to Orange tanks
Yes to White and Black
Imagine if they had just kept evolving the Saturn like Atlas and Delta... We'd probably have some monster rocket that can lift hundreds of tons for a decent price. Even the Saturn V was less than half what the Shuttle cost per kg to orbit depending on what numbers you use (7k per kg to orbit vs. 25-40 for Shuttle or 11k on SLS.)
The booster were painted white. To cut cost they just left it in the primer color of orange.
@@TheJer1963 all, including paint has it's mass, just calculate the mass of the paint.
The shuttle was most expensive but had unique capability of bringing down objects from orbit. It was stupid concept for everyday use, but genial for some special tasks. The complexity of the concept bring a infamous results. Russian Buran was improved concept but overall costs of mission and unreialability for long run as well as economic catastrophe of ussr bring down the project.
It would have been cheaper to continue producing Saturn 1B's and V's, NASA could have developed the Saturn 8/Nova and had it flying by the mid 80's for half the price of the Space Shuttle. They also could have adapted the Saturn rockets into reusable rockets if the cost really was that high, Congress didn't cancel Apollo because it was too expensive, they canceled it because they got lazy.
They wanted to paint it black and white, but it was too heavy then, so it's naked
NASA has a plan to put two men on a bus to Milwaukee by 2022.
*bus to be supplied by third party, seats to cost less than $85m each.
** adjusted for inflation, actual price may be $110m
Upon arrival, they will construct a cabin that will be used as Gateway Towards Winnipeg.
***Delays in getting the bus ready may postpone departure to 2026.
I'm stealing this!
Politics.
Exactly
HAHAHAHHAHAHA
we all hate it
Typical politician. Hold back funding because you don't like the private company, then threaten to hold back MORE funding because the private company you hate is behind schedule.
Love your comment, pfp, and username too lol.
And then say that the company couldn't do it without you.
As Buzz said. SLS. Senate Launch System.
Buzz got pretty bitter, and rightly so. (Rest in Peace, sir) You were two days out from the moon and inbound this date, 50 years ago.
@@cynthiaklenk6313 I think the politics of it all made him bitter.
Cynthia Klenk Buzz is alive...
@@cynthiaklenk6313 still alive lol
In the begining you should have shown the SLS block 1B cargo, which looks exactly as the previous examples. :D
Ah yes. The Constellation footage reminds me of a familiar KSP maneuver I like to call “backflips to orbit”. Good stuff.
The SLS is not a replacement for the shuttle. It's a jobs program.
As for things that the private sector can't do the examples are all true right now, but the SLS has yet to fly and many of the more niche uses for it rely on more advanced versions of the SLS that's even further down the pipeline making it likely that by then the private sector is delivering a competitive solution. Essentially anything not using the first SLS iteration is likely to compete against the BFR.
It's not meant as a Shuttle replacement. It's a Deep Space vehicle. Shuttle was strictly an orbiter.
The shuttle was only a part of the original system. We would have had re-useable in orbit vehicles by now.
Its more a replacement for the Saturn V, which we haven't had for a long-ass time, and everyone who was involved with the program is either dead or retired, so it has to be redeveloped from scratch basically
Sounds exactly like a shuttle replacement.
I'm lucky to have lived in FL from the beginning of the shuttle program and have seen countless launches. It never got old and was an awesome sight, but the shock of being a witness to the Challenger explosion has stuck with me. I was too young for Saturn V and I can't imaging how awesome that would have been.
When moon landing deniers say “If we went to the moon!?! Why haven’t we gone back!?! That’s proof we didn’t go!!!” I send them to this video
Clostridium Tetani well again. Blame congress, they won’t let them be ambitious nor give them time.
