I was inspired to write this article by numerous discussions in forums and even articles in serious magazines, in which I came across the following position:

“The United States is actively developing missile defense (5th generation fighters, combat robots, etc.). Guard! After all, they are not fools, they know how to count money and will not do nonsense ??? ”

Fools are not fools, but they have always been above the roof with fraud, stupidity and "drank the dough" - you just have to take a closer look at the US megaprojects.

They are constantly trying to create a miracle weapon or such a miracle technology that will shame all enemies / competitors for a long time and make them tremble at the unthinkable technological power of America. They make spectacular presentations, pour in amazing data, raise a huge wave in the media.

Everything always ends in a banal way - a successful swindle of taxpayers in the face of Congress, knocking out huge amounts of money and a disastrous result.

For example, the history of the program space shuttle is one of the typical American chimera chases.

Here, at all stages, from the formulation of the problem to operation, the NASA leadership made a series of gross mistakes / machinations, which ultimately led to the creation of a fantastically inefficient Shuttle, the early closure of the program and buried the development of the national orbital station.

How it all began:

In the late 1960s, even before the moon landing, the decision was made in the United States to curtail (and then close) the Apollo program. Production capacity began to decline rapidly, hundreds of thousands of workers and employees were subject to dismissal. The huge spending on the Vietnam War and the space/military race with the USSR had undermined the US budget and was looming one of the worst economic downturns in their history.

NASA funding has been cut more and more every year, and the future of American manned space exploration is in jeopardy. There were growing voices of critics in Congress who said that NASA was senselessly throwing taxpayers' money into the wind at a time when the most important social items in the national budget were underfunded. On the other hand, the whole free world, with bated breath, followed every gesture of the torches of democracy and waited for the spectacular cosmic defeat of the totalitarian Russian barbarians.

At the same time, it was clear that the USSR was not going to give up competition in space and that even a successful landing on the moon could not be a reason to rest on our laurels.

It was necessary to urgently decide what to do next. To this end, under the auspices of the Presidential Administration, a special working group of scientists was created, which was engaged in the development of further plans for the development of American cosmonautics.

Then it was already obvious that the USSR followed the path of developing the technology of orbital stations (OS), while participation in the lunar race was actively denied by the Soviet officialdom.

So, in 1968, Soyuz-4 and Soyuz-5 were docked in orbit and a transition was made through open space from one ship to another. During the transition, the cosmonauts worked out the actions to perform installation work in space, and the entire project was advertised as "the world's first experimental orbital station." The entire world press was filled with admiring responses. The docking of the Soyuz was estimated by some to be even higher than the Apollo 8 flyby of the Moon.

Such a great resonance inspired the leadership of the USSR and in the 69th flight of three "Unions" was started at once. Two were to dock, and the third was to fly around, making a spectacular report. That is, the game for the public was clearly conceived. But the plan did not work out, the automation failed and it was not possible to dock. Nevertheless, valuable experience was gained in mutual maneuvering in orbit, a unique experiment on welding / soldering in vacuum was carried out, and the interaction of ground services with ships in orbit was worked out. So the group flight was declared successful on the whole, and after the landing of the cosmonauts, at the rally, Brezhnev already officially announced that "orbital stations are the main route in astronautics."

What could America oppose? In fact, the project to create its own operating system began in the United States long before these events, but it almost did not move from its place, since all possible resources were directed to ensuring an early landing on the moon. Immediately after the A11 finally landed on the moon, the question of building an OS rose to full height at NASA.

Then NASA decided to build as quickly as possible from the available developments of the OS skylab (in duplicate), canceled two of the last moon landings, freeing up Saturn V rockets to re-inject those stations into orbit. In what haste they built Skylab and what nonsense it turned out - this is a separate song.

At the very least, they covered the “hole” in this competition for a while. But in any case, the Skylab program was obviously a dead end, since the launch vehicles necessary for its development were long out of production, and they had to fly on the remnants.

What was offered

Then the “Space Activity Planning Group” proposed in the coming years (after the Skylab flight) to create a huge orbital station, with a crew of tens of people and a reusable space shuttle to it, carrying cargo and people to the station and back. The main emphasis was placed on the fact that the planned shuttle would be so cheap to operate and reliable that human spaceflight would be almost as routine and safe as civil airliner flights.

(that's when the Russians say they will wipe themselves with their disposable kerosene rockets)

The original NASA project to build the shuttle was quite rational:

They proposed to make a space transportation system consisting of two winged fully reusable steps: "Booster" ("Accelerator") and "Orbiter".

It looked like this: one big “plane” is carrying another, smaller one, on its back. The payload was limited to 11 tons (this is important!). The main purpose of the shuttle was to serve the future orbital station. It is a large OS that could create a sufficiently large cargo flow into orbit and, most importantly, from it.

