Concorde or the space shuttle
Discussion
In terms of lost capability, my vote would be for the shuttle.
People still travel across the across the Atlantic, albeit more slowly than Concorde could.
With the cessation of shuttle flights the ability to retrieve items from low earth orbit (be they satellites or larger items from the ISS) is gone
People still travel across the across the Atlantic, albeit more slowly than Concorde could.
With the cessation of shuttle flights the ability to retrieve items from low earth orbit (be they satellites or larger items from the ISS) is gone
jingars said:
In terms of lost capability, my vote would be for the shuttle.
People still travel across the across the Atlantic, albeit more slowly than Concorde could.
With the cessation of shuttle flights the ability to retrieve items from low earth orbit (be they satellites or larger items from the ISS) is gone
In theory, but the capability was hardly ever used - due to the inherent danger of rendesvous and docking or grabbing what could be unstable or damaged spacecraft or satellites carrying toxic, volatile and explosive fuels. It was generally assumed that any sort of landing accident with a dead satellite in the cargo bay would result in write off of the Shuttle and almost definitely be fatal for the crew.People still travel across the across the Atlantic, albeit more slowly than Concorde could.
With the cessation of shuttle flights the ability to retrieve items from low earth orbit (be they satellites or larger items from the ISS) is gone
Only a small number of satellites were ever retrieved. And as far as I can remember, only two satellites were ever fixed in orbit, Solar Max in 1984 and the Hubble telescope (which was designed from the outset to be serviced regularly by Shuttle flights).
The Shuttle failed to meet most of its designers original expectations, mainly because they just couldn't launch it at the frequency it was originally hoped i.e. 100 flights a year or 2,000 flights over an expected 20 year operational life. In the end, they managed 135 flights over 30 years and killed 14 people in the process.
Eric Mc said:
The Shuttle failed to meet most of its designers original expectations, mainly because they just couldn't launch it at the frequency it was originally hoped i.e. 100 flights a year or 2,000 flights over an expected 20 year operational life. In the end, they managed 135 flights over 30 years and killed 14 people in the process.
So exactly the same reasons Concorde failed just different numbers.And Concorde killed 113.
Context is everything in these discussions, and one person's definition of "failure" will not be another's.
In my view Concorde was a failure. There are parallels to be made with the shuttle; both were at the edge of materials and design knowledge - and as operational services neither met their intended economies.
The shuttle's retrieval capabilities have been used. We won't know what went on with the classified DoD missions, but a small number of satellites have been retrieved. Of more import is the kit returned to earth from the ISS. The earlier Progress missions had a removable auto docking system that could be removed from the Progress and returned to Earth in the shuttle for re-use. A large number of experiments have also gone up and come down via the shuttle.
Context is everything in these discussions, and one person's definition of "failure" will not be another's.
In my view Concorde was a failure. There are parallels to be made with the shuttle; both were at the edge of materials and design knowledge - and as operational services neither met their intended economies.
The shuttle's retrieval capabilities have been used. We won't know what went on with the classified DoD missions, but a small number of satellites have been retrieved. Of more import is the kit returned to earth from the ISS. The earlier Progress missions had a removable auto docking system that could be removed from the Progress and returned to Earth in the shuttle for re-use. A large number of experiments have also gone up and come down via the shuttle.
Concorde was brought down by poor design of the shielding around critical systems - just as Columbia was.
Air France Flight 4590 hit debris on the runway, which caused a tyre to break up and hit the underside of the wing. The impact broke fuel lines and the course of events was set for a tragic outcome.
Wikipedia also has links to articles stating that it was improperly loaded (weight to aft) and a tonne over maximum structural weight - shades of a cavalier attitude to operational guidelines that did for Challenger.
The X-37B was initially designed to fit inside the shuttle payload for launch and it's payload bay has been likened to the load space of an estate car; the X-37B's ability to retrieve anything is as nothing compared the shuttle.
Air France Flight 4590 hit debris on the runway, which caused a tyre to break up and hit the underside of the wing. The impact broke fuel lines and the course of events was set for a tragic outcome.
Wikipedia also has links to articles stating that it was improperly loaded (weight to aft) and a tonne over maximum structural weight - shades of a cavalier attitude to operational guidelines that did for Challenger.
davepoth said:
The USA haven't lost the capability the shuttle was designed for, now that they have the X-37B. Anything else they did with it was incidental.
The shuttle's payload is 60 feet long and was designed to accommodate a KH9 spy satellite.The X-37B was initially designed to fit inside the shuttle payload for launch and it's payload bay has been likened to the load space of an estate car; the X-37B's ability to retrieve anything is as nothing compared the shuttle.
sneijder said:
There's no place for it right now.
I agree, Now, where the focus is on Value for Money and air traffic is Significantly reduced due the Recession, if Concorde were still flying, I doubt it would be flying 2 returns trips per day LHR-JFK.However, at the time of its Design, Creation, First flight and Entry into Service, it met all of the design criteria, it showed the kind of technological advances that could be made when 2 countries collaborate (and IMO sowed the seed for future collaborations on Aircraft, the Tornado and Typhoon) and despite its low sales, which was an unfortunate side effect of the 1973 Oil Crisis, it Served 2 countries well for 27 years.