NASA: *reuses engines from the old Space Shuttle*
SpaceX: *Laughs in Merlin and Raptor*
Blue Origin: *Laughs in BE-3PM*
@@dbneptune don’t you mean be-4? Be3u is non reusable and be3 is a non orbital rocket engine
@@adamkerman475 google is a dirty liar
@@dbneptune true that lol
Sad but politics caused this gap, hopefully we can put that stuff on the back burner in the future
Ross h23 How exactly? You act like it’s a trivial matter. But a politician that “puts it on the back burner” would lose his job.
What you mean to say is we should somehow force the people to fund something even if they don’t want to.
Loses his job - by a lack of 'campaign contibutions'
Communism ☭
Interstellarsurfer Lose his job because the people he failed to represent didn’t vote him back in.
MasterMAT Yeah, because we saw how much better the communists did at space flight.
8:45 "It keeps Orion capsule, which was pretty far in to development."
And it has now been longer just since then than the entirety of the development of the Saturn V and Apollo program... If you count from the beginning of the Constellation/Orion, it will have been longer than from Sputnik to the last moon landing between Orion's start of development to its first crewed launch.
And from the first uncrewed launch of Orion to the first crewed launch, it will have been longer than the period of time between the first uncrewed Mercury launch and the moon landing.
And this for a "shuttle derived system that will decrease costs and development time."
You have to take into account NASA has no where near the amount of funding they had during the cold war, they are doing miracles by making a heavy lift rocket with post Apollo levels of budget.
It turns out that advanced rocket science is harder to get done when you don't have the government pouring 3% of your country's GDP(!) into your project, as was the case in the Apollo era.
@@odysseyvoyager2354 actaully nasas budget in something like 1964adjusted fore infaltion really wasnt that far off today.
@@ausintune9014 In 1964 it was near to 5% of the total federal budget, today its less than a percent.
And all this while half of Orion spacecraft is now outsourced...
Lets not all forget about the X-37 which was a small scale test model of what was suppose to be a suitable replacement for the space shuttle. But as we all know this project got transferred to the Air Force . Last time I checked the two X-37's that they are flying have been setting new records while they carry their classified payload. Also NASA could have just replaced the Solid rocket booster to Liquid Fly Back boosters That would have been a lot cheaper than replacing it out right. Funny thing is the Space shuttle was suppose to have this type of boosters from the beginning. But the budget cutting monster stepped in and canceled that as well. And here we are today.
It’s hard to get bonered about non-reusable rockets, especially non throttleable solid fuelled ones.
I know they make a lot of sense in some applications, but it just feels so wasteful.
I’d still love to see a Saturn V go up though...
Actually, the SRBs are reusable (at least they were on the shuttle).
@@edgarwalk5637 Ultimately cost close to as much to refurbish as build new. Is why no reusable SRBs have been developed since.
A Modern version of the Saturn V's J-2 engines (the second and third stage engines) was planned for the constellation Mars missions, and we know what happened with that.
Well researched, edited and said. Bravo Mr. Manley
Wow. This is probably your best video Ever Scott.
1981 to 2011. I remember me watching the first misson of Columbia on my parents tv set.
The last flight I watched on a Laptop "Personal Computer" via something called "Internet".
Isn´t that strange?
Sort of similar here... except that the final launch, I watched in person, from Titusville, along with a million of my closest friends. (I'd promised myself after Challenger that I'd get down to the Cape to see a Shuttle launch in person, renewed it after Columbia, and got it in just under the wire!)
The first launch I watched was John Glenn’s return to space. I was in the 3rd grade. Today I work in aerospace and have a small role in building SLS, all because Mrs. Schader turned on the TV.
Same, although I watched the last launch on a tv at a Thai restaurant hanging out with a friend from work. We were both thinking, "NOW what?"
Bonus points if the TV was still black-and-white.
@@funnyitworkedlasttime6611 Thank you Mrs. Schader, very cool!
After they test-fly SLS, it will be canceled for budgetary concerns.
So begins the development of SPS, that will reuse the idea of Sending People to Space, by couple decades of reinventing the same shaped rockets with similar capabilities.
And the cycle continues.
You forgot the most important part, the SPS is going to be shuttle derived as well, to save costs and to keep the right contractors happy...
Love your channel , very informative.... Keep it up , love the excitement you have
Why would anyone not like this video? It is filled with accurate and precise information about our space program? Where else can you find a summary like this that covers this information so well and so understandably? We are fortunate to have Scott Manley to provide presentations like this and I thank him.
I am rather skeptical that the privatization of spaceflight was an inherently good thing, But happy for some kind of redundancy in human flight vehicles compared to where we have been.
It's not the privatization that's good; it's the competition. When commercial options are more affordable and dependable, NASA can get more done with what Congress gives it.
@@kentslocum I have no faith in the market to actually hold up to those free market competition ideals. There just aren't enough players and no on-ramps even in industries providing huge household staples. There's no way the heavy lift industry with like, three players will do better.
@@Blackholefourspam Wish you were wrong, but you're not.
saturn IB and the CSM was a much cheaper and better vehicle for both low earth and possible cheaper trans lunar missions, Nixon really just wanted the space program to go away and ditched all the apollo hardware on purpose
Great overview as always!
Great historical vid Scott. Thanks.
7:59 - The solution for that problem is ridiculously simple: more Sepratrons to get the capsule farther away from the exploding rocket.
Except this would involve adding enough sepratrons that the payload is just sepratrons
Another mistake when they choose Lockheed who was developing a lifting body CEV the time and then told them they had to use an Apollo shaped OML which meant repackaging everything in the new shape.
Ares I cause farther delays esp after they got rid of the air launched SSME which greatly reduced performance and required a change from a 5.5M capsule to a 5M capsule which meant yet another redesign though now the design was much farther along and significant time was lost.
LM was made to chase a moving target with the mass requirements which is one of the worse things to have to do in design.
When Apollo was designed Max Faget and Von Braun set aside 30 tons for the CSM even though it was originally thought it would only weight 24 tons they ended up needing almost that entire margin.
Fun fact Starliner is largely derived from Boeing's entry into the CEV program which was pretty much a scaled up Apollo capsule.
Ive been speculating the Starliner was derived from their proposals for the CEV, could you give me a source where it specifically says this? It would be cool if Boeing modified their Starliner for lunar flights or perhaps even act as a parallel to lockheed's Orion.
Keep the videos coming Scott!
Well, here's hoping we're flying crews again next year. Great video and discussion, Scott!
Your wish is granted.
Scott, looks like I’m an early bird. I love your vids! Keep it up.
It's gets better. If you look at SP-413 (the one on space colonies) they have the same heavy lift concept - ET for main body with four SSMEs beneath and a pair of SRBs. In 1977. (Actually, 4 SRBs now that I'm looking at it.)
Great one Scott. Thank you!
Thank you for another informative video.
(typos edited)
In the end when it comes to rockets, stages stacked one on the other at a nice vertical angle are just plain safer and more ergonomically efficient. As "cool" as the shuttle was, the shuttle for spacecraft was like a spork is to dinning wear. Forks Knives and Spoons are designed the way they are for a reason, so are rockets and the spacecraft and modules they carry. Just because a spacecraft doesn't have wings doesn't mean we are "going backward" like all the baby boomers scream about; that shuttle C looked awful; like a poor excuse to make the *shuttle* format work. I mean, Shaping it like a plane without wings that would hang off the side and then not come back? That looks so unnecessarily pointless! My gosh, I am glad they never flew that thing. I hope after a few flights that they'll give the SLS an actual name, I rather liked the Ares unless they're saving that for something else? I thought Saturn-21 (21st century) would be a cool nickname. This gleaming orange redhead of a vehicle needs a name. SLS is just so jaded and 90's-2000's sounding. We need some flare and character back in the space industry, take a few notes from SpaceX! There's a reason people love them!
