Epsilon Wrote:The idea behind the space shuttle was fundamentally flawed. It assumed that you could have a "one size fits all" reuseable orbital insertion vehicle. Orbital insertion of various things is best handled by specialized vehicles, for a variety of economic and practical engineering reasons. If we need to insert humans into orbit again, then we should do so with a machine designed solely for that purpose and if it turns out that a one-shot vehicle is cheaper (what with having to carry less weight) we do that.Project Constellation was originally going to tackle this problem by using clusters of leftover, modified Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters. The Orion capsule could be boosted into low earth orbit by a single "stick" SSSRB, while heavier payloads and higher altitudes could be attained by using up to (if I recall correctly) six SSSRBs of varying lengths (for which read fuel capacity). Whatever the outdatedness of the Shuttle, the SSSRBs are, if you'll pardon the pun, still solid technology, but often, like you said, overkill for many of the past Shuttle missions.
Ayiekie Wrote:...but it really is time they were put to bed and hopefully replaced with a superior, safer, cheaper delivery system.Unfortunately, until somebody invents a way to escape the Earth's gravity without using chemical propulsion, manned rocketry will never be truly safe. Although, there have been no launch fatalities in the history of human spaceflight. (The Russians did have two launch aborts with Soyuz, but the pilots came out safe, if bruised and battered.)
Despite this I have a lot of confidence in the Soyuz spacecraft to maintain a manned (if not continuously North American) presence in space. Except for the tragedies of Soyuz 1 and 11 it has a stellar safety record and was recently upgraded with fully digital, modern computers and various support systems. It's also downright inexpensive compared to other launch systems throughout the years.
As for future developments, the ESA, NASA and the Russian space agency (whose acronym I've plum forgotten) and the private company SpaceX do all have plans on the board for next generation manned spacecraft, all of which have striking similarities to the Apollo Command Module frustrum (EDIT: SpaceX's Dragon actually has more in common, physically, with the odd gumdrop shape of the Soyuz descent module). So there's certainly not a lack of ideas, at least, for keeping people in space.
As for the NEED for a human presence in space...
This is a difficult topic to argue without veering into a discussion better suited to the Politics board. Like Ayiekie said, many of the things that we are doing/have done can (and have) been done just as well with robotics. But in the pursuit of science there are practical benefits to having people in space as scientists and technicians. Even Skylab's detractors had to admit that the space station's three crews contributed greatly to the scientific experiments on board by simply being available to solve problems as they came up and to take advantage of unexpected oppurtunities.
But I suppose that I'm ultimately in favor of human spaceflight because I cling to the wonder of it all. It's one thing to see images of moons, planets and nebulae; it's another thing to know that someone was there. No, it's not particularly rational or logical. But, possibly to my detriment, I'm an idealist.
So I'll mourn the Shuttle in all its outdated glory, and hope for better in the future.