Post Shuttle

thecommander

So, the program ends soon. Where to next?

A few people I've talked to recon that the Russians will increase the cost per man to the ISS within a few months after Atlantis touches down. SpaceX seem to be flying along with their unmanned program, with some impressive goals within a short amount of time. The paperwork for a manned mission will slow them down though.

Interest speech on a future stratagy for NASA with regards to settlement. Found it very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD-S25RRW10

lynchie

Didnt NASA sign a contract with the Russians in March which increased the cost per seat from $50 odd million to $63m. Think it covers them till 2014 though Im sure they will increase it again if they still need to rely on them after that.

thecommander

lynchie wrote: »

Didnt NASA sign a contract with the Russians in March which increased the cost per seat from $50 odd million to $63m. Think it covers them till 2014 though Im sure they will increase it again if they still need to rely on them after that.

Yup, but it wont stay at 63 after that, they'll defiantly seize the opportunity to increase further.

namloc1980

Personally I think that manned spaceflight is something NASA will not be doing much of in the future themselves at least as far as their current plan goes. Their proposed Space Launch System is already looking like it's predecessor Ares V from the Constellation programme. The final architecture hasn't even been finalised yet and they hope to have it flying humans by the end of 2016?? Not likely especially when Congress won't give NASA the budget they need. As with all things NASA it will end up being ridiculously over budget and expensive and will most likely get cancelled before any flights are seen.

With work on the Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) continuing one option for them could be to human-rate the Delta IV or the Atlas V. This would be significantly less costly than developing the SLS as the Titan and the Atlas are already proven launch vehicles. In addition if SpaceX can get the Dragon capsule to safely fly humans and get the Falcon Heavy flying then the SLS looks even more redundant.

Interestingly the Russians are currently in the process of developing their successor to the incredible Soyuz. This is the design:



and they hope to be flying by 2017 but with the Russian Space Agency being terribly underfunded the Soyuz is in no danger of being retired any time in the next decade or two.

thecommander

namloc1980 wrote: »

Personally I think that manned spaceflight is something NASA will not be doing much of in the future themselves at least as far as their current plan goes.

Think you're right there. I can see NASA being more about training and planning rather than constructing launch equipment and testing it. They'll tender a goal and whoever comes up with cheapest/safest/greatest idea will get the job.

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

and they hope to be flying by 2017 but with the Russian Space Agency being terribly underfunded the Soyuz is in no danger of being retired any time in the next decade or two.

Roscosmos's budget has expanded rapidly over the last few years and I think will double for the 2012 fiscal year.

The truth is that while their budget may now only be about 1/4 that of NASA, you can do a hell of a lot more in terms of wages in Russia for that sort of money.

The Russian economy is improving all the time. An increase in the price of hydrocarbons is only going to improve their funding even more.

AugustusMinimus

thecommander wrote: »

So, the program ends soon. Where to next?

A few people I've talked to recon that the Russians will increase the cost per man to the ISS within a few months after Atlantis touches down. SpaceX seem to be flying along with their unmanned program, with some impressive goals within a short amount of time. The paperwork for a manned mission will slow them down though.

Interest speech on a future stratagy for NASA with regards to settlement. Found it very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD-S25RRW10

The guy made a lot of interesting points. Pity it took him 50 minutes to say them.

namloc1980

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Roscosmos's budget has expanded rapidly over the last few years and I think will double for the 2012 fiscal year.

The truth is that while their budget may now only be about 1/4 that of NASA, you can do a hell of a lot more in terms of wages in Russia for that sort of money.

The Russian economy is improving all the time. An increase in the price of hydrocarbons is only going to improve their funding even more.

Wages is only a part of it. Technology development and R&D is not cheap. I won't hold my breath waiting for a new Russian spacecraft by 2017. In addition the Soyuz does everything the Russians need it to do and it does it very reliably. And with some modifications can even fly to the Moon (modified Soyuz craft went around the Moon in the 60's).

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

Wages is only a part of it. Technology development and R&D is not cheap. I won't hold my breath waiting for a new Russian spacecraft by 2017. In addition the Soyuz does everything the Russians need it to do and it does it very reliably. And with some modifications can even fly to the Moon (modified Soyuz craft went around the Moon in the 60's).

The Russians are planning on sending two willing participants around the moon in a Soyuz some time in 2015. 150m per seat.

clln

Three of the 'winners' of the CCDev2 funding intend to use the atlas as their launch vehicle to begin with,Space-x are the exception and have just picked up another contract to launch a commercial satellite on top of a first resupply mission to the ISS due before the end of 2011 via their falcon 9.
have a look at their Launch manifest here,it is far more ambitious than they could possibly achieve just yet,but they just seem to inspire confidence;

http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

The SLS(formerly the HLV or Ares V) it has been decided will not be put out to Public tender but will be developed by NASA.
i agree though that Orion or its new name is proably doomed.
My guess is a lot of competing companies will come together for the final version of a crew capsule that is capable of manned crews to LEO or BEO.
So many have appeared it seems to me they were keeping their head low waiting for Shuttle retirement.......... most could have built their crafts without Public funding...........but knew subsidies were on the way from a few years back............. i wonder how!

The rumour machine says the SLS final design will be announced in July.

namloc1980

On this subject Newt Gingrich, who might be a Presidential Candidate in 2012, has launched an attack on NASA in a recent speech:

"Well, sadly - and I say this sadly, because I'm a big fan of going into space and I actually worked to get the shuttle program to survive at one point - NASA has become an absolute case study in why bureaucracy can't innovate," Gingrich said.

"If you take all the money we've spent at NASA since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead what we've had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy, and failure after failure." Link

Alot of what he says is true but what he fails to mention is that NASAs biggest problem is having to deal with politicians in Washington who haven't the first clue what space exploration is about. For example Congress want NASA to build the Space Launch System by 2016 but they haven't set out any firm details or reason as to why NASA actually needs a 130 tonne launcher in the first place. The SLS is going to be a colossal waste of money that will probably get cancelled before any flights.

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

On this subject Newt Gingrich, who might be a Presidential Candidate in 2012, has launched an attack on NASA in a recent speech:

"Well, sadly - and I say this sadly, because I'm a big fan of going into space and I actually worked to get the shuttle program to survive at one point - NASA has become an absolute case study in why bureaucracy can't innovate," Gingrich said.

"If you take all the money we've spent at NASA since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead what we've had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy, and failure after failure." Link

Alot of what he says is true but what he fails to mention is that NASAs biggest problem is having to deal with politicians in Washington who haven't the first clue what space exploration is about. For example Congress want NASA to build the Space Launch System by 2016 but they haven't set out any firm details or reason as to why NASA actually needs a 130 tonne launcher in the first place. The SLS is going to be a colossal waste of money that will probably get cancelled before any flights.

Space X haven't even flown the Falcon Heavy yet, yet I'm confident they could build a launch the Falcon XX (140 tonnes to LEO) for a quarter or the price and maybe even before NASA will have the SLS operating.

clln

I disagree namloc,the SLS will go ahead no matter how far behind schedule it might fall,the alternative is America throwing in the towel to never mind the landing on an asteroid in the 'new direction' but also that trip to Mars that is imminent since 1776!:).
Newt is not exactly noted for his middle of the road views!

The real loss in my mind when it has all gone private is that 'loss of innocence' that many NASA employee's had, a real love and commitment to Peaceful exploration and a will to be open and honest,even if Politicians and the Military Stomped all over their dreams at times,it would be unfair to many at NASA to think they only saw dollar signs in their eyes,but that it seems to me will be what a total private sector Space industry would become.

Hotblack Desiato

namloc1980 wrote: »

A lot of what he says is true but what he fails to mention is that NASAs biggest problem is having to deal with politicians in Washington who haven't the first clue what space exploration is about.

IIRC NASA were under pressure in the lead-up to the Challenger disaster to get as many flights up as possible with minimal delays otherwise their funding was at risk of being cut. We know how that ended up :mad: but somehow Congress used the tragedy as yet another stick to beat NASA with. Politicians the world over have a remarkable talent for blaming anyone else but themselves for the consequences of their decisions.

namloc1980

clln wrote: »

I disagree namloc,the SLS will go ahead no matter how far behind schedule it might fall,the alternative is America throwing in the towel to never mind the landing on an asteroid in the 'new direction' but also that trip to Mars that is imminent since 1776!:).
Newt is not exactly noted for his middle of the road views!

The real loss in my mind when it has all gone private is that 'loss of innocence' that many NASA employee's had, a real love and commitment to Peaceful exploration and a will to be open and honest,even if Politicians and the Military Stomped all over their dreams at times,it would be unfair to many at NASA to think they only saw dollar signs in their eyes,but that it seems to me will be what a total private sector Space industry would become.

I would like to share your optimism on the SLS but I don't see the purpose in developing it in the first place. NASA has no planned, let alone budgeted, need for a launch vehicle the size of the SLS. Yes, Obama mentioned that he would like to see astronauts on an asteroid by mid 2020's but that is not a plan, it's more like a vague aspiration. Nearly 10 billion dollars was spent on Constellation before it was cancelled and it produced very little other than a test flight of the Ares I-X which was a partial failure and the groundwork for the MPCV, but considering that SpaceX have produced an actual crew capsule which is flight worthy for a fraction of the cost it's not much of a positive. SpaceX have also said that their Dragon capsule of capable of handling Earth re-entries from lunar and Martian flights.

SLS won't fly by 2016 as they are planning and I don't think it will ever fly. If SpaceX can successfully fly a Falcon Heavy in 2013 as they plan (and given their success so far there is no reason to believe they can't) then SLS is as good as dead. NASA should refocus on actual exploration and let the private sector do the donkey work of taxiing people and cargo into space.

Hotblack Desiato

Although the Shuttle program achieved a great deal, it has to be said it never got remotely near to reaching the goals it was designed to do. 5 operational Shuttles with 100 flights each (albeit over only a 10 year lifespan, IIRC) imagine a Shuttle flight every single week for 10 years!!! IIRC a cost to orbit of (in 1970s dollars) $100/kg as well!

There was also the budgetary shenanigans in the early 70s of the Shuttle justifying a future space station, the future space station justifying the Shuttle... the original intentions of cheap satellite launches and manned capability were always two very different programs and sets of goals thrust together awkwardly, (not to mention the DoD, Vandenberg AFB, polar orbit, cross-range capability, all of which massively increased cost and complexity and, as Columbia showed, risk - the Shuttle need never have had large wings at all) and it was no surprise after Challenger that commercial Shuttle satellite launches were killed off. Saved NASA the embarrassment of admitting that commercial expendable launchers were much more reliable (in the delays, not blowing up, sense) and cheaper.

Of course we all know now that the turnaround time and turnaround cost for the Shuttles were far in excess of what was originally envisaged and, with a large dose of hindsight, NASA may have been better off going for proven, series-produced, relatively cheap expendable boosters and spacecraft as the Russians have done - but the Russians still don't have the heavy lift to ISS capability the Shuttles provided. Whether that's really needed is another question.

clln

ninja900 wrote: »

IIRC NASA were under pressure in the lead-up to the Challenger disaster to get as many flights up as possible with minimal delays otherwise their funding was at risk of being cut. We know how that ended up :mad: but somehow Congress used the tragedy as yet another stick to beat NASA with. Politicians the world over have a remarkable talent for blaming anyone else but themselves for the consequences of their decisions.

Totally true ninja,in fact the SRB manufacturers gave a "NO GO" for launch as the O-Rings had not been approved for such severe low temps expected the next day.
the then NASA management asked them to "reconsider"(or lose the contract in code)
Shuttle had encountered some problems,but most of all some very influential Politicians were expected for launch,half an hour later NASA management got its "GO" on the SRB's,something the guy who held out to the end has always regretted,it had to be unanimous "GO" and he still wonders why he did not trust his instincts,he lost his job shortly afterwards anyway for not being a 'team player'

Hotblack Desiato

It could be summarised as something like "we had some O-rings go a bit funny before, but didn't blow up, so it must be ok this time" and what's really sad is that after all that was said at that time, the Feynman report etc, the same attitudes to risk surfaced again with Columbia. "Foam can't breach the RCC because that's never happened before."

I really think that this is down to management attitudes and culture, which goes right to the top. NASA have always had excellent engineers, but seem to have had more than their fair share of mediocre managers overruling them.

IMHO their funding model is entirely responsible for this. I don't see this getting any better under a privatised launcher model, either - worse if anything.

namloc1980

ninja900 wrote: »

Although the Shuttle program achieved a great deal, it has to be said it never got remotely near to reaching the goals it was designed to do. 5 operational Shuttles with 100 flights each (albeit over only a 10 year lifespan, IIRC) imagine a Shuttle flight every single week for 10 years!!! IIRC a cost to orbit of (in 1970s dollars) $100/kg as well!

