30th Anniversary of the loss of Challenger

The two biggest problems with the shuttle was the design and the fact it was a CIVILLIAN agency. It was the first manned system to use both solid and liquid fuel propulsion systems, and from what I've heard that's never a good idea. I also read that at a dinner party shortly after the design was finalized that Von Braun essentially said it was an accident looking for a place to happen.
And because they needed to "look good" to ensure funding and keeping their cushy jobs, NASA administrators decided to ignore the "don't launch below this temperature".

The shuttle also did not have a astronaut escape pod like all the manned spacecraft do today. If they had that escape system the astronauts would of survived.

The two biggest problems with the shuttle was the design and the fact it was a CIVILIAN agency. As I understand it, NASA never had complete control over the shuttle design. Congress kept saying "build it cheaper, build it cheaper."

Still, to NASA's credit, even with the flawed design and administrator attitude, the shuttle achieved a 98.5% success rate over 30 years (133 successes in 135 flights).

"A .22 caliber mind in a .45 caliber world"

Still, to NASA's credit, even with the flawed design and administrator attitude, the shuttle achieved a 98.5% success rate over 30 years (133 successes in 135 flights).


But the original intent was that there would have been quite a few more flight,
and they would still be operational. And it's successor is a giant leap BACKWARD
to a jumboized Apollo that's behind schedule.

Some might think of the SLS as a step backward, but it has the crew safety features, plenty of throw weight into orbit and gets us one step closer to returning to the moon and onto Mars, eventually we hope.

"A .22 caliber mind in a .45 caliber world"

About as safe as you can be, sitting atop a big metal tube filled with explosive liquids that was built by the lowest bidder. So what happened to the near 100% reusables where the orbiter is launched from a hypersonic mother ship,
like the old X-15? And why hasn't NASA at least sent up a test vehicle with an EM drive on it? Imagine a ship that instead of expending liquids to get to a certain speed used microwaves generated by electricity, gleaned from either
solar cells or a small reactor, puttering along at say 1 G? And to be able to do that for as long as the consumables for the crew lasted, or the nuclear fuel ran out? Or better yet, one of Lockheed-Martin's compact FUSION reactors?

As for the air-launched orbiter like the X-15, that concept was investigated and found to be too expensive.

http://history.nasa.gov/sts1/pdfs/explore.pdf

The other ideas you suggested sound interesting but wouldn't they require new technologies? I can imagine the public pressure against a nuclear powered vehicle. There were public outcries when the two Voyagers were launched.

"A .22 caliber mind in a .45 caliber world"

As for the air-launched orbiter like the X-15, that concept was investigated and found to be too expensive.


But how long ago were those studies made? And I totally forgot about the Sanger.
With the development of the electro-magnetic catapult, orbiter and launch window availability would be the only drawback.

The other ideas you suggested sound interesting but wouldn't they require new technologies? I can imagine the public pressure against a nuclear powered vehicle. There were public outcries when the two Voyagers were launched.


NASA's all ready tested the EM drive in a vacuum chamber. They don't know how, but it works, but it does. All they need to do is build and send up a basic test vehicle.
And as far as a reactor, it would only be necessary if the amount of electricity needed exceeded the amount of electricity that solar panels could produce. Theoretically,
it could be a solar powered ship, which if the environmentalists weren't so opposed to space travel would have them dancing in the streets. It could even
look something like this:
http://catacombs.space1999.net/plus/dt/day/imaltares.jpg