Weaponized Space Shuttle?

Yup. I'm still convinced that the better route for NASA to take was to just focus on modernizing the Saturn/Apollo hardware like the Soviets did with Soyuz. Maintaining Saturn V production for heavy-lift capability and replacing the Saturn 1B with something more well-designed would've been much cheaper and more effective in the long run.

>cheaper and more effective

that's not the NASA way!

You always fear what you can’t understand user!

Attached: E11F6D0C-FE89-4763-A0AA-59353E8C28B6.jpg (750x516, 40K)

so since the shuttle was just some bullshit thing the air force bullied NASA into making, is pic related the prototyped for its actual replacement? not as an astronaut-carrier but as a space truck for the NRO and such.

Attached: Boeing_X-37B_inside_payload_fairing_before_launch.jpg (1824x2736, 2.79M)

NASA wanted to make the shuttle, it just got forced by the DOD to significantly modify it in exchange for funding. The X-37B is too small to recover satellites (a feature that was barely used on the shuttle anyway), and regular rockets like Delta are used to launch payloads. It’s most likely just a reusable platform for covertly testing space hardware. You can gain a lot more data from a test when you can return the hardware to Earth and analyze it in a lab.

Being able to deploy a nuclear weapon from orbit above the enemy gives them zero warning time, makes a decapitating strike very credible

The Shuttle could retrieve cargo from orbit with its manipulator arm and bring it back, unlike a conventional rocket system.

Right, but a shuttle launch is incredibly visible. The only value of orbital nuclear weapons is if you disguise the payload as something else. The soviets considered something similar with Fractional Orbital Bombardment.

That feature was used like, twice in its whole history. As it turns out, dedicating a mission to retrieval and repairing a satellite is much more expensive than just building a new one.

Not relevant. It had the capability to de-orbit large cargoes, which a rocket cannot do

history has demonstrated that this capability was not worth what we spent to achieve it

A capability that was almost never used.

I think it was 4 missions for 5 sats, right?

To play devil's advocate, grabbing an enemy satellite and taking it back for analysis is a very tempting capability. However, given how easily detected something like that would be, it's of dubious value outside of open warfare with a space power.

Shuttle was not a money waster or a waste of time. There was no better platform for space repairs or building, and various other orbital work which the shuttle did very well. No other platform can do what the shuttle did, and we would need to create something similar to build another ISS.

Yeah, something like that. They tested the MMU on one of those recovery missions.
>pic related

Attached: Westar6Recovery.jpg (428x402, 59K)

It absolutely was. Its heavy-lift capability could be more safely provided by unmanned platforms, the satellite recovery mission proved to be of dubious utility, and the technologies developed for it (beyond the main engines and solids) have proven to be a dead end for NASA's current interests in manned spaceflight. It was great in theory, but the concept was executed poorly.

the ISS is itself a waste of time and money that didn't need to get built to begin with. whenever the ISS goes away it's unlikely we'll build a replacement, because the ISS does not do anything useful aside from a handful of scientific experiments, none of which require a space station to perform (aside from the ones that monitor the physiology of the astronauts as they hang out in space)

that said, you don't need the shuttle to build a space station. there were stations built before the shuttle and there will be stations built after. you can deliver everything you need on rockets and just piece it together in orbit, which is what all other stations have done. that is exactly what the shuttle did for the ISS except that the "rocket" was an extremely expensive space plane which had no practical purpose

>current interests in manned spaceflight
Thats because nasa is moving beyond orbit.

It absolutely was not a waste. It was the best EVA platform ever made, which made it far better for space construction and the ISS simply would not have happened without it.

The SS orbiter was the single best orbital vehicle humanity has ever made.

>mfw I learned the designer of the shuttle is literally named Max Fag

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Faget

Attached: 1555668827750.jpg (600x600, 44K)

I always figured the play was to de-orbit either stealth satellites (Zuma) hidden behind lower orbit debris fields or an inflatable structure, or to de-obrit satellites with nuclear payloads.

>Thats because nasa is moving beyond orbit.

people have been saying this for about 70 years now

aside from a few short trips to the moon, NASA has never seriously contemplated moving beyond orbit. why? mostly because there's no reason to, which makes it hard to get the money to do it.

also, when we look at the history of NASA we see nothing but a stream of grift and lies punctuated by brief moments where we snapped some cool pictures with a robot

>because the ISS does not do anything useful aside from a handful of scientific experiments, none of which require a space station to perform (aside from the ones that monitor the physiology of the astronauts as they hang out in space)

Downright false and a god damn shame you would even go there. You need a station to do basically ALL of the experiments, none of which can be done on unmanned sats.

>using rockets to place station parts
This works for smaller stations, but eventually you need to deliver and EVA to set the station up for larger stations or you will be spinning your wheels.

I say again, there is no better orbital vehicle than the SSO.

I don't understand why you'd even bother to post bullshit like this lol

>people have been saying this for about 70 years now
Did ya miss the Apollo missions?

Says the man who goes "people have been saying this for 70 years" about the organization that has been around for only 60 and has gone beyond orbit many, many times.

It's certainly the most ambitious orbital vehicle ever made, but I don't think it's fair to call it the best given its abysmal safety record.
I'd argue that the on-orbit construction capabilities of the shuttle could have been replaced by a single, permanent construction module that contained a Canadarm and some modular work platforms for EVAs. At that point, you could launch most of the ISS components in Deltas or Atlases.
Might need to develop some sort of custom hyperglolic upper stage for rendezvous and docking, but that cost is outweighed by the costs of flying crew with every payload.

>people have been saying this for about 70 years now
congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/442/text

>I'd argue that the on-orbit construction capabilities of the shuttle could have been replaced by a single, permanent construction module
This means you are unable to effect repairs on the ground. And there is a Dextre on the ISS as it is.

