9 ms·

Bear in mind that per-kg-to-orbit, the Falcon Heavy is 50 times cheaper than the Space Shuttle. edit: I think thats based on programme lifetime costs, if you l

Bear in mind that per-kg-to-orbit, the Falcon Heavy is 50 times cheaper than the Space Shuttle. edit: I think thats based on programme lifetime costs, if you look at incremental costs per launch its about 12 times cheaper -see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18706930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18706930 edit: OK maybe not the best two things to compare (although the original vision for the space shuttle was that it would launch all US payloads, due to projected re-usability). But FH is still way cheaper than any contemporary competitors, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18706762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18706762 edit: I've been looking at old pics of the space shuttle and lamenting that its the only thing we've ever put into space that actually looked like a proper spaceship. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-13719297/unique-footage-of-endeavour-shuttle-docked-at-iss https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-13719297/u...

rplnt 8y ago
Are you including the Space Shuttle itself in the payload? Not trying to say Space Shuttle wasn't extremely expensive, but comparing two different things isn't exactly fair.
- ashtonbaker 8y ago
  Does it matter if it's fair? The shuttle was used for ferrying things to space for decades, so it is kind of a relevant comparison.
  - sonofaplum 8y ago
    Not the same type of things. Space X doesn't dock with space stations or repair telescopes, space shuttle doesn't launch commercial sattelites.
    - Pfhreak 8y ago
      SpaceX docks at the ISS... (technically berths at the ISS).
    - stetrain 8y ago
      Space Shuttle did launch satellites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions#Launches_and_orbital_flights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions... Edit: "The original plan, ridiculous as it was in hindsight, was for STS to be the sole US launcher of all payloads. However, after the loss of the Orbiter Challenger only seconds into mission STS-51-L, US policy was changed to only allow the Shuttle to launch scientific and military payloads that required human presence. This destroyed any economic rationale for making STS self supporting or a revenue generator. The first 4 missions were test flights, so omitting them, you can see that 11 of the 21 "operational" missions before the policy change carried commercial satellite payloads, often multiple, up to 3 comsats per mission. A total of 18 commercial satellites were deployed from the Shuttle. " https://space.stackexchange.com/a/10352 https://space.stackexchange.com/a/10352 SpaceX also does cargo missions to the space station (crew happening next year) which is probably a better $/kg comparison to the space shuttle for some missions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services#SpaceX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services#S... Sure the Shuttle had unique capabilities and the Falcon rockets aren't better in all ways, but the Shuttle was originally supposed to be a cheap and reusable way for the US to do the majority of its space launches and that turned out to not be its strong suit.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  Isn’t it? Commercially price per kg of cargo seems like the most relevant metric.
  - rplnt 8y ago
    But that figure differs, even for SpaceX, if you are carrying a spacecraft or cargo in a capsule. Or humans. Space Shuttle was a spacecraft that was much more capable than coupling on 2nd stage. So of course the price point per cargo carried is completely different. It doesn't make any sense to compare it that way. What you can compare is the price of the rocket launch and complete payload delivered to orbit, and that includes the vehicle. If you only care about economics for satellite launches for example, then yeah, it is much cheaper. But so are many other systems, so why pick Space Shuttle for comparison?
    - stetrain 8y ago
      Because that was part of the Space Shuttle's original purpose, but the reusability and cost didn't work out that way: "The original plan, ridiculous as it was in hindsight, was for STS to be the sole US launcher of all payloads. However, after the loss of the Orbiter Challenger only seconds into mission STS-51-L, US policy was changed to only allow the Shuttle to launch scientific and military payloads that required human presence. This destroyed any economic rationale for making STS self supporting or a revenue generator. The first 4 missions were test flights, so omitting them, you can see that 11 of the 21 "operational" missions before the policy change carried commercial satellite payloads, often multiple, up to 3 comsats per mission. A total of 18 commercial satellites were deployed from the Shuttle. " https://space.stackexchange.com/a/10352 https://space.stackexchange.com/a/10352 The original purpose of the Space Shuttle was to be a highly reusable launch system to make frequent launches (including commercial and govt satellites and space probes) with minimal refurbishment time/cost. That sounds an awful lot like SpaceX's current goals, doesn't it? Yes it had some mission profiles that the current SpaceX fleet can't do (large extended-duration crew missions in LEO, orbiting laboratory, Hubble repair) but there are also profiles that SpaceX can do that Shuttle could not (anything that involves stage 2 going beyond LEO).
- SilasX 8y ago
  Means vs ends. When you talk about launch costs, you care about the cost to get “the stuff you really want in orbit”. The formal term for that stuff is “payload”. So cost per kg of payload is the relevant figure of merit. The mass of the space shuttle is not payload. It is a means of delivering payload. As such, you do not get credit or establish launch efficiency by launching it. It is not inefficiency to launch without carrying the space shuttle; just the opposite.
  - rplnt 8y ago
    So in this figure, do you exclude Dragon weight for resupply missions? And even then, it's apples to oranges, because Space Shuttle was a manned spacecraft which brings millions other requirements into place. So the only fair comparison in this case would be to compare manned Dragon cost per kg of cargo to Space Shuttle's cargo. There are much more efficient systems for only carrying stuff into space and dropping it there. The Space Shuttle example makes no sense if this is what you care about.
    - SilasX 8y ago
      >So in this figure, do you exclude Dragon weight for resupply missions? I don't know about the Dragon, but, like before, if the Dragon's weight is the thing you really want out of the atmosphere, then yes, but if you only care about the supplies inside, then no. >And even then, it's apples to oranges, because Space Shuttle was a manned spacecraft which brings millions other requirements into place. What requirements? But yes, it's fair to break out "human" vs "inanimate" kg of payload. Do SpaceX products for carrying humans perform poorly when comparing to alternate ways of launching human payloads? Do SpaceX products for carrying inanimate matter perform poorly when compared to the same?
      - rplnt 8y ago
        > Do SpaceX products for carrying inanimate matter perform poorly when compared to the same? Absolutely not. Which makes it ever weirder to bring up Space Shuttle.
- codeulike 8y ago
  hmm, you might be right. Over lifetime of the Space Shuttle program, money spent equates to $1.7 billion (2017 dollars) per Shuttle launch. https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-cost-industry-pricing-vs-ula-2018-2?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-c... Incremental cost of each Shuttle flight was $18,000 per kg to LEO (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle...). Price per KG of a FH launch is about $1411 to LEO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy. So on incremental costs its about 12 times cheaper per kg to LEO Or if you think thats still not fair, and want to treat the shuttle orbiter itself as payload - a bit abstract, but lets go with it - the shuttle launch comes out as about $4400 per kg of orbiter-and-payload, so Falcon Heavy is still 3 times cheaper than that. edit: And its still not really a fair comparison because Shuttle could do more and carried people etc. But there it is.
  - astrodust 8y ago
    It's not fair because a lot of the Space Shuttle missions included a lot more than just simple payload delivery.
    - codeulike 8y ago
      Fair point.
walkingolof 8y ago
Here is a good overview of the state of the launch costs: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-rocket-cost/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-rocket-cost/
sonnyblarney 8y ago
The shuttle isn't really designed to put basic stuff in space so it's not quite a fair comparison. Better comparison would be other, similar rockets.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > it's not quite a fair comparison Mass is mass. It’s a perfectly fair comparison. If we were talking about people, sure, that would be unfair.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    The whole purpose of the Space Shuttle was to put people into space (and bring them back). The only payloads it carried were those requiring human intervention to deploy. The Falcon 9 can only lift payloads that do not require human intervention.
    - moftz 8y ago
      We can pretty much launch anything now without physical human interaction in space. The ISS needs help guiding things into place but tech is getting better so it will not be long until the resupply ships and modules can be automatically guided into place.
      - codeulike 8y ago
        You could argue that the humans were on there to make it re-useable. No way to land without humans in the 80s.
        azov 8y ago
        Buran (the Soviet version of Shuttle) did land without humans in 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)
        moftz 8y ago
aphextron 8y ago
The Shuttle was expensive, but its abilities are still unmatched. No other spacecraft has ever been able to launch a half dozen people into orbit, capture a satellite, and return it to earth for repairs. That kind of world leading, "best at any cost" mentality is what made the US so technologically dominant globally from the 1950s until recently. Falcon Heavy is definitely more efficient for getting things into orbit, but it still feels frustrating knowing that regardless of cost, we can't actually do the things we used to be able to.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- orbital-decay 8y ago
  > No other spacecraft has ever been able to launch a half dozen people into orbit, capture a satellite, and return it to earth for repairs. The problem is that almost everything Space Shuttle could do, could have been done more effectively by a classic modular spacecraft and a large rocket. Even more, Space Shuttle was fairly limited and inflexible in its capabilities due to its complex in-orbit thermodynamics, monolithic design and available delta-v. Jack of all trades, master of none. Don't get me wrong, the Shuttle was a great engineering achievement and a great pride point for any American. But it's also a huge waste of resources, which resulted from enormously inflated requirements, particularly military ones. Buran was the same. It's better not to repeat such mistakes. > That kind of world leading, "best at any cost" mentality is what made the US so technologically dominant globally from the 1950s until recently. And left it without modular space stations, in this particular case. (and many more)
- Areading314 8y ago
  It's abilities at killing astronauts are unmatched too... I don't see why people still think positively of the shuttle program after all the lives that were lost. It's like people fawning over how great the Titanic was.
  - gpm 8y ago
    The shuttle failed at a number of rather important things, that one, price, refurbishment time, etc. It still managed to do some pretty spectacular things no one else had ever done. I think that's worth something. I think the people who gave their lives thought that was worth something. I think they would rather the program be remembered for its triumphs than its failures.
slantaclaus 8y ago
So basically the business model is sound so long as the BFR doesn’t blow up

rplnt 8y ago

Are you including the Space Shuttle itself in the payload? Not trying to say Space Shuttle wasn't extremely expensive, but comparing two different things isn't exactly fair.