The size of the "Booster" was supposed to be comparable to the size of a Boeing 747 (about 80 meters long), and the size of the "Orbiter" - like a Boeing 707 (about 40 meters). Both stages were supposed to be equipped with the best engines - oxygen-hydrogen. After takeoff, the Booster, having dispersed the Orbiter, would separate halfway and return / plan itself to the base.

The cost of launching such a shuttle would be about 10 million dollars (in the prices of those years), subject to fairly frequent flights, 40-60 times a year. (for comparison, the cost of launching the lunar Saturn-5 was then $200 million)

Naturally, the Congress/Administration liked the idea of ​​creating such a cheap and easy-to-operate orbital transport. Let the economy be at its limit, the blacks are smashing the cities, but we will once again tighten up, we will make a super thing, but then it’s like flying-a-e-e-e-m!

All this is wonderful, but NASA wanted at least $9 billion for the creation of a supershuttle alone, and the government agreed to allocate only $5, and even then only on the condition of active participation in the financing of the military. billion for the program of 2 Skylab stations (which had yet to fly) - quite enough for that moment.

But NASA took it under the hood and eventually gave birth to this option:

Firstly, for such a long lateral maneuver, powerful wings were required, which increased the weight of the shuttle. In addition, now the shuttle - "Orbiter" did not have enough internal fuel tanks to put 30 tons of cargo into orbit. I had to attach a huge external tank to it. Naturally, this tank had to be made disposable (it is very difficult to launch such a thin-walled fragile structure from orbit intact). In addition, the problem arose of creating the most powerful hydrogen engines capable of lifting this whole colossus. NASA realistically assessed the possibilities in this regard and reduced the requirements for maximum thrust for main engines, attaching two huge solid propellant boosters (TTU) to the sides to help them. It turned out that the hydrogen "Booster" disappeared from the configuration altogether, degenerating into overgrown doors from the "Katyusha".

Thus, the Shuttle project was finally formed in its modern form. With the "help" of the military and under the guise of cheaper and faster development, the Nasovites mutilated the original project beyond recognition. However, it was successfully approved in 1972 and accepted for execution.

Looking ahead, let's say that even for this squalor they still spent far from 5 billion, as they promised. The development of the Shuttle by the 80th year cost them 10 billion (in the prices of 77 years) or about 7 billion in the prices of the 71st year. Note that the idea of ​​creating a station has been pushed back for an indefinite period, and therefore, new tasks have been devised for the new Shuttle project.

Namely, the purpose of the Shuttle was rescheduled along the way for the supposedly super-cheap launch of commercial and military satellites - everything in a row, from light to super-heavy, as well as the return of satellites from orbit.

Here the truth arose a bad hitch. At that time, satellites simply did not do so much to pay for the frequent launches of a huge rocket. But our brave scientists were not at a loss! They hired a private contractor - the firm "Mathematics", which very far-sightedly predicted simply huge launch needs in the near future. Hundreds! Thousands of launches! (Who would doubt that)

In principle, already at this stage, at the stage of the project approved in 1972, it was clear that the Shuttle would never become a cheap means of launching into orbit, even if everything went like clockwork. After all, miracles do not happen - you cannot pull a three times heavier load into orbit, spending all the same 10-15 million dollars calculated for original much lighter and more advanced system. Not to mention the fact that all cost calculations were given for fully reusable apparatus, which the Shuttle was no longer obtained by definition.

And the idea itself - to put into orbit every time a 100-ton shuttle with people, only to deliver into space, at best, a dozen or two tons of payload - smacks of absurdity.

However, surprisingly, all the figures and promises that were the original for the original project were automatically declared for the castrated version!

Although the loss of almost all the advantages over disposable missiles was obvious. For example, the cost of rescuing from the ocean, restoring, transporting and assembling solid-fuel boosters alone turned out to be not much less than the cost of manufacturing new ones.

By the way, Tiokol Chemical won the competition for the development of solid-fuel accelerators, underestimating the real cost of transportation by three times. Another small example of tons of cheating and drinking the budget that accompanied the development space shuttle.

With the promised safety, it also turned out to be a complete seam: solid-fuel boosters cannot be stopped after being set on fire and it is also impossible to shoot them, while the crew is deprived of any means of rescue at launch. But who cares? NASA was so enthusiastic about the development of the budget that without hesitation announced in Congress about the achieved 100% reliability of the TTU. That is, their accident can never happen at all, in principle.

How to look into the water...

What happened in the end

But trouble came - open the gate, everything turned out to be even more fun when it came to real development and operation.

