"Mercury", "Gemini", "Apollo", umm... "Shuttle Program"?

[drm604]

What? Did the guy in charge of cool names for manned space programs retire and not get replaced?

Mercury

Gemini

Apollo

Shuttle Program ???

Give me Greek and Romans gods! Give me constellations!

What was "Shuttle" the god of?

[JVS]

1. I think that shuttle program is a fine name, because it differentiates the program from the series..

of disposable capsules immediately. Although our shuttle program has ultimately been a failure, the concept of a reusable space craft is very interesting and the name should stand out from its predecessors. Maybe if we ever make another kind of shuttle they can name the program after some kind of mythical bird, does the one that rips out prometheus' liver have a name?

[drm604]

2. I don't believe that that bird was ever referred to by a name.

It was just mentioned that it was an eagle, and that name's already been used.

I understand what you're saying. I was just having some fun. This is the lounge after all.

However, I wonder if there isn't something to my rant. When I was a kid, we had these grand programs with epic names. Everyone was glued to their TV for the latest "Gemini" or "Apollo" shot. For shuttle launches, not so much.

[JVS]

3. But not all possible names work well. Nobody would have liked naming the shuttle program Icarus

[drm604]

6. Wow, what a humorless bunch.

I was trying to have some fun. I guess my sense of humor is ummm... unique.

[PVnRT]

5. Phoenix

I actually submitted that as a shuttle name to NASA when they held a contest years ago to name the shuttle to replace the Challenger.

[Taverner]

8. I must take issue with the Shuttle program being a "failure"

Despite the high profile crashes, the Shuttle program was able to missions to Skylab, Mir, ISS among other things.

[TheMightyFavog]

12. The shuttle never went to Skylab.

IIRC, Skylab was de-orbited before the shuttle's first launch.

[JVS]

13. We've been bailed out by the Russians as far as space flight goes. If that's not a failure what is?

The shuttle program also failed to deliver on the goals of improved economy despite being much less safe than its predecessors. The biggest failure though is that the shuttle turned out to be a technological dead end. The replacement for the shuttle is not a new and better shuttle, it's a return to capsules.

[baldguy]

16. The logical progression for Apollo would've been Moon base & a space station

Instead it was abandoned after flying only 7 yrs. Was Apollo a failure?

The Shuttle was designed to fly for 15 yrs. It's been in service 29. It's problem isn't with the technology - the Shuttle was farther ahead for its time than Apollo was, and was created on a relative shoestring in comparison. The problem is one of economy. The original concept was to have a fleet of 10 to 15 Shuttles, with one or two launches each week starting in 1975. Having an ongoing assembly line up & running would have greatly reduced the unit cost of all the components, and would have given rise to several Shuttle-derived launch vehicles. Unfortunately, this was not to be. Budget cuts under Ford, Carter & Reagan reduced the fleet to 5, delayed the first launch by 6 yrs. and eliminated every other launch vehicle that would have used the same components. And so the unit cost for each existing vehicle - and for each launch - skyrocketed.

The Orion/Ares spacecraft of the Constellation Project aren't so much a return to capsules as they are a return to the modular construction of Apollo. It gives NASA an enormous amount of flexibility that they had with Apollo but didn't have with the Shuttles, while maintaining the partial re-usability of the Shuttle program.

Otherwise the Orion has about as much in common with the Apollo as a 747 does with a Sopwith Camel.

[JVS]

24. Apollo had a specified (although possibly useless) goal, so it succeeded and then was retired

Even if the shuttles had been built in that kind of number, that number of shuttles would inadequate to meet those launch goals considering that the shuttles needed extensive maintenance to remain safe. The shuttle program was not able to keep up with the even less ambitious launch schedule that actually got instituted (a schedule considered dangerous by many), and ended up attempting with a fairly high rate of failure. Since there were about 127 launches and 2 losses of ships, even if the loss rate for a larger fleet were to hold steady (unlikely under the grueling one or two missions each week you speak of) we would have been seeing them fail 3 times every two years, we'd be on about explosion 45. With the cutbacks it has still been the deadliest space vehicle of all time, and NASA has decided not to continue with the shuttle concept of a "space plane" and gone back to more orthodox space flight systems.

[baldguy]

28. So, if 2 vehicle losses out of 127 launches constitutes a "failure" in your eyes

Then 2 out of 18 for Apollo is even worse, right? If we continued with Apollo, at launch 127 we would have seen 14 failures with 21 deaths (instead of the 14 deaths with the Shuttle). Considering that it'll have a crew compliment of up to 6, I hope Orion has a failure rate more like the Shuttle, rather than Apollo.

[pokerfan]

27. Nova would have been a good next step

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_rocket

Ten times the payload of a Saturn V! It could have tossed up the entire ISS with a single launch instead of wasting all that money doing it piecemeal. The shuttle never made much sense to me. By design, it returns 80% of its payload (the orbiter itself) to Earth with every single launch.