There was also the budgetary shenanigans in the early 70s of the Shuttle justifying a future space station, the future space station justifying the Shuttle... the original intentions of cheap satellite launches and manned capability were always two very different programs and sets of goals thrust together awkwardly, (not to mention the DoD, Vandenberg AFB, polar orbit, cross-range capability, all of which massively increased cost and complexity and, as Columbia showed, risk - the Shuttle need never have had large wings at all) and it was no surprise after Challenger that commercial Shuttle satellite launches were killed off. Saved NASA the embarrassment of admitting that commercial expendable launchers were much more reliable (in the delays, not blowing up, sense) and cheaper.

Of course we all know now that the turnaround time and turnaround cost for the Shuttles were far in excess of what was originally envisaged and, with a large dose of hindsight, NASA may have been better off going for proven, series-produced, relatively cheap expendable boosters and spacecraft as the Russians have done - but the Russians still don't have the heavy lift to ISS capability the Shuttles provided. Whether that's really needed is another question.

That's not really true. The Shuttle can lift a payload 24,400 kg into LEO whereas the Russian Proton can lift 21,600 kg to LEO. Not a huge difference there. In fact the two heaviest modules that make up the ISS, Zarya and Zvezda, were both launched by Proton rockets.

clln

namloc1980 wrote: »

I would like to share your optimism on the SLS but I don't see the purpose in developing it in the first place. NASA has no planned, let alone budgeted, need for a launch vehicle the size of the SLS. Yes, Obama mentioned that he would like to see astronauts on an asteroid by mid 2020's but that is not a plan, it's more like a vague aspiration. Nearly 10 billion dollars was spent on Constellation before it was cancelled and it produced very little other than a test flight of the Ares I-X which was a partial failure and the groundwork for the MPCV, but considering that SpaceX have produced an actual crew capsule which is flight worthy for a fraction of the cost it's not much of a positive. SpaceX have also said that their Dragon capsule of capable of handling Earth re-entries from lunar and Martian flights.

SLS won't fly by 2016 as they are planning and I don't think it will ever fly. If SpaceX can successfully fly a Falcon Heavy in 2013 as they plan (and given their success so far there is no reason to believe they can't) then SLS is as good as dead. NASA should refocus on actual exploration and let the private sector do the donkey work of taxiing people and cargo into space.

namloc i am not just picking this out of the air,as i said the SLS is not being put out to public tender.
look at the link i gave to space-x's f9 Launch manifest and tell me how they can manage it in the timescale?
that's even without a start on their heavy lift
i do like that Dragon and falcon though..........
a lot of repetition going on over threads............... the truth is there are many great idea's out there................ who knows what the final outcome will be?

Hotblack Desiato

Whoops, forgotten the Proton, it could do Zond after all...

but I've read that (lack of Russian capability to deliver ISS modules) in several different media sources in the last year or so, which led me incorrectly to assume Proton was retired!

clln

ninja900 wrote: »

Whoops, forgotten the Proton, it could do Zond after all...but I've read that (lack of Russian capability to deliver ISS modules) in several different media sources in the last year or so, which led me incorrectly to assume Proton was retired!

No but it lost three satellites on a fairly recent launch,that was followed by a progress re-supply aborting its first attempt to dock for 48 hours, a couple of Soyuz have lost pressure after undocking and had to be pumped with spare ox,then the Soyuz to be launched with the picture of Yuri on it was delayed due to some minor damage.
the retirement age in Russia is 65 but the head of the Russian Space Agency was expected to be allowed to stay on,instead he was told even before April 12th that his retirement will be accepted.
He had been forgiven everything except the slight delay to the 50th ann Soyuz.......... because Politicians had cleared their schedule and booked swanky hotels for its due launch date.
some ex Cosmonauts have claimed that they got the blame for hardware problems suffered by Soyuz rather than an admission of hardware faults by RSA.
At least Challenger and Columbia were investigated and the truth came out............. we will have to wait to see if that is ever the case by the RSA!

namloc1980

clln wrote: »

No but it lost three satellites on a fairly recent launch,that was followed by a progress re-supply aborting its first attempt to dock for 48 hours, a couple of Soyuz have lost pressure after undocking and had to be pumped with spare ox,then the Soyuz to be launched with the picture of Yuri on it was delayed due to some minor damage.
the retirement age in Russia is 65 but the head of the Russian Space Agency was expected to be allowed to stay on,instead he was told even before April 12th that his retirement will be accepted.
He had been forgiven everything except the slight delay to the 50th ann Soyuz.......... because Politicians had cleared their schedule and booked swanky hotels for its due launch date.
some ex Cosmonauts have claimed that they got the blame for hardware problems suffered by Soyuz rather than an admission of hardware faults by RSA.
At least Challenger and Columbia were investigated and the truth came out............. we will have to wait to see if that is ever the case by the RSA!