"Jupiter" oh wait that's already taken... too bad they didn't use the name from Jupiter direct, it would have fit so well since it comes after Saturn especially since its mostly orange.
I agree with you about the naming; "Saturn-C" for the Roman Numeral 'C' representing 100, or the next century (nice double-entendre there) seems to work well to me.
On the Orbiter design and launch configuration itself; it was the first of its kind, a literal prototype program, so I don't think bashing it well after its conclusion serves any purpose. Like the Apollo program, it was a milestone accomplishment on many fronts, and a national symbol because of it. Yes it was hideously expensive, overbudget, and overrated during development. It was also incredibly useful, versatile, and the only way to do certain things at the time.
Strapping the shuttle to the side of the tank was predicated by USAF requirements to launch very large payloads. Everyone knew it was problematic, and the original design had a smaller vehicle stacked vertically on the stack.
O-rings are back boys!
maybe don't celebrate that fact.
@@camohawk6703 I really don't think he was...
@@otrab1080 which will not work if SRB explodes. But that has been known since Ares times and nobody cares.
They took the single, worst idea from the Shuttle architecture, and **insisted** that any follow-up project must include that "feature".
You do remember that the SRB's were to be a stopgap measure, until they could develop liquid, possibly fly-back, boosters?
Instead that 42-year-old stopgap measure, which has already killed 7 crew, is being mandated for use in the newest launch system.
@@marvinkitfox3386 SRB´s killed no-one, NASA managers did when they decided to launch against Thiokol warnings.
Good video! Thank you!
For clarity. Due of the high heat loads of the Solid Rocket Boosters and their energetic exhaust plumes it was found that the ablative nozzles of the core stage RS-68 engines and their close proximity required core stage engines that could better deal with the high heat environments. An engine with a regeneratively cooled nozzle fit the bill. This was why the Rs-25 was selected. The video made clear exactly why the RS-68 was rejected, but didn't mention exactly why the RS-25 WAS selected, just that NASA upgraded from the unsuitable RS-68 to the RS-25.
I love how the SLS is actually one of four failed programs, so when they quote the figure of 40 billion in development it doesnt include the previous ones. Basically, the SLS has been in development since 1991, once it launches its first article in 2020 it will have costed 100 billion almost as much as the whole apollo program... to reach less than the same capability that the falcon heavy developed with 5 years of R&D and 400 million dollars. Oh and the falcon heavy is new reusable top notch technology that is cutting edge in almost every aspect. The nasa rocket uses parts that already existed in the 80s...
So basically the score is this: NASA: 100 billion and 30 years to launch one expendable rocket made of old parts that accomplishes nothing new. SPACEX: 0.5 billion and 5 years to develop a reusable rocket that launches more weight into space and is done from scratch, almost every component is new.
DAMN
mind that SLS will be a more capable launcher than FH, mainly because of the payload SIZE restrictions of FH that SLS doesn't have.
And that's the main problem with FH, its small diameter payload restriction which limits what can be launched on it.
Basically, anything you can launch on FH you can launch cheaper on F9 unless it needs to go further than geosynchronous orbit, and if you go further than that you're almost certainly going to need a lager size payload than FH can handle.
It was designed for the abandoned manned moonshot SpaceX were thinking of a few years ago, and since has itself been looking for a mission.
Still, for a 100 billion dollar price tag versus 0.5 billion dollar, its completely ridiculous. Also ,the first SLS, the one that will be tested in 2020 might be more capable only in some mission profiles. The one that will have more payload but still be inferior in terms of technology and still inveting basically nothing new will fly maybe in 2030 if everything goes as plan and no more money is requested, but since this program has been doubling in budget every about 5 years since 1990 that is unlikely
This is just another reason I agree with Ben Shapiro when he says "the government sucks at everything".
