
The patent on the Space Shuttle has expired - donohoe
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3866863A/en
======
trothamel
This isn't a patent on the Space Shuttle. It's a patent on an "improved" space
shuttle where the External Tank is placed in front of the orbiter. (I didn't
read why, but I assume it's to minimize various losses.)

Given the problems with foam shedding on the actual ET, it's probably a good
thing they didn't adopt this configuration.

I checked, and it's actually somewhat buildable - if my back-of-the-envelope
math is right, it's shorter than a Saturn V.

~~~
TrevorJ
Seems like the worst of both worlds in terms a vertical vs horizontal
configuration. you've still got two unthrottled SRB's right next to you, and
now you've increased the odds of them hitting the liquid tank if they detach.

------
bonyt
Title is a bit misleading. Looks like this patent actually expired quite a
while ago, as it was filed in 1974 and granted in 1975. I think it would have
expired 17 years from the date it issued, or Feb. 18, 1992.

~~~
pwg
You are correct in your computation of the expiration date.

Why this was posted now, when it expired over 20 years ago, I am unsure.

------
Fiahil
This would make a fine addition to the ones collected here [1] for decorative
purpose!

[1]: [http://www.howacarworks.com/blog/iconic-patent-
posters](http://www.howacarworks.com/blog/iconic-patent-posters)

~~~
gherkin0
Some of those are really surprising. Notably the Monopoly one (I would have
though that would be a copyright) and the floppy disk one (filed 1995,
really?).

~~~
nkozyra
Electric guitar in 1959, too. That's a very long time between invention and
patent (unless a previous one had expired).

~~~
qbrass
It's a patent for the shape of the guitar, not electric guitars themselves.

------
chrislloyd
I'm a little taken aback that a Government institution like NASA would even
file patents and discourage open innovation. Does anybody know the reasons
_why_ they file patents? Are NASA's patents enforced and have they collected
royalties?

~~~
pilsetnieks
Here is a very similar question on patents.stackexchange.com:
[http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/are-
patents-...](http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/are-patents-
granted-to-the-us-government-public-domain)

Basically, if there's a significant cost to entry, and if the idea were open
to anyone, it would discourage anyone from using the patent. With patent
licensing there's a barrier to entry that gives a measure of exclusivity that
is an additional motivation to anyone taking the idea to market.

I'm not really sure that I agree that governments should own and selectively
sell ideas, even if for a short time but I can see the logic in that argument.

~~~
abecedarius
There's something perverse in this -- something like, legal impediments to
competition are so much the norm that only a loser would want a business
without one? If that is the holdup then couldn't we try to reduce this
systemic problem instead of adding to it?

(I know, a comment like this is probably from dreamland, but I'd like to keep
a vacation house there while I can.)

~~~
SapphireSun
The systematic problem is that if there's something expensive and anyone can
want in, and the profit margins aren't clearly good, it's too risky to blow
all your money on something and maybe not get a return. Maybe the market can
fund one entrant but if there are two, and the market share is divided,
there's not enough money for each player to cover their costs.

A systematic fix would look like one of:

    
    
        - Restrict entry to a single player (patents)
        - Provide matching funds for each sale
    

These fixes apply to this specific situation. We're talking about the space
program, so we're talking large up-front capital costs, which means its
possible the situation exists. The patent system is clearly cheaper up front,
though the more expensive second option ensures at least some competition,
making for an overall better product, but at a very high price.

------
marcoperaza
Thank God. I can finally get started on my clone.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
The important thing isn't that you can now build a clone (it was scrapped for
good reason: satellite retrieval never picked up and there are cheaper ways to
get things into space and people in and out of space) but that the technology
used in it is now free to use in your new spaceship. Boeing can't come by and
say "sorry, you can't do that, patented" because you can point to NASAs patent
for prior art. You don't even need to mess with getting NASA approval to use
their patented system because the patent has expired.

This is the system working as designed: novel stuff gets patented and written
down, temporary monopoly, then the patent expires and others can use it. It
works less well when non-novel stuff gets patented, or when the industry moves
so fast that the expiration term is disproportionately long, or when copyright
gets extended and never expires.

------
caio1982
Seems to be related: [http://www.wired.com/2013/09/building-a-better-stronger-
safe...](http://www.wired.com/2013/09/building-a-better-stronger-safer-space-
shuttle-1982/)

Also, von Pragenau's obituary (he died a few months before the Wired article
was published, apparently):
[http://www.hamptoncovefuneralhome.com/fh/obituaries/obituary...](http://www.hamptoncovefuneralhome.com/fh/obituaries/obituary.cfm?o_id=2150841&fh_id=13813)

~~~
eplanit
Not related per se but for that reason all the more interesting. The Wired
article refers to a different 1984 patent grant for another Pragenau invention
which, had it been utilized by NASA, would have prevented the Challenger
accident. It seems Pragenau is an un[der]sung hero.

------
orionblastar
The technology used in the space shuttle is way out of date. IN order to build
a new space shuttle one would have to retrofit it with modern technology that
is backwards compatible to the signals the old technology used in the shuttle
to operate things.

For example use a Raspberry PI with an emulator for the old system that the
space shuttle used and wire it into the old ports the shuttle uses for
connections.

You'd have a lighter shuttle that doesn't need as much fuel, but the cost of
writing the emulator would be a lot of money. You'd have to reverse engineer
the technology in a working shuttle.

NASA let this patent expire because it is old technology they aren't using
anymore.

In modern times there are a few companies building their own rockets that are
more economical than building a shuttle.

Much as I'd like to see shuttle clones, I remember it had issues that caused
at least two shuttles to explode and get destroyed. In making a shuttle clone
you'd have to fix the o-ring and loose tiles thing.

------
jostmey
Everyone hates how patents are abused, and yet everyone seems to acknowledge
their importance in specific cases. Why not raise the price of patents
substantially? It might make patent trolling economically unfeasible, but
would still allow for someone to patent the cure the cancer or whatnot?

~~~
notatoad
The abuse of patents is largely a problem because it allows the established
players to profit while making it hard for independent inventors to get a
start.

Raising the cost to file a patent is only going to make that worse. It's
already at the point of being too expensive to get a patent without some sort
of funding.

------
quietriot
Anyone else find it odd the shuttle is pointing downwards on the page?

What could be the reason for this?

I understand that the document is intended to have a landscape orientation.
Even if they had the image already prepared, why would they not have mirrored
it left to right (and then added the numerical call-outs) so that a portrait
orientation of the page would have left the ship facing towards the top of the
page?

I'm reading too much into this.

?

------
ethagknight
Why would NASA bother patenting something like this? It's not like USSR would
observe the patent and not copy.

~~~
_nedR
Indeed. The fact that NASA chose to patent it seems to be evidence that
patents are not used to protect innovation (of sensitive technologies at
least). If it was innovative, they would have probably kept it secret as a
matter of national security.

------
bencollier49
Bah, it was invalid anyway. The USSR had prior art from the Buran.

~~~
danielvf
You might have the order backwards. :) The Buran was a direct reaction to the
Shuttle program, and it did not fly until 13 years after this patent was
granted.

~~~
bencollier49
And I get downvoted for a bad joke about Soviet technological espionage! You
guys either have a much better sense of humour than me, or a much worse one.
:-)