With the shuttle you get heavy lift and a great EVA platform in one package. The only way to do this on a delta or atlas without major modifications is to do a dual launch, which is fucking crazy for the amount of EVA's you need for something like the ISS

A conventional rocket can't. Starship can, if and when that flies. Unsurprisingly, Elon's been trying to sell the DOD on it.

>repairs on the ground
When was the shuttle ever used to recover ISS hardware for ground repair? Not trying to be a dick, just genuinely unaware of that ever happening.

Since SSO is no longer flying and can no longer fly, I feel safe comparing it to other rockets in the similar categories. Namely Buran and Starship. SSO was inferior to both. You're right that shuttles as a concept are nifty and useful, but the Space Shuttle was a terrible space shuttle.

This. Though I don't think you can really say Buran would've been much of an improvement had it flown more than once.

Not relevant.

It absolutely is relevant when the argument is that the capability to recover satellites makes the shuttle a good investment.

It's not relevant. It is a capability that rockets cannot accomplish.

>Buran
Good joke post, i had a laugh.

There are s o y s who think the Buran was better than the Shuttle. Absolute retardation

Buran had capabilities Shuttle didn't, and the Energia carrier rocket was useful without Buran (unlike the Shuttle stack)

It's a capability other programs can accomplish. You can't defend Shuttle as unique and special without acknowledging it was ridiculously expensive and dangerous.

Don't mind me, just posting a far better version of the shuttle concept that was 95% done before being cancelled due to politics.

Attached: NASM-2F44CED7BCA62_001.jpg (2000x1480, 1.98M)

Spaceflight is inherently dangerous. The Shuttle brought more people into space and home than any other platform and could accomplish tasks rockets simply could not.

Buran could fly autonomously, which is cool, but the only thing worthwhile in that whole program was Energia. It's really a shame that the Soviets/Russians didn't have the money to develop it; it might've forced the US to re-develop its super heavy lift capability earlier.

More so that carbon-fiber tankage tech was poorly developed at the time, and congress didn't want to pay for similarly-massed lithium alloy tanks like the Shuttles' ET. So yeah, basically politics.

>Buran had capabilities Shuttle didn't,
Like what

>Energia carrier rocket was useful without Buran
Honest to God who cares

That doesn't make it a GOOD system, it makes it the only system of it's type. There are other systems in development (like Starship) or that were canceled because of Shuttle costs (like Venture Star) that are cheaper, safer, and generally superior. Shuttle was a first generation Shuttle, with millions of teething problems. It brought more people into space than any other rocket, it also killed more people than all other rockets combined (excluding ground casualties because lol N1)

>Like what
Autonomous flight and landing, for one. Buran never flew with cosmonauts, Shuttle couldn't fly without astronauts.

>Honest to god who cares
NASA is spending trillions trying to turn Shuttle hardware into it's own Energia equivalent. We call this program "SLS". Wouldn't it be nifty if that was part of the design to begin with?

>similarly-massed lithium alloy tanks like the Shuttles' ET
Would those have been reusable? I know they didn't for the shuttle.

Attached: 02s_jj14_e5c6057_live.jpg (800x555, 29K)

>Autonomous flight and landing, for one.
They built a copy of the Shuttle and flew it without people. Pointless but on Jow Forums that's considered 'better'

>NASA is spending trillions
lol

>Wouldn't it be nifty if that was part of the design to begin with?
No

Sure, capabilities like never going on a manned flight or only flying once.

Yeah, it just replaced the multi-lobed internal composite tanks with multi-lobed internal metal tanks. The composite tanks were a big part of the program's stated goals, though, so removing them from the design called the rest of the program into question. The metal tank design apparently came out lighter in the end due to the extra mass required to strengthen the lighter carbon fiber tanks, funnily enough.

>lets replicate a orbiter with great EVA characteristics
>UNMANNED

So Buran could something utterly pointless?

That's actually the same reason SpaceX's starship design has shifted back to metal tankage. While carbon fiber is a much lighter material, and theoretically stronger, it often requires extra reinforcement compared to an all-metal equivalent. Combine that with its generally finicky properties when exposed to cryogenic propellants (see SpaceX's problems with the helium pressurant tanks on the F9) and you can often find carbon fiber based designs weighing more in the end than their metal counterparts.

I suppose you're technically right in the sense that the Wright Flyer was a terrible plane.

>Capabilities I don't like don't exist
If Buran had been an American program, Energia would still be flying. SLS wouldn't be in development hell, and an EMPTY Buran could have flown rescue for Columbia. Never mind the fact that Jow Forums is parading "repairing ISS modules on the ground" as a capability Shuttle had.

Don't forget recent advances in cold forming stainless steel.

>Never mind the fact that Jow Forums is parading "repairing ISS modules on the ground.

What the fuck are you talking about.

>capabilities that are pointless are indeed important!

I think he’s referring to

This. You could easily argue it is more expensive to launch, retrieve, land and then relaunch; as opposed to fixing in orbit or merely launching a (newer) replacement.
You're risk of total loss is significantly higher with ground based repair.

Shuttle was a mistake the moment Congress and DoD put their greasy hands on it, and was a mess from start to finish. SLS is no different. Energia really was something else, and Buran was an interesting competitor on paper, but their space program was already dead and N1 didn't help the downfall. It's sad it didn't work out, nowadays you need competition or else progress grinds to an halt and lobbying takes over (like SSO and SLS). But people will defend that shit. I guess at least the shuttle did fly more than twice.
Columbia could've been rescued with another shuttle that would've taken long enough, but NASA underestimated the amount of damage, as far as I remember. These fucking tiles were a mess to deal with and considering how many were regularly lost each reentry I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.