@@weeral1 Not at everything, no. For example, the government is a vast improvement over private industry when running medical insurance - better outcomes for about half the price tag compared to how the US does it. Or just think about how the world would look if all streets were financed by private industry - every road as a toll road. And it seems generally agreed that for good short-range public transport, you really need government money.
But it is certainly true that there are a lot of areas where private industry is better.
Oh, and then there are areas where the two are interwoven so much that the result sucks massively, for example the military-industrial complex.
Everything comes down to cost per kilogram for a given orbit (unless there are few or no alternatives to reach said orbit). Nearly everything since the Orbiter days has been measured in $/kg to LEO. The twilight of the Proton has happened in no small part due to SpaceX's crushing advantage in this area, while STILL developing and refining new designs.
Elon Musk did not start a new venture to build launch systems (which there have been plenty of since the official retirement of the Orbiter) to ( @thundercactus ) "suck off the government's golden tit" , but actually _make spaceflight profitable._ Yes, most of those profits have come from gov't. contracts, but SpaceX is serving _private_ customers and running off of _private_ investments, not gov't. budget proposals. I think this is one more example of how "private industry wins."
amazing video Scott, you'r channel will always be going through max Q
Excellent! Thanks Scott.
Love this channel. You should do a video on the V2 rocket!
A whole bunch of Frankenrockets...
2:30 That looks awfully similar to the Ariane 5...
Yeah
1:00 thank you for showing the video to the point it breaks the sound barrier
Thank you for explaining.
They should’ve created an ares 1 replacement to go along with the sls. Right now, crew will have to fly on the monstrously expensive sls to orbit for Artemis instead of a dedicated crew vehicle
Could you do a video covering the history of the ISS? I'm also really curious how you would build a space station without the shuttle, how would you rendezvous and berth modules without the useful cargo bay and Canada arm?
Same way russians did build their space stations?
There is nothing the Space Shuttle did that SpaceX's BFR won't be able to do, and it will do it ten times cheaper.
@@panpiper What does the bfr have to do with this?
Peter Cohen Actually, far as I've seen, there is no BFR version that has anything like the Shuttle's gigantic cargo bay, and the associated capability as an orbital work platform. Maybe they'll come up with some sort of cargo version eventually?
randomnickify The Russian stations were tiny and simplisitic compared to the ISS. Same methods wouldn't have worked. ISS was designed for Shuttle construction capabilities.
Clever naming. Commercial Orbital Transfer Services. COTS.
COTS is also gov't parlance for "commercial off the shelf" parts, used to describe materials that are available from other vendors instead of having to make/develop it from scratch.
Great video, as always. In the future could you please do a follow up regarding the side projects that NASA had, like HL-20, X-38, and the like? Perhaps even a rundown of the proposed vehicles that NASA downselected from in the original COTS/CRS, and spelling out the difference between all of those different programs? Thank you!!
One of the most pathetic and embarrassing stories in the history of spaceflight
Right, definitely much worse than the U.K., who almost had orbital capability, and decided to stop developing the project because there were cheaper alternatives...
I would say the decision to cancel the follow on programs to Apollo that would have utilized the hardware already developed was fairly embarrassing. Basically tens of billions of dollars in R&D was wasted to spend tens of billions of more R&D on space shuttle hardware.
Buran can compite - a 14 billion program, envolved 1,5 million people, that flew once, and was crashed by a rotten roof.
A bit dramatic. Should be pointed out there was a similar gap period between Apollo and the Shuttle system as well.
Greg Brance and the space shuttle was ultimately a total failure, which did not meet the design goals. Politicians should not be running a space program.
I watch this with a smile on my face with SpaceX kicking a** now
Thank God for the private sector putting this country back into the manned space launch business. In the meantime its been over 5 years since Orion's first and last test flight while we wait for a 1 billion dollar per launch monster rocket without a mission.
I would be happy about more details about the x33 program. the wikipedia article is very short and superficial. are there other sources for this?
Very good video, with some excellent footage and technical details. You didn't mention the vibration and pogo effects, which turned out to be a problem in using a shuttle SSB as a single booster. I think that Space X have changed the game, and that a new BE-3U powered LH2/LOX upper stage for Falcon Heavy could quickly enhance its capabilities if necessary.
well, its over a year ater, and almost the end of 2019, and neither has taken a human into orbit or to the space station...
Fly Safe, by staying on the ground.
Some statement haven't aged well have they :)
@JustARandomPerson WalkingBy said : "What do you mean they both haven't taken people yet."
in response to my :"well, its over a year later, and almost the end of 2019, and neither has taken a human into orbit" which was responding to 0:31 "but next year(2019) will see the return of domestic launch capability in the form of SpaceX's Dragon, and Boeing's StarLiner" neither of which has launched a human to orbit yet @April 2020
@JustARandomPerson WalkingBy And I was referring to Scott's statement, not Steve's comment
I like the way these US craft look, with the Shuttle components and stuff
Lost of white and orange. Reminds me of Moonraker :P
Being pretty doesn't equal sustainability. The SLS will cost $1 billion per launch and is 100% expendable. Remember that.
Dweight K Schrute You don't seem to understand what the SLS is actually _for._ The routine, simple business of ground to orbit will be handled by little guys like SpaceX. SLS is a large launcher for use on Deep Space missions. For when people actually want to _go somewhere._ It won't fly very often. It's not intended to compete on ground to orbit launch costs. Using such a high performance machine as the SLS to deliver crew to the ISS would be like using a dump truck to go grocery shopping. Wild overkill.
@@RealityIsTheNow But you assume that given the chance I wouldn't go grocery shopping with a dump truck
@RealityIsTheNow If only there were some sort of really big fucking rocket that is being built to be both high performance as well as sustainable.
Hello Scott, please review Reaction Egnine's Skylon space plane concept and their SABER engine.
Love your work
I noticed the other day most of my ships on KSP look like a mix of SLS, Ares and Space X designs... Although an Ares I is darn near impossible to recreate in stock due to the low thrust and lack of gimbal on the KSP solid rocket engines.
As for the contractor stuff. I live in Utah, my commute takes me a few miles away from ATK Orbital's Magna plant nearly every day; and I have been up and visited their Promontory facility were they do the primary work on the SRB motors. However, the irony is all this political back and forth really has been pretty bad on the contractors the politicians are trying to 'save.' Promontory has been pretty quiet since the end of the Shuttle program, with that 2009 Ares I test being their last flight. They may have done one or two tests on the SRB since then, but compared to the bustling era of constant work and testing during the shuttle it seems to be pretty lethargic now. Their transload facility in Corrine were they shipped finished SRB's to Florida has basically been mothballed. At this point as a company, it seems like ATK and Northrop are gambling on the SLS managing to fly; but for their sake I would hope they would start looking into potential non-government buyers for their products... since it seems the SLS has been a slow program so far.
They aren't gambling on it. They are just milking it for all the money they can get.
The money flowing to contractors may be going straight to the shareholders and CEOs. As with ULA and the billions to keep them open, apparently no one thought Space X would come along and they should of invested that money in new designs to replace Atlas and Delta. The old days they could of gotten congress to fund a new design.
I want NASA out of the launch business entirely. They should be putting their entire budget towards building interplanetary probes, satellites, orbital telescopes, etc., and contracting for launches. I am sick and tired of the pork barrel politics wasting tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
Agreed
True af
Yeah, the SLS is going to become redundant very quickly, and after that it's just a waste of money to use it instead of BFR or something else. Unfortunately it probably won't be easy to convince Congress that saving money is better than giving it to all their friends.
Don't worry. The SLS won't fly often. Once a year at most. The routine business of ground to orbit taxi service will be subcontracted out to SpaceX and ULA.
Danel Jensen When it comes to BFR...we'll see. Its an entirely new vehicle without government support, whereas the SLS is built on decades proven technology and has the US tax base to fund it. Honestly, given how many Falcon 9 boosters blew up before they figured out how to land them, I'll be thrilled if the BFR prototypes don't simply crash and burn.
Thanks for sharing 👍😀
I remember when Aries was being developed. They were experiencing destructive pogo osculations in the design simulations of the cargo vehicle. It was a serious problem and I wonder if this was a factor in the project cancellation.
The Federal government trying to be creative and efficient. Like the Post Office and the VA. What could go wrong?
Don't forget Social Security. Those ding dongs make postal service employees look like national heroes.
1:31 - Why only two SRBs? Why not four or six or eight?
that would be to different than Shutlle
There was the DC/X in there, too, would love to hear Scott's take on that.
What are the niche cases for the SLS? Especially compared to BFR
The X-33 was the greatest and best spaceship they’ve come up with 😍🤩 Cancelling it was THE BIGGEST MISTAKE in human history! 🤦🏻♂️🤬😒
The XRS-2200 is not a particularly impressive engine, it's heavy, it's based on the J-2S and uses it's gas gen cycle. Compared to the Space Shuttle main engine it kind of sucked.
Give them time, some government will come up with a worse mistake.
I wouldn't say human history (there have been far more costly blunders, believe me); we have SpaceX and its rising rivals, so we're not doomed. However, quite possibly the worst decision in the history of flight.
Timothy McGee hell yeah!
I think Shelby was trying top protect jobs in his home state.
What happened with the Constellation launch at 9:30? Looks like a separation gone wrong. Was that designed?
The first stage of the SLS has been built and is undergoing testing right now. Which puts it ahead of all the other shuttle replacement launchers. The Orion capsule has completed an unmanned test flight, which puts it ahead of every other shuttle replacement program. The dragon has completed many supply missions with the last one being done by a capsule that had flown twice before. So we have reliability and reusability.
@3:09 "Hi quality 1980s computer graphics" - LOL
With over 3000 computers on the Space Shuttle, I never believed that it would ever get off the ground. I was dumbfounded when I watched the first launch and it didn't blow up on the launch pad. It was too complex to start with. Unfortunately, along with the ISS, it was and still is the pinnacle of the US manned space program.
At least it flew, imagine how bummed the Russians must have been seeing Energia fly twice perfectly and then get canned.
The shuttle had 5 antiquated computers, built by honeywell utilizing an IBM chipset. The lag time from design to build is so long that the designs were obsolete when they were built. What is amazing is that the computer software worked.
Mr. Manley did you read anything about there being a new definition to the Kilogram. If You have I would love to hear your take on that and how it may impact the world of space. If you haven’t I would recommend reading about it, i read it from pbs.
Love that closing theme. Sounds like space.
7:20 ... that was supposed to carry a crude vehicle into orbit. No, wait, a *crewed* vehicle. Lol.
You should design a ship, I think it would be interesting.
He could do it in KSP
@@nesa1126 I was thinking something less restrictive, like on paper or something
@HO LAM YIU probably not, because the topic has low interest (but not me though)
Fantastic video. Slight clarification, Ares-I was not only designed to take Orion to ISS as stated. It was also originally designed to get Orion to LEO where it would rendezvous with the Ares-V payload (Earth Departure Stage and Lunar Lander) for Lunar surface missions. The idea was that the Ares-I would be man rated, but the Ares-V 1st stage would not have to be since it didn't carry crew (although it's upper stage was the EDS, so would push the crew to the moon). The Orion to ISS was to some extent a "side mission" as a "back-up" to commercial crew which was in its infancy at the time. This all became mute when the Orion + SLS concept rose out of the ashes of constellation and Orion's sole focus became "exo-LEO" exploration. Fun fact, Orion still has ISS mission related design requirements on the books even though it will never go to ISS.
