7 ms·

> if it had flown more missions then it's cost per mission would have dropped. How, when the cost was limited by the refurbishing costs after each launch?

by creshal 11y ago

Retric 11y ago
Costs where not only based on refurbishing costs, as they included R&D and ongoing capital costs. See: upgrades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine Not to mention building but never using an extra engine, Ground crew etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-61-B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-61-B Had a 54 day turnaround time which is not 'great' still. That's 6+ short missions per year per orbiter call it 5 including missions and some unscheduled down time. They started with 6 orbiters * 5 missions a year ~= 30 missions per year. The shuttle actually did 135 over 30 years or 4.5 per year * (~0.75 per orbiter per year). PS: At even 1/2 that 30 mission per year rate they would have finished 135 missions in under 10 years.
- creshal 11y ago
  > as they included R&D and ongoing capital costs. See: upgrades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine If your engines burn out after 5 instead of the planned 55 flights, I damn well hope you're going to invest into more R&D on them! > Had a 54 day turnaround time which is not 'great' still. And the pressure to keep up that break-neck pace directly led to the Challenger disaster.
  - Retric 11y ago
    I am not going to defend Challenger. IMO, it was more an issue with NASA than the shuttles design. Still, the point is they did not need to wait over a year reusing launches from design constraints. Instead, NASA simply did not need that many manned launches per year. Now, I am not saying it was a great or even that good of a design. It was simply a poor fit for what they used it for. NASA would have been better off with either a much smaller shuttle that only sent crew up, or an unmanned system for hauling cargo. Instead, they tried to do both which caused a lot of problems.

> if it had flown more missions then it's cost per mission would have dropped. How, when the cost was limited by the refurbishing costs after each launch?

by creshal 11y ago

> if it had flown more missions then it's cost per mission would have dropped. How, when the cost was limited by the refurbishing costs after each launch?

Retric 11y ago

Costs where not only based on refurbishing costs, as they included R&D and ongoing capital costs. See: upgrades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine Not to mention building but never using an extra engine, Ground crew etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-61-B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-61-B Had a 54 day turnaround time which is not 'great' still. That's 6+ short missions per year per orbiter call it 5 including missions and some unscheduled down time. They started with 6 orbiters * 5 missions a year ~= 30 missions per year. The shuttle actually did 135 over 30 years or 4.5 per year * (~0.75 per orbiter per year). PS: At even 1/2 that 30 mission per year rate they would have finished 135 missions in under 10 years.

creshal 11y ago
> as they included R&D and ongoing capital costs. See: upgrades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine If your engines burn out after 5 instead of the planned 55 flights, I damn well hope you're going to invest into more R&D on them! > Had a 54 day turnaround time which is not 'great' still. And the pressure to keep up that break-neck pace directly led to the Challenger disaster.
- Retric 11y ago
  I am not going to defend Challenger. IMO, it was more an issue with NASA than the shuttles design. Still, the point is they did not need to wait over a year reusing launches from design constraints. Instead, NASA simply did not need that many manned launches per year. Now, I am not saying it was a great or even that good of a design. It was simply a poor fit for what they used it for. NASA would have been better off with either a much smaller shuttle that only sent crew up, or an unmanned system for hauling cargo. Instead, they tried to do both which caused a lot of problems.