4 ms·

The shuttle arguably wasn't really that "reusable." Also, SpaceX is already more cost effective. Though, that's not a good comparison given that the shuttle was

• manarth 11y ago
  > the shuttle was designed for carrying much larger payloads. Falcon 9 has about half the payload capability of the shuttle, but Falcon Heavy has more than twice the capacity, so you can make meaningful comparisons. Falcon Heavy's cost is $1,890,000 per metric ton to LEO [1], and Falcon 9's is around $5,856,000. The shuttle payload cost to LEO was initially estimated at $260/kg(!!) [2], but turned out to be $60,000/kg [3], or $60,000,000 per metric ton. Which makes Falcon 9 around 10 times more cost-effective than the shuttle, and Falcon Heavy around 31 times. The spaceshuttle had a maximum payload of 25,060 kg (24,310 kg to LEO) [4]. Falcon 9 has capacity for only 10,450 kg to LEO [5], but Falcon Heavy allows 53,000 kg [6]. [1] http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle... [4] http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Space_Shuttle/Shuttle_technical_facts http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Space_Sh... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
  • deelowe 11y ago
    Ohh wow. Didn't know that. Thanks. I should have said that the shuttle was built for a different purpose.