I don't remember it (I was only 1 month old) but I watched the moon landing with my Sister Mother and Father on a Philco Black and white 15" Televisions set. I watched the last shuttle launch on my Compaq 15" lap top, from my car using the WiFi from a fast food establishment. My life has covered an abundance of technologies and advancements, yet I still feel that we are just getting started understanding the planet we live on and the near space we live in.
I have a question:
Had the space shuttle a emergency ejection sistem or smth like this?
The earliest flights had ejection systems like Gemini, but that was removed when they were satisfied it was safe enough to carry the full compliment of crew and payload.
Ejection seats were present on the first couple flights (Enterprise, and then Columbia), but they were disabled for later flights, and never present on the newer shuttles. They weighed a lot, and were only present for the pilot/co-pilot. Never for the larger crews.
@@Marc83Aus Thats silly you doesn't have to be a NASA engenier to know that if you play rousian roulet the first time you might live...
@@slikrx thanks man
@@DavidRamirez-lq2co They were only of very limited utility, only the enterprise and Columbia were built with the seats, and only the 4 front seats were eject-able as the other mid deck seats had signfiant structure in the way.
The seats would have only been usable for an accident within the first 100 seconds of ascent and wouldn't have helped much for descent accidents. At least not Compared to just bailing out and using parachutes.
5:36 - We really need linear aerospikes in KSP.
Agreed!
1:20
Me: "Hold up, isn't that an Ares V? Not an SLS?"
Then you said it was an Ares V and I was relived
I was really hoping you would touch on the liberty rocket.
Neither Crew Dragon nor Starliner are replacements for the shuttle. The Shuttles were true space ships, capable of carrying out a wide variety of missions. Crew Dragon and Starliner are mere taxis, capably of little more than lifting crew to the space station. The true replacement for the Space Shuttle will be the BFR, a far more advanced space *ship* not only able to sevice the space station and perform a wide variety of other Earth orbital missions, but with full interplanetary capability, which will take us back to the Moon, and on to Mars and perhaps even the asteroids.
Even the falcon heavy can get similar payload mass to the shuttle into orbit with reusability (even if it has no plans to be man-rated and doesn’t even have many scheduled flights), and would obviously be much cheaper (based on Scott’s numbers, the 3 SSMEs on the shuttle cost more than a fully reused Falcon Heavy)
The SLS is being build for deep space... to take us to the Moon, Mars and asteroids. It will lift the heavy modules needed for these missions, not just the Orion capsule. NASA is out of the low Earth manned launches, having literally funded the private companies development for that. The BFR is still a concept being developed and I'm betting will face delays and setbacks. It will depend on selling it as transportation into space as well as sub orbital passenger service. If it isn't profitable, it fails.
The Shuttles were true spaceships? They were confined to LEO.. It may just be me but a true spaceship has to be able to actually leave orbit and go somewhere.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom I see your point, but I think the Shuttles' flexibility justifies the name. Apollo was able to break orbit and go somewhere, but I would not call it a ship, much too small. Either way, BFR will truly be space ships.
@@billinct860 No, NASA did not fund development of the Falcon 9. BFR will fly. You can make book on whether it will do so before the SLS. Once it does, it's BFS will be fully capable of flying to, landing on, and returning from both the Moon and Mars. No additional modules needed. I expect the first Mars mission to be in the mid to late 2020s, funded by NASA, flown on a BFS.
SLS has already been leapfrogged by new technology. There is nothing you could do with the SLS that you can not already do, at a fraction of the cost, with two or three launches of Falcon Heavy.
We didn’t see the sign that said “mind the gap”
At 2:20 the animation of the SLS punching out of a cloud layer shows the exhaust plume rising in the same direction as the rocket. Wouldn't the exhaust have to be moving downward in order to have positive thrust? Or is there some cool rocket physics phenomenon going on that I'm not aware of?
Thanks for the very interesting videos!
Could just be a goof on the animators part..
Could you please explain about docking systems of space ship into iss (international space station)?