Let me remind you:

According to the developers, the Shuttle was supposed to become a reusable ultra-reliable and safe transport system, with a record low cost of putting cargo and people into orbit. The frequency of flights was supposed to be increased to 50 per year.

But it was smooth on paper ...

The table below clearly shows how “successful” the Shuttle turned out to be in the end.

All prices are in 1971 dollars:

So what happened was exactly the opposite.

Not reusable

Not reliable enough and extremely dangerous in case of an accident

With a record high cost to reach orbit.

Not reusable - because after the Shuttle flight the external tank is lost, many critical elements of the system become unusable or they require expensive restoration. Namely:

Recovery of solid-fuel boosters costs almost half the cost of manufacturing new ones, plus transportation, plus the maintenance of infrastructure to catch them in the ocean.

After each landing, main engines undergo major repairs, even worse - their resource turned out to be so low that it was necessary to manufacture as many as 50 additional main engines for 5 shuttles!

The chassis is completely replaceable;

The airframe's heat-shielding coating after each flight requires a long restoration. (the question is what then is truly reusable in the system space shuttle ? only the shuttle body remains)

It turned out that before each launch, the "reusable" Orbiter needs a long, expensive restoration, lasting for months. Yes, plus the launches themselves are constantly and for a long time postponed due to numerous malfunctions. Sometimes you even have to remove nodes from one shuttle in order to start another as quickly as possible. All this deprives the MTKS of the ability for frequent launches (which could somehow reduce the cost of operation).

Further, as already mentioned, during the development, NASA assured Congress that the reliability of the TTU can be conditionally considered as 1. Therefore, no rescue systems were provided at the start and they saved quite a lot on this. For which the crew of the Challenger paid.

The catastrophe itself was the fault of the NASA leadership, which, on the one hand, tried to raise the frequency of launches to the maximum at any cost (to reduce costs and portray a good mine in a bad game), and on the other hand, ignored the operational requirements for TTU, which did not allow launching at minus temperatures. And that ill-fated launch had already been postponed many times and further waiting disrupted the entire flight schedule. Therefore, they didn’t give a damn about the temperature conditions, they gave the go-ahead for the start and the frozen intersectional gasket in the TTU, having lost elasticity, burned out, the bursting torch burned through the external tank and .... Bang bang!

After the disaster, the Challenger had to be strengthened and made heavier, which is why the required carrying capacity was never achieved. As a result, the Shuttle puts into orbit a payload only slightly larger than our Proton.

In addition, this disaster, in addition to a two-year delay in flights, eventually led to the disruption of the very long-awaited Freedom OS program, which, by the way, ended up costing 10 billion dollars to develop! Due to the reduced real carrying capacity, the developers of Freedom could not fit the station modules into the cargo compartment.

As for the Columbia catastrophe, the problems with damage to the launch vehicle were known from the very beginning, but they were just as ignored. Although the danger was obvious! And it still persists, since this problem has not received a cardinal solution.

As a result, today the Shuttles did not fly even 30% of the planned flights and the program will be closed by 2010, otherwise the probability of another catastrophe is unacceptably high!

"Space Shuttle" space shuttle- space shuttle) - a reusable manned transport spacecraft of the United States, designed to deliver people and cargo to low Earth orbits and back. The shuttles were used as part of an ongoing National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) state program"Space transport system" (Space Transportation System, STS).

The shuttle program has been developed by North American Rockwell on behalf of NASA since 1971. Construction of the first two shuttles began in June 1974. Initially, flight ships were numbered OV-099, OV-101, OV-102, and so on. A total of six shuttles were built.

The ship OV-101 was released on September 17, 1976 and received the name "Enterprise" ( Enterprise) named after the starship from the science fiction television series Star Trek. It was a prototype atmospheric test shuttle that never made it to space.

To test the new spacecraft, a special aircraft was created, on the body of which the Enterprise was attached. At first, the tests were carried out without the participation of the crew, later the shuttle began to be launched already together with people monitoring the operation of the instruments. After the Enterprise was no longer used for testing, some of its parts were used to create new shuttles.

Shuttle Discovery ( discovery, OV-103) began construction in 1979. It was handed over to NASA in November 1982. The shuttle was named after one of two ships used by British Captain James Cook in the 1770s to discover the Hawaiian Islands and explore the coasts of Alaska and northwestern Canada. The shuttle made its first flight into space on August 30, 1984, and the last - from February 24 to March 9, 2011.
His "track record" includes such important operations as the first flights after the death of the Challenger and Columbia shuttles, the delivery of the Hubble space telescope into orbit, the launch of the Ulysses automatic interplanetary station, as well as the second flight to "Hubble" for preventive and repair work. During its service, the shuttle made 39 flights to the Earth's orbit and spent 365 days in space.

(Atlantis, OV-104) was commissioned by NASA in April 1985. The shuttle was named after an oceanographic research sailing vessel that was owned by the Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts and operated from 1930 to 1966. The shuttle made its first flight on October 3, 1985. Atlantis was the first shuttle to dock with Russia's Mir orbital station, making seven flights to it in total.

The Atlantis shuttle delivered the Magellan and Galileo space probes into orbit, then directed to Venus and Jupiter, as well as one of NASA's four orbital observatories. Atlantis was the last spacecraft to be launched under the Space Shuttle program. Atlantis made its last flight on July 8-21, 2011, the crew for this flight was reduced to four people.
During its service, the shuttle completed 33 flights to the Earth's orbit and spent 307 days in space.

In 1991, the US space shuttle fleet was replenished ( Endeavor, OV-105), named after one of the ships of the British Navy, on which Captain James Cook traveled. Its construction began in 1987. It was built to replace the crashed shuttle Challenger. Endeavor is the most modern of the American space shuttles, and many of the innovations first tested on it were later used to modernize other shuttles. The first flight was made on May 7, 1992.
During its service, the shuttle completed 25 flights to the Earth's orbit and spent 299 days in space.

In total, the shuttles made 135 flights. The shuttles are designed for a two-week stay in orbit. The longest space trip was made by the Columbia shuttle in November 1996 - 17 days 15 hours 53 minutes, the shortest - in November 1981 - 2 days 6 hours 13 minutes. Usually shuttle flights lasted from 5 to 16 days.
They were used to put cargo into orbit, conduct scientific research, maintain orbital spacecraft (installation and repair work).

In the 1990s, the shuttles took part in the joint Russian-American Mir-Space Shuttle program. Nine dockings were carried out with the Mir orbital station. The shuttles played an important role in the implementation of the project to create the International Space Station (ISS). Eleven flights were performed under the ISS program.
The reason for the termination of shuttle flights is the depletion of the resource of the ships and the huge financial costs for the preparation and maintenance of space shuttles.
The cost of each shuttle flight was about $450 million. For this money, the shuttle orbiter could deliver 20-25 tons of cargo, including modules for the station, and seven to eight astronauts in one flight to the ISS.

Since the closure of NASA's Space Shuttle program in 2011, all "retired" shuttles have . The non-flying shuttle Enterprise, which was in the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington (USA), was delivered to the Intrepid aircraft carrier museum in New York (USA) in June 2012. His place at the Smithsonian was taken by the shuttle Discovery. The Endeavor shuttle was delivered to the California Science Center in mid-October 2012, where it will be installed as an exhibit.

It is planned that in early 2013 the shuttle will be at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The material was prepared on the basis of information from RIA Novosti and open sources

Program History "Space Shuttle" began in the late 1960s, at the height of the triumph of the American national space program. On June 20, 1969, two Americans, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, landed on the moon. By winning the "lunar" race, America brilliantly proved its superiority and thus solved its main task in space exploration, proclaimed by the President John Kennedy in his famous speech on May 25, 1962: "I believe that our people can set themselves the task of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth before the end of this decade."

Thus, on July 24, 1969, when the Apollo 11 crew returned to Earth, the American program lost its purpose, which immediately affected the revision of future plans and the reduction in appropriations for the Apollo program. And although flights to the moon continued, America faced the question: what should a person do in space next?

That such a question would arise was obvious long before July 1969. And the first evolutionary attempt at an answer was natural and reasonable: NASA proposed, using the unique technique developed for the Apollo program, to expand the scope of work in space: to conduct a long expedition to the Moon, build a base on its surface, create habitable space stations for regular observation of the Earth, organize factories in space, finally, start manned exploration and exploration of Mars, asteroids and distant planets...

Even the initial stage of this program required maintaining spending on civil space at a level of at least $6 billion a year. But America - the richest country in the world - could not afford it: President L. Johnson needed money for announced social programs and for the war in Vietnam. Therefore, on August 1, 1968, a year before the landing on the moon, a fundamental decision was made: to limit the production of Saturn launch vehicles to the first order - 12 copies of Saturn-1V and 15 Saturn-5 products. This meant that the lunar technology would no longer be used - and from all the proposals for the further development of the Apollo program, in the end, only the Skylab experimental orbital station remained. New goals and new technical means were needed for people to access space, and on October 30, 1968, two NASA headquarters (Manned Spacecraft Center - MSC - in Houston and the Marshall Space Center - MSFC - in Huntsville) turned to American space firms with a proposal to explore the possibility of creating a reusable space system.

Prior to this, all launch vehicles were disposable - putting a payload (PG) into orbit, they spent themselves without a trace. The spacecraft were also disposable, with the rarest exception in the field of manned spacecraft - the Mercury flew twice with serial numbers 2, 8 and 14 and the second Gemini. Now the task has been formulated: to create a reusable system, when both the launch vehicle and the spacecraft return after the flight and are used repeatedly, and thereby reduce the cost of space transport operations by 10 times, which was very important in the context of the budget deficit.

In February 1969, studies were commissioned to four companies in order to identify the most prepared of them for the contract. In July 1970, two firms had already received orders for more detailed study. In parallel, research was carried out in the technical directorate of the MSC under the leadership of Maxime Fage.

The carrier and the ship were conceived as winged and manned. They were supposed to launch vertically, like a conventional launch vehicle. The carrier aircraft worked as the first stage of the system and, after the separation of the ship, landed on the airfield. The ship was put into orbit due to onboard fuel, carried out the mission, deorbited and also landed "like an airplane." The system was given the name "Space Shuttle" - "Space Shuttle".

In September, the Task Force led by Vice President S. Agnew, formed to formulate new goals in space, proposed two options: "to the maximum" - an expedition to Mars, a manned station in lunar orbit and a heavy near-Earth station for 50 people, serviced by ships reusable. "On a minimum" - only the space station and the space shuttle. But President Nixon rejected all options because even the cheapest cost $5 billion a year.
NASA was faced with a difficult choice: it was necessary either to start a new major development, allowing to save personnel and accumulated experience, or to announce the termination of the manned program. It was decided to insist on the creation of the shuttle, but to present it not as a transport ship for the assembly and maintenance of the space station (but keeping it in reserve), but as a system capable of making a profit and recouping investments by launching satellites into orbit on a commercial basis. An economic evaluation in 1970 showed that under certain conditions (at least 30 shuttle flights per year, low operating costs and the complete elimination of disposable media), payback is in principle achievable.

Pay attention to this very important point in understanding the history of the shuttle. At the stage of conceptual studies of the appearance of the new transport system, the fundamental approach to design was replaced: instead of creating an apparatus for specific purposes within the allocated funds, the developers began at any cost, by "pulling the ears" of economic calculations and future operating conditions, to save the existing shuttle project, preserving the created production facilities and jobs. In other words, the shuttle was not designed for the tasks, but the tasks and economic justification were adjusted to its project in order to save the industry and the American manned space program. This approach was "pushed through" in Congress by the "space" lobby, consisting of senators - natives of the "aerospace" states - primarily Florida and California.

It was this approach that confused the Soviet experts, who did not understand the true motives in making a decision to develop the shuttle. After all, verification calculations of the declared economic efficiency of the shuttle, carried out in the USSR, showed that the costs of its creation and operation will never pay off (and so it happened!), And the intended cargo flow "Earth-orbit-Earth" was not provided with real or projected payloads. Not knowing about future plans to create a large space station, our experts formed the opinion that the Americans were preparing for something - after all, a device was created whose capabilities significantly anticipated all foreseeable goals in the use of space ... "Fuel to the fire" of distrust, fear and uncertainty was "added" by the participation of the US Department of Defense in determining the future shape of the shuttle. But it could not be otherwise, because the rejection of disposable launch vehicles meant that the shuttles should also launch all promising devices of the Ministry of Defense, the CIA and the US National Security Agency. The requirements of the military were reduced to the following:

• Firstly, the shuttle was supposed to be capable of launching into orbit the KH-II optical-electronic reconnaissance satellite (the military prototype of the Hubble space telescope), which was developed in the first half of the 1970s, and provides a resolution on the ground when shooting from orbit no worse than 0.3 m ; and a family of cryogenic interorbital tugs. The geometric and weight dimensions of the secret satellite and tugboats determined the dimensions of the cargo compartment - a length of at least 18 m and a width (diameter) of at least 4.5 meters. The ability of the shuttle to deliver a load weighing up to 29,500 kg into orbit and return up to 14,500 kg from space to Earth was determined in a similar way. All conceivable civilian payloads fit into the specified parameters without problems. However, Soviet experts, who closely followed the "setting up" of the shuttle project and did not know about the new American spy satellite, could only explain the chosen dimensions of the useful compartment and the carrying capacity of the shuttle by the desire of the "American military" to be able to inspect and, if necessary, remove (more precisely, capture) from orbit Soviet manned stations of the "DOS" series (long-term orbital stations) developed by TsKBEM and military OPS (orbital manned stations) "Almaz" developed by OKB-52 V. Chelomey. At the OPS, by the way, "just in case" an automatic gun designed by Nudelman-Richter was installed.
• Secondly, the military demanded that the projected value of the lateral maneuver during the descent of the orbiter in the atmosphere be increased from the original 600 km to 2000-2500 km for the convenience of landing on a limited number of military airfields. To launch into circumpolar orbits (with an inclination of 56º ... 104º), the Air Force decided to build its own technical, launch and landing complexes at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The requirements of the military for the payload predetermined the size of the orbital ship and the value of the launch mass of the system as a whole. For increased lateral maneuver, significant lift was required at hypersonic speeds - this is how a double-swept wing and powerful thermal protection appeared on the ship.
In 1971, it became clear that NASA would not receive the $9-10 billion needed to build a fully reusable system. This is the second major turning point in the history of the shuttle. Prior to this, designers still had two alternatives - to spend a lot of money on development and build a reusable space system with a small cost of each launch (and operation in general), or try to save on the design stage and transfer costs into the future, creating an expensive system to operate due to for the high cost of a one-time launch. The high launch cost in this case was due to the presence of disposable elements in the ISS. To save the project, the designers took the second path, abandoning the "expensive" in designing a reusable system in favor of a "cheap" semi-reusable system, thereby putting an end to all plans for the future payback of the system.

In March 1972, on the basis of the Houston project MSC-040C, the appearance of the shuttle that we know today was approved: starting solid-propellant boosters, a disposable tank of fuel components and an orbital ship with three sustainer engines, which lost its air-jet engines for landing approach. The development of such a system, where everything but the external tank is reused, was estimated at 5.15 billion dollars.

On these terms, Nixon announced the creation of the shuttle in January 1972. The race was already underway, and the Republicans were happy to enlist the support of voters in the "aerospace" states. On July 26, 1972, North American Rockwell's Space Transportation Systems Division was awarded a $2.6 billion contract, including the design of an orbiter, the manufacture of two bench and two flight products. The development of the ship's main engines was entrusted to Rocketdyne - a division of the same Rockwell, the external fuel tank - to Martin Marietta, the boosters - to United Space Boosters Inc. and actually solid fuel engines - at Morton Thiokol. From NASA, the MSC (orbital stage) and MSFC (other components) were in charge and oversight.

Initially, flight ships were designated by the numbers OV-101, OV-102, and so on. Production of the first two began at US Air Force Plant N42 in Palmdale in June 1974. The OV-101 was released on September 17, 1976 and was named the Enterprise, after the starship from the science fiction television series Star Trek. After horizontal flight tests, it was planned to be converted into an orbital ship, but OV-102 was to be the first to go into orbit.

In the course of tests of the Enterprise - atmospheric in 1977 and vibration in 1978 - it turned out that the wings and the middle part of the fuselage needed to be significantly strengthened. These solutions were partially implemented on the OV-102 during the assembly process, but the ship's carrying capacity had to be limited to 80% of the nominal. The second flight copy was needed already full-fledged, capable of launching heavy satellites, and in order to strengthen the design of the OV-101, it would have to be almost completely disassembled. At the end of 1978, a solution was born: it would be faster and cheaper to bring the STA-099 static test vehicle to flight condition. On January 5 and 29, 1979, NASA awarded Rockwell International contracts to develop the STA-099 into the OV-099 flight craft ($596.6 million in 1979 prices), to modify the Columbia after flight testing ($28 million), and to build OV-103 and OV-104 ($1653.3 million). And on January 25, all four orbital stages received their own names: OV-102 became "Columbia" (Columbia), OV-099 received the name "Challenger" (Challenger), OV-103 - "Discovery" (Discovery) and OV-104 - " Atlantis" (Atlantis). Subsequently, to replenish the fleet of shuttles after the death of the Challenger, the VKS OV-105 Endeavor was built.

So what is a "Space Shuttle"?
Structurally, the Space Shuttle reusable transport space system (MTKS) consists of two salvageable solid-propellant boosters, which are actually the I stage, and an orbital ship with three oxygen-hydrogen propulsion engines and an external fuel compartment, which form the II stage, while the fuel compartment is the only disposable element of the entire system. Twenty times the use of solid-propellant boosters is envisaged, a hundred times the use of an orbital ship, and oxygen-hydrogen engines are calculated for 55 flights.

When designing, it was assumed that such an MTKS with a launch mass of 1995-2050 tons would be able to launch into orbit with an inclination of 28.5 degrees. a payload of 29.5 tons to a sun-synchronous orbit - 14.5 tons and return a payload of 14.5 tons to Earth from orbit. It was also assumed that the number of launches of the MTKS could be increased to 55-60 per year. In the first flight, the launch mass of the MTKS "Space Shuttle" was 2022 tons, the mass of the manned orbital vehicle during launch into orbit was 94.8 tons, and during landing - 89.1 tons.