Concorde ran its natural course, CDG helped speed the process up a few years, but if it hadn't been parked up in 2003, I believe it would still have been parked up by now.
Did Concorde Fail? No.
Was Concorde as Successful as other Aircraft to which it cannot be compared? No.
jingars said:
The shuttle's payload is 60 feet long and was designed to accommodate a KH9 spy satellite.
The X-37B was initially designed to fit inside the shuttle payload for launch and it's payload bay has been likened to the load space of an estate car; the X-37B's ability to retrieve anything is as nothing compared the shuttle.
The space shuttle's ability to retrieve things, and indeed put them into space, was incidental. It was designed for the exact mission profile that the X-37 is doing, it's just that the sensors couldn't be made as small in the 1980s as they are now. The X-37B was initially designed to fit inside the shuttle payload for launch and it's payload bay has been likened to the load space of an estate car; the X-37B's ability to retrieve anything is as nothing compared the shuttle.
Shuttle launches were around $1.5 billion, and a Soyuz launch comes in at around $400m, to give you an idea of how much NASA were paying to put non-functional wings into space. A vehicle designed for purely civilian use would have been much better and cheaper than the shuttle.
Concorde failed commercially due to the fact that there were not enough airlines interested in buying it. But from an engineering point of view it was a remarkable success. All the technical expectations of it were fulfilled.
The Shuttle failed at virtually every level. The commercial claims for it were always specious and never likely to be fulfilled. The bigger problem was its inability to carry out the missions it was originaly designed to do at the frequency originally expected.
The current X-37 is really a proof of concept spacecraft. Any future developments of it will be twice to three times the size.
The Shuttle failed at virtually every level. The commercial claims for it were always specious and never likely to be fulfilled. The bigger problem was its inability to carry out the missions it was originaly designed to do at the frequency originally expected.
The current X-37 is really a proof of concept spacecraft. Any future developments of it will be twice to three times the size.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 15th January 11:58
davepoth said:
The space shuttle's ability to retrieve things, and indeed put them into space, was incidental. It was designed for the exact mission profile that the X-37 is doing
As the objectives of the two X-37B missions flown thus far are not public knowledge I don't think you can say that.There have been eight classified DoD shuttle missions, but the longest classified shuttle mission was 7 days. The X-37B is designed to lurk in orbit for nine months.
Their missions behaviours are completely different.
jingars said:
As the objectives of the two X-37B missions flown thus far are not public knowledge I don't think you can say that.
There have been eight classified DoD shuttle missions, but the longest classified shuttle mission was 7 days. The X-37B is designed to lurk in orbit for nine months.
Their missions behaviours are completely different.
It's classified, but the only thing it can be doing is looking at things in fairly radical orbits - which is what DoD wanted the shuttle for; in fact it's the reason it has wings, so it can get back to friendly soil even if the orbit doesn't take it near any. There have been eight classified DoD shuttle missions, but the longest classified shuttle mission was 7 days. The X-37B is designed to lurk in orbit for nine months.
Their missions behaviours are completely different.
The X-37B is what the shuttle would have been if they could have been certain it didn't need people aboard for the whole mission profile. The only reason the Shuttle needs to come down is that the crew would run out of air and the fuel cells would have expired; no such trouble with the X-37B.
Well, we shall have to agree to disagree. In my view the X-37B, like the shuttle, neither it nor it's launch platform is flexible or stealthy enough to undertake such missions - a traditional satellite launched on a expendable launcher is far better to undertake such a mission.
The X-37B is just a technology demonstrator; it is probably testing the facility to deploy micro satellites, loiter and change orbit, but it is too small to be of any practical use.
The X-37B is just a technology demonstrator; it is probably testing the facility to deploy micro satellites, loiter and change orbit, but it is too small to be of any practical use.
As I said, the X-37 is testing techniques which may or may not be incorporated in future defence related space missions and spacecraft. There is still a requirement for a spacecraft that can be brought back to a runway. With modern technology, it won't have to carry people - which means that the safety issues that were a massive factor with the Shuttle will not be anything like as worrying.
I don't think you can seperate them tbh. Both were born in a time where "efficiency" was not the number one constraint. (Concorde with ££ per passenger and the Shuttle with ££ per Kg to orbit).
In 2012, efficiency is now the overiding paramter. Both systems however will eventually pave the way for greater things to come, but as it stands, with economics being the overriding driver of current politics, it is highly unlikely that either would have been able to continue beyond there natural lifecycle imo.
In 2012, efficiency is now the overiding paramter. Both systems however will eventually pave the way for greater things to come, but as it stands, with economics being the overriding driver of current politics, it is highly unlikely that either would have been able to continue beyond there natural lifecycle imo.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff