7 ms·
The space shuttle was about half as efficient as the Saturn it replaced. And that's only if you count low earth orbit. If you count beyond that, it is infinitel
by merpnderp 11y ago
The space shuttle was about half as efficient as the Saturn it replaced. And that's only if you count low earth orbit. If you count beyond that, it is infinitely more efficient since the space shuttle couldn't go further.
The Saturn was given to us by basically empowering a dictator to run the program and get things done, a lot like a CEO. The Space Shuttle was given to us by typical bureaucracy, and lies. Lots and lots of lies told with a straight face to the public.
I don't know that private companies can ever compete with NASA on the scale of spending, but given NASA's current relatively tiny budget, it doesn't seem out of the question.
And I like to daydream about a future where the space shuttle never happened and the Saturn XX single stage super rocket takes vacationers to the moon and then lands itself on its landing pad ready for a quick refuel and return trip.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago> The Space Shuttle was given to us by typical bureaucracy, and lies. You forgot the military. They're e.g. the reason it has such big wings, because they wanted a huge single-orbit crossrange capability. Presumably for spying, maybe as a backup in case the Russians shot down a Keyhole or something.
- _vk_ 11y agoNot so. The crossrange capability was driven by the abort scenarios. http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/001340.html http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum30/HTML/001340.html http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4998.0 http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4998.0
- semi-extrinsic 11y agoThis is where I got the info: http://space.stackexchange.com/a/1400 http://space.stackexchange.com/a/1400 Your sources seem more credible, but it's (obviously) hard to get concrete facts on military applications of the shuttle.