Space shuttle need
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Astronauts travel in space in command modules using rockets, which also carry payloads. The payloads are delivered in the relevant orbit, and the command module returns to earth, after the rocket stages are discarded. Why did we need the shuttle then?
space-shuttle
asked Dec 6 at 4:38
Niranjan
8915
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Astronauts travel in space in command modules using rockets, which also carry payloads. The payloads are delivered in the relevant orbit, and the command module returns to earth, after the rocket stages are discarded. Why did we need the shuttle then?
space-shuttle
asked Dec 6 at 4:38
Niranjan
8915
The question has fact based answers, and does not need answers that are primarily opinion-based. The close vote for "primarily opinion-based" doesn't make sense. "Why did we need the shuttle then?" can be, and has been answered without opinion.
– uhoh
Dec 7 at 1:44
1
when those "fact based" answers are different, it suggests they may actually be opinion based @uhoh
– JCRM
Dec 8 at 6:15
@JCRM: Meh, these just seem like classic partial answers. Just because a question has multiple distinct answers does not make it close-worthy. If a great many answers were needed, or if answers needed long lists to be anywhere near complete, Too Broad would be the reason to choose. POB is only for cases where there's really no connection between expertise and voting answers up or down.
– Nathan Tuggy
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Astronauts travel in space in command modules using rockets, which also carry payloads. The payloads are delivered in the relevant orbit, and the command module returns to earth, after the rocket stages are discarded. Why did we need the shuttle then?
space-shuttle
asked Dec 6 at 4:38
Niranjan
8915
Astronauts travel in space in command modules using rockets, which also carry payloads. The payloads are delivered in the relevant orbit, and the command module returns to earth, after the rocket stages are discarded. Why did we need the shuttle then?
space-shuttle
space-shuttle
asked Dec 6 at 4:38
Niranjan
8915
asked Dec 6 at 4:38
Niranjan
8915
asked Dec 6 at 4:38
Niranjan
8915
asked Dec 6 at 4:38
Niranjan
8915
asked Dec 6 at 4:38
Niranjan
8915
8915
The question has fact based answers, and does not need answers that are primarily opinion-based. The close vote for "primarily opinion-based" doesn't make sense. "Why did we need the shuttle then?" can be, and has been answered without opinion.
– uhoh
Dec 7 at 1:44
1
when those "fact based" answers are different, it suggests they may actually be opinion based @uhoh
– JCRM
Dec 8 at 6:15
@JCRM: Meh, these just seem like classic partial answers. Just because a question has multiple distinct answers does not make it close-worthy. If a great many answers were needed, or if answers needed long lists to be anywhere near complete, Too Broad would be the reason to choose. POB is only for cases where there's really no connection between expertise and voting answers up or down.
– Nathan Tuggy
2 days ago
add a comment |
The question has fact based answers, and does not need answers that are primarily opinion-based. The close vote for "primarily opinion-based" doesn't make sense. "Why did we need the shuttle then?" can be, and has been answered without opinion.
– uhoh
Dec 7 at 1:44
1
when those "fact based" answers are different, it suggests they may actually be opinion based @uhoh
– JCRM
Dec 8 at 6:15
@JCRM: Meh, these just seem like classic partial answers. Just because a question has multiple distinct answers does not make it close-worthy. If a great many answers were needed, or if answers needed long lists to be anywhere near complete, Too Broad would be the reason to choose. POB is only for cases where there's really no connection between expertise and voting answers up or down.
– Nathan Tuggy
2 days ago
The question has fact based answers, and does not need answers that are primarily opinion-based. The close vote for "primarily opinion-based" doesn't make sense. "Why did we need the shuttle then?" can be, and has been answered without opinion.
– uhoh
Dec 7 at 1:44
The question has fact based answers, and does not need answers that are primarily opinion-based. The close vote for "primarily opinion-based" doesn't make sense. "Why did we need the shuttle then?" can be, and has been answered without opinion.