[baldguy]

29. A Big Dumb Rocket indeed.

[Deep13]

20. I agree with the characterization as a failure.

It was slated to fly in the late 1970s. After screwing around with its design specs for military purposes, it was severely limited in its capabilities. In particular, it was restricted to low orbit. It was too late to continue to use Skylab, it's initial target. Instead we added a costly on-board space lab. One of the main mission objectives was for low-cost re usability. Unfortunately, the amount of maintenance required between flights precluded the low cost part. Each launch cost the taxpayers half a BILLION dollars just to get off the ground. And it wasn't really reusable since a new fuel tank had to be constructed for each flight. As the one-size-fits-all launch vehicle, it was also a disappointment because the limited space in the payload bay and the cost of launch put serious limits on a number of projects including Hubble (low orbit), Magellan (scaled down for budget) and Galileo (nearly blew the mission because shuttle-friendly antenna did not open.) And it was safe only under very limited operating parameters.

The only thing really successful about STS was its ability to land on any long runway. That was and is truly innovative. This took advantage of test data acquired in Project Dyna-Soar in the mid-1960s.

Yes, yes, I know all the stuff STS crews were able to do because of their ships. I know it logged more hours on more missions than anyone before Skylab. I know the technical feats astronauts accomplished while on STS missions. I am not trying to take away from those things. Still, those successes have to be measured against alternatives that were possible in the 1970s that were not done because we went with STS instead. I think what we should have done in the 1970s is what we are doing now. Built a largely disposable, multipurpose system with larger capacity and longer duration than Apollo. It should be able to land on land like a Soviet vehicle to save recovery costs. It should be adaptable to a variety of missions, including interplanetary. And we should have (and ultimately did) keep using the Titan IIIc for large, unmanned launches and all the smaller rockets for smaller stuff. If there is something that needs human attention to work right, astronauts can launch seperately and meet the object in orbit. It should also be something that can be abandoned in an instant during launch, unlike STS.

[rug]

4. Charon had too many connotations.

[Deja Q]

7. They're the brand name of an uber-cheap PC manufacturer...

That might explain things falling off or blowing up...

Apart from "Challenger" but everybody already hates and prefers to forget the 80s...

[drm604]

9. Challenger was the name of a particular ship, not the program.

Just like Mercury had "Freedom 7" and Apollo 11 had "Eagle" and "Columbia", and Apollo 10 had "Snoopy" and "Charlie Brown" (yes, seriously).

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. And "International Space Station", for now ...

Until it's renamed "The J. P. Morgan Chase International Space Station" or something like that. Because they have enough bail-out bucks to buy naming rights.

:hi:

[drm604]

11. Hey, maybe that's how we can fund a trip to Mars!

"Microsoft to Mars!" Problem is, it would be likely to crash.

[JVS]

14. Gazprom station

[EndersDame]

25. It should be renamed Babylon 5 or Deep Space Nine

I would even be ok with Terok Nor

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

15. Im still waiting for NASA to be renamed to Star Fleet.

I don't think I'm gonna get my wish either. :cry:

[EndersDame]

17. Hell Yeah!

[Deep13]

18. It's the Space Transportation System (S.T.S.)

Space Shuttle is a popular name. I don't know the reason to do to a mundane name for the program. My guess, however, is that it represents a shift of attention away from the heroic missions to the moon and of the pioneering early days and towards an idea that spaceflight could be a routine, utilitarian activity.

[Auggie]

19. The ship names are cool: Columbia, Discovery, Atlantis, Endeavour

[WolverineDG]

21. Enterprise!

I remember the public outcry to name the first shuttle. Congress wanted something boring like "Constitution," but Star Trek geeks rallied & the bird was named "Enterprise" instead. Heh. :evilgrin:

dg

[Auggie]

30. Yes, of course

[WolverineDG]

22. hiccup! delete dupe nt

[Deep13]

23. true. nt

[Javaman]

26. Well, I don't think either the Romans nor the Greeks had a God of Truck Driving.

I know! Crazy!

[Xipe Totec]

32. Maybe we need to look to the Aztecs then

Tameme: a human beast of burden.

[Xipe Totec]

31. Enterprise, Columbia, Atlantis, Challenger, Discovery

I think those are pretty cool names, don't you?

PS: The mission patches are pretty cool too!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=7178282&mesg_id=7192983

[drm604]

33. Those were names of individual ships not the entire program.

Apollo also had names for individual ships, Eagle, Columbia, Snoopy, Charlie Brown, etc., but I'm not talking about the names of individual ships. I'm talking about the names of the programs.

[Xipe Totec]

34. The whole purpose of the program was to make space travel commonplace

and mundane.

The whole idea of the program was to make space travel so commonplace, that it would not require heroic effort to reach it.

Whether we achieved the mission or not, is another matter. But the purpose was noble.

[drm604]

35. I understand that.

I was just trying to start a fun conversation in the lounge. :hi:

[Xipe Totec]

36. Cool!

:hi: