Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Miller
This is a very interesting topic. the last posts is probably the closest to the truth.
the Space Shuttle program made a lot of the contractors, corporate officers , executives and politicians rich.
I guess that after all of the engineering and and testing (R&D) had been done for Apollo, supplying the hardware was not that profitable. So the Space Shuttle was the new cash cow.
|
Yep. :-( Having created a standing army to build, support, and launch the Apollo-Saturn vehicles, NASA--and many legislators--wanted a new big program to keep the jobs and big Congressional appropriations going. (“INTRODUCTION TO FUTURE LAUNCH VEHICLE PLANS [1963 – 2001]” by Marcus Lindroos [see:
http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseyt...celvs/index.htm ] contains information on--and scale-useful drawings and illustrations of--these and other proposed reusable launch vehicles.) Also:
If I had a few billion dollars of discretionary money to devote to such an effort, I would go with a small, Faget-type straight-winged, "belly-flop reentry" low-crossrange orbiter with internal propellant tanks (so that it would be a second stage). Or I might "commission" the construction of a V-tailed, "switchblade-wing," General Dynamics FR-3A- or FR-4-like orbiter (see:
http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseyt...elvs/sld026.htm ). The booster could be either expendable (for the initial R & D flights) or a reusable VTOVL booster, like SpaceX's Falcon 9 (and Falcon Heavy) first stages/outer boosters. In fact, the orbiter could ride on the sides of two or three side-by-side stacked Falcon Heavy outer boosters (they're structurally designed for such load paths), much like a straight-winged orbiter/wing-less boosters arrangement that Grumman proposed (see the second of four Grumman Shuttle illustrations, directly below the "PHASE B PRIME LOCKHEED" green-line orbiter drawing, *here*:
http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseyt...elvs/sld036.htm , about halfway down the "screen-page").