Wasn't the Shuttle always a compromise?
Certainly sitting the shuttle on the side of the rocket, instead on top of it has proven to be a poor decision.
( monkeybananaraffle, Mon 20 Jul 2009, 12:30, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

Yeah, it was a vast compromise...
... on a bajillion levels. Defence shuttles on, off, on, off, must have this cargo space, then not, then you end up with the shuttle. A truly amazing machine - those main engines are spectacular in every way - but hugely risky. Sticking the people bit on the side is, as you point out, not the wisest of moves: there is quite literally no escape from a disaster and furthermore you open yourself to issues that would not affect traditional approaches such as suitcase size chunks of foam blowing holes in the wings (RIP, Columbia and your crew).

The biggest nightmare with the shuttle, btw., is that at T-0 only one of the solid rocket boosters lights. Under those circumstances, you lose the shuttle, the crew, the launch pad and potentially a lot of people in the surrounding area depending on what ends up where after the explosions. I understand that they have five separate igniters on each of the fuckers to avoid this situation.

It might be a dangerous vehicle, but it's still a sexy one. Pity that Apollo Applications didn't get cooking in the 70s, though; the cost of those Saturn Vs and derivatives might have really crashed.
(Deadly Octopus no deaths since, Mon 20 Jul 2009, 12:38, Reply)

Yes....
...the shuttle was designed to cater for both the needs of NASA and the US Airt Force which forced the compromise design.

It's very versatile though, it carried both crew AND cargo that would require more than one launch otherwise. It'll also bring cargo back to Earth too.

The Saturn V were truly awe inspiring though. It's worth remembering that the takeoff weight of the Apollo 11 rocket was around 33,000 tons or considerably more than the weight of the HMS Ark Royal.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Mon 20 Jul 2009, 12:56, Reply)