ashtonbaker 8y ago
Does it matter if it's fair? The shuttle was used for ferrying things to space for decades, so it is kind of a relevant comparison.
- sonofaplum 8y ago
  Not the same type of things. Space X doesn't dock with space stations or repair telescopes, space shuttle doesn't launch commercial sattelites.
  - Pfhreak 8y ago
    SpaceX docks at the ISS... (technically berths at the ISS).
  - stetrain 8y ago
    Space Shuttle did launch satellites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions#Launches_and_orbital_flights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions... Edit: "The original plan, ridiculous as it was in hindsight, was for STS to be the sole US launcher of all payloads. However, after the loss of the Orbiter Challenger only seconds into mission STS-51-L, US policy was changed to only allow the Shuttle to launch scientific and military payloads that required human presence. This destroyed any economic rationale for making STS self supporting or a revenue generator. The first 4 missions were test flights, so omitting them, you can see that 11 of the 21 "operational" missions before the policy change carried commercial satellite payloads, often multiple, up to 3 comsats per mission. A total of 18 commercial satellites were deployed from the Shuttle. " https://space.stackexchange.com/a/10352 https://space.stackexchange.com/a/10352 SpaceX also does cargo missions to the space station (crew happening next year) which is probably a better $/kg comparison to the space shuttle for some missions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services#SpaceX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services#S... Sure the Shuttle had unique capabilities and the Falcon rockets aren't better in all ways, but the Shuttle was originally supposed to be a cheap and reusable way for the US to do the majority of its space launches and that turned out to not be its strong suit.
b_tterc_p 8y ago
Isn’t it? Commercially price per kg of cargo seems like the most relevant metric.
- rplnt 8y ago
  But that figure differs, even for SpaceX, if you are carrying a spacecraft or cargo in a capsule. Or humans. Space Shuttle was a spacecraft that was much more capable than coupling on 2nd stage. So of course the price point per cargo carried is completely different. It doesn't make any sense to compare it that way. What you can compare is the price of the rocket launch and complete payload delivered to orbit, and that includes the vehicle. If you only care about economics for satellite launches for example, then yeah, it is much cheaper. But so are many other systems, so why pick Space Shuttle for comparison?
  - stetrain 8y ago
    Because that was part of the Space Shuttle's original purpose, but the reusability and cost didn't work out that way: "The original plan, ridiculous as it was in hindsight, was for STS to be the sole US launcher of all payloads. However, after the loss of the Orbiter Challenger only seconds into mission STS-51-L, US policy was changed to only allow the Shuttle to launch scientific and military payloads that required human presence. This destroyed any economic rationale for making STS self supporting or a revenue generator. The first 4 missions were test flights, so omitting them, you can see that 11 of the 21 "operational" missions before the policy change carried commercial satellite payloads, often multiple, up to 3 comsats per mission. A total of 18 commercial satellites were deployed from the Shuttle. " https://space.stackexchange.com/a/10352 https://space.stackexchange.com/a/10352 The original purpose of the Space Shuttle was to be a highly reusable launch system to make frequent launches (including commercial and govt satellites and space probes) with minimal refurbishment time/cost. That sounds an awful lot like SpaceX's current goals, doesn't it? Yes it had some mission profiles that the current SpaceX fleet can't do (large extended-duration crew missions in LEO, orbiting laboratory, Hubble repair) but there are also profiles that SpaceX can do that Shuttle could not (anything that involves stage 2 going beyond LEO).
SilasX 8y ago
Means vs ends. When you talk about launch costs, you care about the cost to get “the stuff you really want in orbit”. The formal term for that stuff is “payload”. So cost per kg of payload is the relevant figure of merit. The mass of the space shuttle is not payload. It is a means of delivering payload. As such, you do not get credit or establish launch efficiency by launching it. It is not inefficiency to launch without carrying the space shuttle; just the opposite.
- rplnt 8y ago
  So in this figure, do you exclude Dragon weight for resupply missions? And even then, it's apples to oranges, because Space Shuttle was a manned spacecraft which brings millions other requirements into place. So the only fair comparison in this case would be to compare manned Dragon cost per kg of cargo to Space Shuttle's cargo. There are much more efficient systems for only carrying stuff into space and dropping it there. The Space Shuttle example makes no sense if this is what you care about.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    >So in this figure, do you exclude Dragon weight for resupply missions? I don't know about the Dragon, but, like before, if the Dragon's weight is the thing you really want out of the atmosphere, then yes, but if you only care about the supplies inside, then no. >And even then, it's apples to oranges, because Space Shuttle was a manned spacecraft which brings millions other requirements into place. What requirements? But yes, it's fair to break out "human" vs "inanimate" kg of payload. Do SpaceX products for carrying humans perform poorly when comparing to alternate ways of launching human payloads? Do SpaceX products for carrying inanimate matter perform poorly when compared to the same?
    - rplnt 8y ago
      > Do SpaceX products for carrying inanimate matter perform poorly when compared to the same? Absolutely not. Which makes it ever weirder to bring up Space Shuttle.
codeulike 8y ago
hmm, you might be right. Over lifetime of the Space Shuttle program, money spent equates to $1.7 billion (2017 dollars) per Shuttle launch. https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-cost-industry-pricing-vs-ula-2018-2?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-c... Incremental cost of each Shuttle flight was $18,000 per kg to LEO (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle...). Price per KG of a FH launch is about $1411 to LEO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy. So on incremental costs its about 12 times cheaper per kg to LEO Or if you think thats still not fair, and want to treat the shuttle orbiter itself as payload - a bit abstract, but lets go with it - the shuttle launch comes out as about $4400 per kg of orbiter-and-payload, so Falcon Heavy is still 3 times cheaper than that. edit: And its still not really a fair comparison because Shuttle could do more and carried people etc. But there it is.
- astrodust 8y ago
  It's not fair because a lot of the Space Shuttle missions included a lot more than just simple payload delivery.
  - codeulike 8y ago
    Fair point.

walkingolof 8y ago

Here is a good overview of the state of the launch costs: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-rocket-cost/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-rocket-cost/

sonnyblarney 8y ago

The shuttle isn't really designed to put basic stuff in space so it's not quite a fair comparison. Better comparison would be other, similar rockets.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> it's not quite a fair comparison Mass is mass. It’s a perfectly fair comparison. If we were talking about people, sure, that would be unfair.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  The whole purpose of the Space Shuttle was to put people into space (and bring them back). The only payloads it carried were those requiring human intervention to deploy. The Falcon 9 can only lift payloads that do not require human intervention.
  - moftz 8y ago
    We can pretty much launch anything now without physical human interaction in space. The ISS needs help guiding things into place but tech is getting better so it will not be long until the resupply ships and modules can be automatically guided into place.
    - codeulike 8y ago
      You could argue that the humans were on there to make it re-useable. No way to land without humans in the 80s.
      - azov 8y ago
        Buran (the Soviet version of Shuttle) did land without humans in 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)
      - moftz 8y ago

aphextron 8y ago

The Shuttle was expensive, but its abilities are still unmatched. No other spacecraft has ever been able to launch a half dozen people into orbit, capture a satellite, and return it to earth for repairs. That kind of world leading, "best at any cost" mentality is what made the US so technologically dominant globally from the 1950s until recently. Falcon Heavy is definitely more efficient for getting things into orbit, but it still feels frustrating knowing that regardless of cost, we can't actually do the things we used to be able to.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
orbital-decay 8y ago
> No other spacecraft has ever been able to launch a half dozen people into orbit, capture a satellite, and return it to earth for repairs. The problem is that almost everything Space Shuttle could do, could have been done more effectively by a classic modular spacecraft and a large rocket. Even more, Space Shuttle was fairly limited and inflexible in its capabilities due to its complex in-orbit thermodynamics, monolithic design and available delta-v. Jack of all trades, master of none. Don't get me wrong, the Shuttle was a great engineering achievement and a great pride point for any American. But it's also a huge waste of resources, which resulted from enormously inflated requirements, particularly military ones. Buran was the same. It's better not to repeat such mistakes. > That kind of world leading, "best at any cost" mentality is what made the US so technologically dominant globally from the 1950s until recently. And left it without modular space stations, in this particular case. (and many more)
Areading314 8y ago
It's abilities at killing astronauts are unmatched too... I don't see why people still think positively of the shuttle program after all the lives that were lost. It's like people fawning over how great the Titanic was.
- gpm 8y ago
  The shuttle failed at a number of rather important things, that one, price, refurbishment time, etc. It still managed to do some pretty spectacular things no one else had ever done. I think that's worth something. I think the people who gave their lives thought that was worth something. I think they would rather the program be remembered for its triumphs than its failures.

slantaclaus 8y ago

So basically the business model is sound so long as the BFR doesn’t blow up