The development of such a system is a very complex and time-consuming problem, as evidenced by the fact that today the indicators laid down at the beginning of development for the total cost of creating the system, the cost of its launch and the timing of creation have not been met. Thus, the cost has increased from 5.2 billion dollars. (in 1971 prices) to 10.1 billion dollars. (in 1982 prices), the launch cost - from 10.5 million dollars. up to 240 million dollars The first experimental flight planned for 1979 failed to meet the deadline.

In total, seven shuttles have been built to date, five ships were intended for space flights, two of which were lost in disasters.

From its first launch 30 years ago to its last flight, NASA's spacecraft has seen moments of ups and downs. This program has made up to 135 flights, delivered more than 350 people and thousands of tons of materials and equipment into low Earth orbit. The flights were risky, sometimes extremely dangerous. Indeed, over the years, 14 shuttle astronauts have died.

During a visit to watch the Apollo launch, April 16 to 15, 1972, Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko (left) listens as the director of the Kennedy Space Center Dr. Kurt H explains space shuttle programs

Layout of the proposed Space Shuttle wing configuration. The photo was taken on March 28, 1975.

This is a November 6, 1975 picture: a mock-up spacecraft attached to a 747 carrier, in a wind tunnel.

Part of the cast of the television series Star Trek attended the first screening of America's first spaceship, in Palmdale, California on September 17, 1976. On the left are Leonard Nimoy, George Takei, Forest Kelly and James Doohan.

An inside view of a hydrogen tank destined for the Space Shuttle on February 1, 1977. At 154 meters long and over 27 feet in diameter, the outer tank is the largest component of the spacecraft, the structural backbone of the entire Shuttle system.

A technician works with sensors installed in the back of a mock spacecraft on February 15, 1977.

At the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, this mock spacecraft, dubbed the Pathfinder, is being attached to a test fit device on October 19, 1978. A mock-up built at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, had the overall dimensions, weight, and balance of a real space shuttle.

NASA's Space Shuttle Carrier prototype 747 flies after taking off from the dry bed of Lake Rogers for the second of five free flights at the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California, since January 1, 1977.

Space Shuttle Columbia arrives at Launch Complex 39A in preparation for the STS-1 mission at the Kennedy Space Center on December 29, 1980.

Astronauts John Young (left) and Robert Crippen look at spacecraft instruments in NASA's Orbiter 102 Columbia as they prepare the spacecraft for testing, which will take place during the orbiter's test flight, at Kennedy Space Center October 10, 1980

Flight Director Charles R. Lewis (left) examines a display graph on the Flight Control Area Monitor (MOCR) at Mission Control at Johnson Space Center in April 1981.

Two solid-propellant rocket boosters are dropped from the Columbia shuttle as a successful launch. This has been the case for spaceflight since 1975. April 12, 1981

The shuttle Columbia on the dry bed of Rogers Lake at Edwards AFB completed its first orbital mission on April 14, 1981 after landing.

A Columbia shuttle atop a NASA Boeing 747 at Edwards Air Force Base, California on November 25, 1981

Night launch of the Space Shuttle Columbia, during the twenty-fourth mission of NASA's Space Shuttle Program, January 12, 1986

Astronaut Sally Ride, STS-7 specialist, monitors the control panels in the pilot's seat in the flight deck of the Space Shuttle Challenger on June 25, 1983.

The Space Shuttle Enterprise is transported over a slope that has been widened to avoid hitting its wings, to Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, on February 1, 1985. The orbiter is being transported to the space launch complex, with six specially designed 76-wheeled transporters on board.

A general view of the spacecraft in launch position at Space Rocket Complex (SLC) No. 6, ready for a test launch to test launch procedures at Vandenberg Air Force Base, on February 1, 1985

The Space Shuttle Discovery, at Edwards Air Force Base in California, after completing its 26th space mission.

Christa McAuliffe tries out the Shuttle Simulator Flight Deck Command Seat at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas on September 13, 1985. McAuliffe was scheduled to make a space flight on the Space Shuttle Challenger in January 1986, which ended in tragedy.

Ice on Launch Pad 39-B, January 27, 1986 at Kennedy Space Center, Florida, causing the ill-fated launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger

Spectators in the VIP area at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, watch as the Space Shuttle Challenger lifts off pad 39-B on January 28, 1986, on its tragic final flight.

The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch from Kennedy Space Center. The hull with a crew of seven, including the first teacher in space, was destroyed, all on board died

Spectators at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida after they witnessed the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986

Space Shuttle Columbia (left), slated for takeoff STS-35, passes the Atlantis spacecraft on its way to Pad 39A. Atlantis, scheduled for mission STS-38, parked in front of the bay to repair liquid hydrogen lines

A Florida Air National Guard F-15C Eagle performs a patrol mission for the Space Shuttle Endeavor launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida on December 5, 2001.

The nose of the space shuttle Atlantis, seen from the Russian space station Mir in the STS-71 mission, June 29, 1995.

Cosmonaut Valery Vladimirovich Polyakov, who was at the station on January 8, 1994, goes out to open the spacecraft

Specialist Bruce McCandless II flew farther from the Space Shuttle Challenger than any previous astronaut February 12, 1984 photos

Shuttle main engine test at the Marshall Space Flight Center test facility, in Huntsville, Alabama, December 22, 1993

Astronaut Joseph R. Tanner, STS-82 Mission Specialist, spacewalks to conduct experiments on photographic film February 16, 1997

The two components of the International Space Station joined together on December 6, 1998. The Russian FGB, also called Zarya, is approaching the Shuttle Endeavor

During the first Iraq War, in April 1991, black smoke from burning oil wells in the Kuwait desert was seen from the orbit of the space shuttle Atlantis during the STS-37 mission. The Iraqi army set fire to oil wells in Kuwait when it left that country.

Space Shuttle Endeavor (STS-134) makes its final landing at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida on June 1, 2011.

Puffs of smoke and steam interspersed with fiery light during the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavor at NASA Kennedy Space Center at 39A in July 2009.

The external fuel tank of Shuttle ET-118, which departed in September 2006, was photographed by astronauts aboard the shuttle about 21 minutes after takeoff.

A training model of the Shuttle is parachuted into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida, where they will be pulled by ships, returned to earth, and refitted for reuse.

Although astronauts and cosmonauts often encounter startling scenes, this is a unique image that has the added bonus of being set against the backdrop of the Endeavor Space Shuttle silhouette.

NASA's Columbia shuttle Boeing 747 flies from Palmdale, California to Kennedy Space Center, Florida on March 1, 2001.

The high temperatures faced by the Space Shuttle were simulated in the tunnels at Langley in a 1975 test of thermal insulation materials to be used on the shuttles.

Fire and rescue personnel prepare to evacuate as two "cosmonauts" prepare to leave in a rescue training exercise in Palmdale, California on April 16, 2005.

The Space Shuttle Challenger moves through fog on crawler tractors on its way to Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39A on November 30, 1982.

The shuttle Discovery will launch from Cape Canaveral on October 29. On the beach, children watch him.

The Hubble Space Telescope begins its separation from the shuttle Discovery on February 19, 1997.

This photo taken from Earth with a solar-filtered telescope shows NASA's shuttle Atlantis silhouetted against the Sun Tuesday, May 12, 2009, from Florida

The silhouette of the Space Shuttle Columbia Commander, Kenneth Cockrall, is seen from the aircraft's front windows on December 7, 1996.

Space Shuttle Discovery lands in the Mojave Desert on September 11, 2009 at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base near Mojave, California

Space Shuttle Endeavor rests aboard an aircraft at the Ames-Dryden Flight Research Foundation, Edwards, California, shortly before being ferried back to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida

Space Shuttle Discovery streaks brightly across the morning darkness as it lifts off Launch Pad 39A on its 10-day Hubble Space Telescope maintenance flight.

At the end of the flight, the Space Shuttle Discovery managed to document the beginning of the second day of activity of the Rabaul volcano, on the eastern tip of New Britain. On the morning of September 19, 1994, two volcanic cones on opposite sides of the 6 km crater began to erupt into the sea

Space Shuttle Atlantis above Earth, close to docking in orbit with the International Space Station in 2007

After a catastrophic landing failure, debris from the Space Shuttle Columbia is visible in the sky on the morning of February 1, 2003. The orbiter and all seven crew members are killed.

The wreckage of Columbia is laid out on the grid to determine the causes of the disaster. March 13, 2003

Preparations for the Space Shuttle Discovery slowly assemble due to lightning at Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39A in Florida, on August 4, 2009.

astronaut Robert L. Curbeam, Jr. (left) and European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut Christer Fuglesang, as STS-116 mission specialists, participate in the first of three planned spacewalks to build the International Space Station on December 12, 2006 . Against the backdrop of New Zealand.

Xenon lights assist the landing of Space Shuttle Endeavor. NASA Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The docking of the space shuttle Endeavor, against the background of a night view of the Earth and the starry sky, is photographed by the expedition at the International Space Station on May 28, 2011


At the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the STS-133 crew rests from a simulation launch countdown at the 195-foot level of Launch Pad 39A

A condensation wave, backlit by the sun, occurred during the launch of Atlantis on STS-106 on September 8, 2001.

The International Space Station and the docked shuttle Endeavor flying at an altitude of about 220 kilometers. It's May 23, 2011