– uhoh
Dec 7 at 1:44
1
1
when those "fact based" answers are different, it suggests they may actually be opinion based @uhoh
– JCRM
Dec 8 at 6:15
when those "fact based" answers are different, it suggests they may actually be opinion based @uhoh
– JCRM
Dec 8 at 6:15
@JCRM: Meh, these just seem like classic partial answers. Just because a question has multiple distinct answers does not make it close-worthy. If a great many answers were needed, or if answers needed long lists to be anywhere near complete, Too Broad would be the reason to choose. POB is only for cases where there's really no connection between expertise and voting answers up or down.
– Nathan Tuggy
2 days ago
@JCRM: Meh, these just seem like classic partial answers. Just because a question has multiple distinct answers does not make it close-worthy. If a great many answers were needed, or if answers needed long lists to be anywhere near complete, Too Broad would be the reason to choose. POB is only for cases where there's really no connection between expertise and voting answers up or down.
– Nathan Tuggy
2 days ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
A few of the goals of the shuttle, unattainable (at that time) by command pods are:
- Reusability, especially of the engines (the most expensive part of the rocket)
- Lower Gs reentry
- Bring back payloads from orbit
answered Dec 6 at 5:59
Antzi
7,82312451
Thanks Antzi, all these three reasons seem convincing. I read somewhere that re-entry speeds of pod returning from moon is about 1.5 times that of a pod returning in the atmosphere from earth orbit. Why don't we reduce the speed to ZERO while the pod enters atmosphere , and let it fall under gravity? This will reduce the G values to a great extent.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:37
@Niranjan There is no way to reduce the speed to 0, it will always be at least terminal velocity for the given altitude, which is very high at high altitudes. If you slow down, even a little bit, your pod is now on a suborbital trajectory back into the atmosphere.
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 5:45
Thank you so much Antzi,.. I am 56 years old, and I am, and ever was far too eager to understand various "technologies" in different areas of science. Not only space technology. I am looking forward to such knowledge to be in touch with technology, post my "retirement" from office. Will it be possible for you to send me a mail on my personal mail ID - " nparanjpe1963@gmail.com "? While I will be posting various doubts on this site (stack..), I find it somewhat confusing to look for answers. It would perhaps be more convenient to mail the doubts on an individual level.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 6:02
@Niranjan Proper questions should be posted on the website. If you are unsure how to search for informations, you can either formulate a question on space.meta.stackexchange.com or ask on the chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9682/the-pod-bay
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 6:17
This gives me the impression that asking questions about "where to find (xyz) on these two sites (space.meta and chat.stack..) would help me get the info I need to know, rather than posting a doubt on this site - "space.stack". Ok, if it is so. Thanks.
– Niranjan
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Crew and cargo launches are usually separate, not together. The Shuttle was an effort to cut costs and increase flexibility while reusing the launch vehicle, but due to a number of factors (such as an Air Force requirement for cross range) it failed.
answered Dec 6 at 22:51
Snoopy
1774
Well, I considered the "Lunar Module" as cargo, like other satellites, the LM also never returned with the Command module. Any way, other two answers also have good reasons to justify the shuttle. Thanks again.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:40
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Capsules are small - one, two, then three people. Orion will seat four. The Starliner and Crew Dragon hope to seat seven.
The Orbiter seated eight, and at a pinch could seat eleven.
answered Dec 8 at 6:24
JCRM
3,1802931
Thanks JCRM, these reasons are justifying .
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:38
I'd say this isn't a limitation of capsules themselves, just of need and cost. So far as I know there's no engineering limitation on building a much broader capsule, should one have the launch vehicle to loft it.
– Snoopy
Dec 11 at 20:23
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The STS had the ability to return it's payload in the event of most of the failure modes of traditional launch vehicles (unfortunately it introduced two new failure modes)
answered Dec 8 at 6:33
JCRM
3,1802931
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32599%2fspace-shuttle-need%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
A few of the goals of the shuttle, unattainable (at that time) by command pods are:
- Reusability, especially of the engines (the most expensive part of the rocket)
- Lower Gs reentry
- Bring back payloads from orbit
answered Dec 6 at 5:59
Antzi
7,82312451
Thanks Antzi, all these three reasons seem convincing. I read somewhere that re-entry speeds of pod returning from moon is about 1.5 times that of a pod returning in the atmosphere from earth orbit. Why don't we reduce the speed to ZERO while the pod enters atmosphere , and let it fall under gravity? This will reduce the G values to a great extent.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:37
@Niranjan There is no way to reduce the speed to 0, it will always be at least terminal velocity for the given altitude, which is very high at high altitudes. If you slow down, even a little bit, your pod is now on a suborbital trajectory back into the atmosphere.
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 5:45
Thank you so much Antzi,.. I am 56 years old, and I am, and ever was far too eager to understand various "technologies" in different areas of science. Not only space technology. I am looking forward to such knowledge to be in touch with technology, post my "retirement" from office. Will it be possible for you to send me a mail on my personal mail ID - " nparanjpe1963@gmail.com "? While I will be posting various doubts on this site (stack..), I find it somewhat confusing to look for answers. It would perhaps be more convenient to mail the doubts on an individual level.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 6:02
@Niranjan Proper questions should be posted on the website. If you are unsure how to search for informations, you can either formulate a question on space.meta.stackexchange.com or ask on the chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9682/the-pod-bay
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 6:17
This gives me the impression that asking questions about "where to find (xyz) on these two sites (space.meta and chat.stack..) would help me get the info I need to know, rather than posting a doubt on this site - "space.stack". Ok, if it is so. Thanks.
– Niranjan
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
A few of the goals of the shuttle, unattainable (at that time) by command pods are:
- Reusability, especially of the engines (the most expensive part of the rocket)
- Lower Gs reentry
- Bring back payloads from orbit
answered Dec 6 at 5:59
Antzi
7,82312451
Thanks Antzi, all these three reasons seem convincing. I read somewhere that re-entry speeds of pod returning from moon is about 1.5 times that of a pod returning in the atmosphere from earth orbit. Why don't we reduce the speed to ZERO while the pod enters atmosphere , and let it fall under gravity? This will reduce the G values to a great extent.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:37
@Niranjan There is no way to reduce the speed to 0, it will always be at least terminal velocity for the given altitude, which is very high at high altitudes. If you slow down, even a little bit, your pod is now on a suborbital trajectory back into the atmosphere.
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 5:45
Thank you so much Antzi,.. I am 56 years old, and I am, and ever was far too eager to understand various "technologies" in different areas of science. Not only space technology. I am looking forward to such knowledge to be in touch with technology, post my "retirement" from office. Will it be possible for you to send me a mail on my personal mail ID - " nparanjpe1963@gmail.com "? While I will be posting various doubts on this site (stack..), I find it somewhat confusing to look for answers. It would perhaps be more convenient to mail the doubts on an individual level.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 6:02
@Niranjan Proper questions should be posted on the website. If you are unsure how to search for informations, you can either formulate a question on space.meta.stackexchange.com or ask on the chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9682/the-pod-bay
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 6:17
This gives me the impression that asking questions about "where to find (xyz) on these two sites (space.meta and chat.stack..) would help me get the info I need to know, rather than posting a doubt on this site - "space.stack". Ok, if it is so. Thanks.
– Niranjan
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
A few of the goals of the shuttle, unattainable (at that time) by command pods are:
- Reusability, especially of the engines (the most expensive part of the rocket)
- Lower Gs reentry
- Bring back payloads from orbit
answered Dec 6 at 5:59
Antzi
7,82312451
A few of the goals of the shuttle, unattainable (at that time) by command pods are:
- Reusability, especially of the engines (the most expensive part of the rocket)
- Lower Gs reentry
- Bring back payloads from orbit
answered Dec 6 at 5:59
Antzi
7,82312451
answered Dec 6 at 5:59
Antzi
7,82312451
answered Dec 6 at 5:59
Antzi
7,82312451
answered Dec 6 at 5:59
Antzi
7,82312451
7,82312451
Thanks Antzi, all these three reasons seem convincing. I read somewhere that re-entry speeds of pod returning from moon is about 1.5 times that of a pod returning in the atmosphere from earth orbit. Why don't we reduce the speed to ZERO while the pod enters atmosphere , and let it fall under gravity? This will reduce the G values to a great extent.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:37
@Niranjan There is no way to reduce the speed to 0, it will always be at least terminal velocity for the given altitude, which is very high at high altitudes. If you slow down, even a little bit, your pod is now on a suborbital trajectory back into the atmosphere.
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 5:45
Thank you so much Antzi,.. I am 56 years old, and I am, and ever was far too eager to understand various "technologies" in different areas of science. Not only space technology. I am looking forward to such knowledge to be in touch with technology, post my "retirement" from office. Will it be possible for you to send me a mail on my personal mail ID - " nparanjpe1963@gmail.com "? While I will be posting various doubts on this site (stack..), I find it somewhat confusing to look for answers. It would perhaps be more convenient to mail the doubts on an individual level.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 6:02
@Niranjan Proper questions should be posted on the website. If you are unsure how to search for informations, you can either formulate a question on space.meta.stackexchange.com or ask on the chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9682/the-pod-bay
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 6:17
This gives me the impression that asking questions about "where to find (xyz) on these two sites (space.meta and chat.stack..) would help me get the info I need to know, rather than posting a doubt on this site - "space.stack". Ok, if it is so. Thanks.
– Niranjan
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks Antzi, all these three reasons seem convincing. I read somewhere that re-entry speeds of pod returning from moon is about 1.5 times that of a pod returning in the atmosphere from earth orbit. Why don't we reduce the speed to ZERO while the pod enters atmosphere , and let it fall under gravity? This will reduce the G values to a great extent.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:37
@Niranjan There is no way to reduce the speed to 0, it will always be at least terminal velocity for the given altitude, which is very high at high altitudes. If you slow down, even a little bit, your pod is now on a suborbital trajectory back into the atmosphere.
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 5:45
Thank you so much Antzi,.. I am 56 years old, and I am, and ever was far too eager to understand various "technologies" in different areas of science. Not only space technology. I am looking forward to such knowledge to be in touch with technology, post my "retirement" from office. Will it be possible for you to send me a mail on my personal mail ID - " nparanjpe1963@gmail.com "? While I will be posting various doubts on this site (stack..), I find it somewhat confusing to look for answers. It would perhaps be more convenient to mail the doubts on an individual level.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 6:02
@Niranjan Proper questions should be posted on the website. If you are unsure how to search for informations, you can either formulate a question on space.meta.stackexchange.com or ask on the chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9682/the-pod-bay
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 6:17
This gives me the impression that asking questions about "where to find (xyz) on these two sites (space.meta and chat.stack..) would help me get the info I need to know, rather than posting a doubt on this site - "space.stack". Ok, if it is so. Thanks.
– Niranjan
yesterday
Thanks Antzi, all these three reasons seem convincing. I read somewhere that re-entry speeds of pod returning from moon is about 1.5 times that of a pod returning in the atmosphere from earth orbit. Why don't we reduce the speed to ZERO while the pod enters atmosphere , and let it fall under gravity? This will reduce the G values to a great extent.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:37
Thanks Antzi, all these three reasons seem convincing. I read somewhere that re-entry speeds of pod returning from moon is about 1.5 times that of a pod returning in the atmosphere from earth orbit. Why don't we reduce the speed to ZERO while the pod enters atmosphere , and let it fall under gravity? This will reduce the G values to a great extent.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:37
@Niranjan There is no way to reduce the speed to 0, it will always be at least terminal velocity for the given altitude, which is very high at high altitudes. If you slow down, even a little bit, your pod is now on a suborbital trajectory back into the atmosphere.
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 5:45
@Niranjan There is no way to reduce the speed to 0, it will always be at least terminal velocity for the given altitude, which is very high at high altitudes. If you slow down, even a little bit, your pod is now on a suborbital trajectory back into the atmosphere.
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 5:45
Thank you so much Antzi,.. I am 56 years old, and I am, and ever was far too eager to understand various "technologies" in different areas of science. Not only space technology. I am looking forward to such knowledge to be in touch with technology, post my "retirement" from office. Will it be possible for you to send me a mail on my personal mail ID - " nparanjpe1963@gmail.com "? While I will be posting various doubts on this site (stack..), I find it somewhat confusing to look for answers. It would perhaps be more convenient to mail the doubts on an individual level.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 6:02
Thank you so much Antzi,.. I am 56 years old, and I am, and ever was far too eager to understand various "technologies" in different areas of science. Not only space technology. I am looking forward to such knowledge to be in touch with technology, post my "retirement" from office. Will it be possible for you to send me a mail on my personal mail ID - " nparanjpe1963@gmail.com "? While I will be posting various doubts on this site (stack..), I find it somewhat confusing to look for answers. It would perhaps be more convenient to mail the doubts on an individual level.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 6:02
@Niranjan Proper questions should be posted on the website. If you are unsure how to search for informations, you can either formulate a question on space.meta.stackexchange.com or ask on the chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9682/the-pod-bay
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 6:17
@Niranjan Proper questions should be posted on the website. If you are unsure how to search for informations, you can either formulate a question on space.meta.stackexchange.com or ask on the chat: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/9682/the-pod-bay
– Antzi
Dec 11 at 6:17
This gives me the impression that asking questions about "where to find (xyz) on these two sites (space.meta and chat.stack..) would help me get the info I need to know, rather than posting a doubt on this site - "space.stack". Ok, if it is so. Thanks.
– Niranjan
yesterday
This gives me the impression that asking questions about "where to find (xyz) on these two sites (space.meta and chat.stack..) would help me get the info I need to know, rather than posting a doubt on this site - "space.stack". Ok, if it is so. Thanks.
– Niranjan
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Crew and cargo launches are usually separate, not together. The Shuttle was an effort to cut costs and increase flexibility while reusing the launch vehicle, but due to a number of factors (such as an Air Force requirement for cross range) it failed.
answered Dec 6 at 22:51
Snoopy
1774
Well, I considered the "Lunar Module" as cargo, like other satellites, the LM also never returned with the Command module. Any way, other two answers also have good reasons to justify the shuttle. Thanks again.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:40
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Crew and cargo launches are usually separate, not together. The Shuttle was an effort to cut costs and increase flexibility while reusing the launch vehicle, but due to a number of factors (such as an Air Force requirement for cross range) it failed.
answered Dec 6 at 22:51
Snoopy
1774
Well, I considered the "Lunar Module" as cargo, like other satellites, the LM also never returned with the Command module. Any way, other two answers also have good reasons to justify the shuttle. Thanks again.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:40
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Crew and cargo launches are usually separate, not together. The Shuttle was an effort to cut costs and increase flexibility while reusing the launch vehicle, but due to a number of factors (such as an Air Force requirement for cross range) it failed.
answered Dec 6 at 22:51
Snoopy
1774
Crew and cargo launches are usually separate, not together. The Shuttle was an effort to cut costs and increase flexibility while reusing the launch vehicle, but due to a number of factors (such as an Air Force requirement for cross range) it failed.
answered Dec 6 at 22:51
Snoopy
1774
answered Dec 6 at 22:51
Snoopy
1774
answered Dec 6 at 22:51
Snoopy
1774
answered Dec 6 at 22:51
Snoopy
1774
1774
Well, I considered the "Lunar Module" as cargo, like other satellites, the LM also never returned with the Command module. Any way, other two answers also have good reasons to justify the shuttle. Thanks again.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:40
add a comment |
Well, I considered the "Lunar Module" as cargo, like other satellites, the LM also never returned with the Command module. Any way, other two answers also have good reasons to justify the shuttle. Thanks again.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:40
Well, I considered the "Lunar Module" as cargo, like other satellites, the LM also never returned with the Command module. Any way, other two answers also have good reasons to justify the shuttle. Thanks again.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:40
Well, I considered the "Lunar Module" as cargo, like other satellites, the LM also never returned with the Command module. Any way, other two answers also have good reasons to justify the shuttle. Thanks again.
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:40
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Capsules are small - one, two, then three people. Orion will seat four. The Starliner and Crew Dragon hope to seat seven.
The Orbiter seated eight, and at a pinch could seat eleven.
answered Dec 8 at 6:24
JCRM
3,1802931
Thanks JCRM, these reasons are justifying .
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:38
I'd say this isn't a limitation of capsules themselves, just of need and cost. So far as I know there's no engineering limitation on building a much broader capsule, should one have the launch vehicle to loft it.