Your anti-Russian Space Programme sentiment is astounding. Let's not forget that 17 American astronauts (3 in Apollo 1, 14 on STS) have been killed while in US spacecraft. The Russians have lost 4 cosmonauts in their spacecraft and none since 1971. Technical hardware can be replace, people cannot. Let's not also forget that the Space Shuttle has been dogged with technical problems and issues since it's first launch. It is also now routine for a shuttle launch to be delayed because of technical problems. And a single STS launch costs a multiple of what a Soyuz launch costs and it is much less reliable than the Soyuz.

Going into space is a risky business. The Russians have no worse a record than the Americans so a bit of balance would be nice.

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

I would like to share your optimism on the SLS but I don't see the purpose in developing it in the first place. NASA has no planned, let alone budgeted, need for a launch vehicle the size of the SLS. Yes, Obama mentioned that he would like to see astronauts on an asteroid by mid 2020's but that is not a plan, it's more like a vague aspiration. Nearly 10 billion dollars was spent on Constellation before it was cancelled and it produced very little other than a test flight of the Ares I-X which was a partial failure and the groundwork for the MPCV, but considering that SpaceX have produced an actual crew capsule which is flight worthy for a fraction of the cost it's not much of a positive. SpaceX have also said that their Dragon capsule of capable of handling Earth re-entries from lunar and Martian flights.

SLS won't fly by 2016 as they are planning and I don't think it will ever fly. If SpaceX can successfully fly a Falcon Heavy in 2013 as they plan (and given their success so far there is no reason to believe they can't) then SLS is as good as dead. NASA should refocus on actual exploration and let the private sector do the donkey work of taxiing people and cargo into space.

Falcon 9 Heavy can lift 53,000kg into LEO. SLS will do 130,000kg in it's heaviest variant.

To say SLS will be redundant if F9 Heavy flies just isn't true.

It would take maybe 3-4 launches to do a single moon mission with F9 Heavy.

Only with the arrival of Falcon X will SLS be pointless.

clln

namloc1980 wrote: »

Your anti-Russian Space Programme sentiment is astounding. Let's not forget that 17 American astronauts (3 in Apollo 1, 14 on STS) have been killed while in US spacecraft. The Russians have lost 4 cosmonauts in their spacecraft and none since 1971. Technical hardware can be replace, people cannot. Let's not also forget that the Space Shuttle has been dogged with technical problems and issues since it's first launch. It is also now routine for a shuttle launch to be delayed because of technical problems. And a single STS launch costs a multiple of what a Soyuz launch costs and it is much less reliable than the Soyuz.

Going into space is a risky business. The Russians have no worse a record than the Americans so a bit of balance would be nice.

It is not anti Russian Space program at all,it is how the Soviets where so secretive and how much they oppressed their People, hugh amounts of money spent on the Military and their culture of expansionism.......no matter how impoverished it made the people.
leaving their politics aside though i have hugh admiration for their achievements......... Sputnik,first man in space,first woman in Space,first return of Moonrock,unmanned Moon Rovers,the Salyut Space stations,Mir,landed on Venus and returned pictures,first Spacewalk.Buran.... list is endless.
a terrible folly to have over a thousand people in the area of a fully fueled N1 launcher that exploded killing most of them was their biggest error,but it was early days.
don't forget both shuttles had a crew of seven and the folly of Apollo 1 was a test with pure Oxygen in the capsule and a hatch that could not be 'blown' by the crew,they had not a chance,that puts the 17 versus 4 in some perspective.
i was listening in when Tracey Dyson Caldwell was returning on a Soyuz,they had to pump oxegyn into the cabin a few times as there was a leak and a few others i listened in on had the same problem.
My fear now is that too much pressure is being put on for Soyuz production to increase safety standards will drop.
Arianespace are asking for them,ESA is asking for at least one,four a year is what they normally have turned out,that will have to increase.

Here is some Stats i worked out for the 50th anniversary,sweated blood sweat and tears so i did!:),and actually since the 'space race' began considering it led to a Man on the Moon,launched and serviced the Hubble.(it had not been designed to be serviced )and not to detract from the bits of the ISS Russia built only Shuttle could have made it what it is.
when you look at the Stats 17 dead to achieve all that is by no means excessive since 1967.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71517636&postcount=11

I spent hours on those Stats and asked a question at the end.
Beeker posted this a couple of minutes later, [EMAIL="B@stard"]B@stard[/EMAIL]!:)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71518461&postcount=12

namloc1980

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Falcon 9 Heavy can lift 53,000kg into LEO. SLS will do 130,000kg in it's heaviest variant.

To say SLS will be redundant if F9 Heavy flies just isn't true.

It would take maybe 3-4 launches to do a single moon mission with F9 Heavy.

Only with the arrival of Falcon X will SLS be pointless.

NASA has no planned, let alone budgeted, payload that needs a launcher the size of the proposed SLS. Hypothetical moon missions is no justification for spending billions on a launcher of that size. Those billions would surely be better spent on doing actual science. In addition NASA has no plan or budget to build things like landers, hab modules, earth return launchers etc and with SLS hoovering up resources and budget money there won't e any money for there things until well into the next decade at the earliest. Without these things there will be no missions beyond LEO.

SpaceX have said that a Falcon Heavy will cost $125m per launch with SpaceX funding most of the development costs themselves. NASA reckon SLS will be well over $1bn per launch not including development costs. Do the maths.

namloc1980

clln wrote: »

It is not anti Russian Space program at all,it is how the Soviets where so secretive and how much they oppressed their People, hugh amounts of money spent on the Military and their culture of expansionism.......no matter how impoverished it made the people.
leaving their politics aside though i have hugh admiration for their achievements......... Sputnik,first man in space,first woman in Space,first return of Moonrock,unmanned Moon Rovers,the Salyut Space stations,Mir,landed on Venus and returned pictures,first Spacewalk.Buran.... list is endless.
a terrible folly to have over a thousand people in the area of a fully fueled N1 launcher that exploded killing most of them was their biggest error,but it was early days.
don't forget both shuttles had a crew of seven and the folly of Apollo 1 was a test with pure Oxygen in the capsule and a hatch that could not be 'blown' by the crew,they had not a chance,that puts the 17 versus 4 in some perspective.
i was listening in when Tracey Dyson Caldwell was returning on a Soyuz,they had to pump oxegyn into the cabin a few times as there was a leak and a few others i listened in on had the same problem.
My fear now is that too much pressure is being put on for Soyuz production to increase safety standards will drop.
Arianespace are asking for them,ESA is asking for at least one,four a year is what they normally have turned out,that will have to increase.

Here is some Stats i worked out for the 50th anniversary,sweated blood sweat and tears so i did!:),and actually since the 'space race' began considering it led to a Man on the Moon,launched and serviced the Hubble.(it had not been designed to be serviced )and not to detract from the bits of the ISS Russia built only Shuttle could have made it what it is.
when you look at the Stats 17 dead to achieve all that is by no means excessive since 1967.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71517636&postcount=11

I spent hours on those Stats and asked a question at the end.
Beeker posted this a couple of minutes later, [EMAIL="B@stard"]B@stard[/EMAIL]!:)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71518461&postcount=12

That bit in bold never happened. N1 failed 4 times but nobody died in those failures and certainly thousands didn't die.

clln

namloc1980 wrote: »

That bit in bold never happened. N1 failed 4 times but nobody died in those failures and certainly thousands didn't die.

At a quick check it seems You are 100% correct there,strange that its been an urban legend for so long!
came up on another thread and another poster agreed so for some reason it is a widespread belief?
always nice to have a Myth busted!

namloc1980

clln wrote: »

At a quick check it seems You are 100% correct there,strange that its been an urban legend for so long!
came up on another thread and another poster agreed so for some reason it is a widespread belief?
always nice to have a Myth busted!

I suppose the secrecy of the Soviet space program allowed all sorts of myths and legends to develop.

Hotblack Desiato

Were you thinking of the Nedelin catastrophe, clln?

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

thecommander

ninja900 wrote: »

Were you thinking of the Nedelin catastrophe, clln?

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

Wasn't there one in China too. Shrouded in secrecy too.