– Snoopy
Dec 11 at 20:23
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Capsules are small - one, two, then three people. Orion will seat four. The Starliner and Crew Dragon hope to seat seven.
The Orbiter seated eight, and at a pinch could seat eleven.
answered Dec 8 at 6:24
JCRM
3,1802931
Thanks JCRM, these reasons are justifying .
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:38
I'd say this isn't a limitation of capsules themselves, just of need and cost. So far as I know there's no engineering limitation on building a much broader capsule, should one have the launch vehicle to loft it.
– Snoopy
Dec 11 at 20:23
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Capsules are small - one, two, then three people. Orion will seat four. The Starliner and Crew Dragon hope to seat seven.
The Orbiter seated eight, and at a pinch could seat eleven.
answered Dec 8 at 6:24
JCRM
3,1802931
Capsules are small - one, two, then three people. Orion will seat four. The Starliner and Crew Dragon hope to seat seven.
The Orbiter seated eight, and at a pinch could seat eleven.
answered Dec 8 at 6:24
JCRM
3,1802931
answered Dec 8 at 6:24
JCRM
3,1802931
answered Dec 8 at 6:24
JCRM
3,1802931
answered Dec 8 at 6:24
JCRM
3,1802931
3,1802931
Thanks JCRM, these reasons are justifying .
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:38
I'd say this isn't a limitation of capsules themselves, just of need and cost. So far as I know there's no engineering limitation on building a much broader capsule, should one have the launch vehicle to loft it.
– Snoopy
Dec 11 at 20:23
add a comment |
Thanks JCRM, these reasons are justifying .
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:38
I'd say this isn't a limitation of capsules themselves, just of need and cost. So far as I know there's no engineering limitation on building a much broader capsule, should one have the launch vehicle to loft it.
– Snoopy
Dec 11 at 20:23
Thanks JCRM, these reasons are justifying .
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:38
Thanks JCRM, these reasons are justifying .
– Niranjan
Dec 11 at 5:38
I'd say this isn't a limitation of capsules themselves, just of need and cost. So far as I know there's no engineering limitation on building a much broader capsule, should one have the launch vehicle to loft it.
– Snoopy
Dec 11 at 20:23
I'd say this isn't a limitation of capsules themselves, just of need and cost. So far as I know there's no engineering limitation on building a much broader capsule, should one have the launch vehicle to loft it.
– Snoopy
Dec 11 at 20:23
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The STS had the ability to return it's payload in the event of most of the failure modes of traditional launch vehicles (unfortunately it introduced two new failure modes)
answered Dec 8 at 6:33
JCRM
3,1802931
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The STS had the ability to return it's payload in the event of most of the failure modes of traditional launch vehicles (unfortunately it introduced two new failure modes)
answered Dec 8 at 6:33
JCRM
3,1802931
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The STS had the ability to return it's payload in the event of most of the failure modes of traditional launch vehicles (unfortunately it introduced two new failure modes)
answered Dec 8 at 6:33
JCRM
3,1802931
The STS had the ability to return it's payload in the event of most of the failure modes of traditional launch vehicles (unfortunately it introduced two new failure modes)
answered Dec 8 at 6:33
JCRM
3,1802931
edited Dec 10 at 8:28
answered Dec 8 at 6:33
JCRM
3,1802931
answered Dec 8 at 6:33
JCRM
3,1802931
answered Dec 8 at 6:33
JCRM
3,1802931
3,1802931
add a comment |
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32599%2fspace-shuttle-need%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
The question has fact based answers, and does not need answers that are primarily opinion-based. The close vote for "primarily opinion-based" doesn't make sense. "Why did we need the shuttle then?" can be, and has been answered without opinion.
– uhoh
Dec 7 at 1:44
1
when those "fact based" answers are different, it suggests they may actually be opinion based @uhoh
– JCRM
Dec 8 at 6:15
@JCRM: Meh, these just seem like classic partial answers. Just because a question has multiple distinct answers does not make it close-worthy. If a great many answers were needed, or if answers needed long lists to be anywhere near complete, Too Broad would be the reason to choose. POB is only for cases where there's really no connection between expertise and voting answers up or down.
– Nathan Tuggy
2 days ago