8 ms·

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
        Ballistic reentry doesn't really require any human intervention. The Russians have been doing it that way since Yuri. The craft wasn't reusable but it is so simple that you can build another for probably the same price of recertifying an old one. Making a manned, multi-purpose vehicle like the Shuttle really starts to get expensive when you just want to launch a big satellite. Sure, they perform a bunch of science up there but that's as secondary goal to getting the main payload into orbit. The Shuttle had good goals in mind but turns out its just cheaper in the long run to make something that won't last more than one launch. What sounds like a more attractive option, owning and operating a semi to make round-trip deliveries cross country where the driver goes sight-seeing along the way or to buy and ship a shipping container that makes a one-way trip?
  - ProAm 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 This is simply not a true statement.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  No, not at all. They are totally different configs, for totally different purposes. It's like comparing a drone to a jet or to a cargo plane.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > for totally different purposes For every “send things to the ISS” and “put thing in orbit” mission, the two are directly comparable. The Space Shuttle simply wasn’t using its maximum capacity that often for big packages. The Space Shuttle was a boondoggle. For crew launches, the per-person cost of the Shuttle still compares unfavourably to SpaceX’s projected crew launch costs. But projected isn’t actual, so we’ll let the Shuttle keep its spot for now. (Special repair projects and ISS boosting are two things the Shuttle can do that SpaceX currently cannot.)
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      The space shuttle carried up human beings, often to 'do stuff'. That alone puts it in a completely different category than Falcon. FYI many (most?) drone missions that the US does right now would not be carried out by manned aircraft for a whole host of reasons.
  - mikejb 8y ago
    I agree. One is used to bring supplies to the research station, the other was used to build the research station.
- mikejb 8y ago
  It's not a fair comparison: You're comparing how much it costs to move 1kg with a Mini Cooper vs moving 1kg with an 18 Wheeler. I'm not disagreeing with the Falcon 9 being incredibly cheap, and the SpaceShuttle being outrageously expensive - I agree with both statements. I just think the direct price comparison is bad.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > You're comparing how much it costs to move 1kg with a Mini Cooper vs moving 1kg with an 18 Wheeler Most of the Shuttle’s payloads were aggregates of smaller payloads. For big stuff, sure, the Shuttle retains its mantle. But it simply wasn’t launching that much big stuff.
    - mikejb 8y ago
      > But it simply wasn’t launching that much big stuff. Just most parts of the ISS
      - dogma1138 8y ago
        This is something people forget or ignore. Without the shuttle we couldn’t have the ISS, MIR wasn’t much larger than Skylab. https://i.stack.imgur.com/v13FW.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/v13FW.jpg The Shuttle is what allowed us to launch a station the size of the ISS and construct it in orbit.
        TomMarius 8y ago
        Is it impossible to have both projects? (sincerely asking, maybe it's economically not feasible)
        avar 8y ago
        Skylab was 77 tons and launched on a single Saturn V. The ISS is 420 tons and took, among other things, 27 space shuttle launches to put together[1]. So to a first approximation the ISS could have been over 2000 tons if NASA had just stuck with and scaled up the Saturn V architecture, which history has shown was both more capable and cheaper. So no, the Shuttle isn't what allowed us to construct the ISS. Except in the narrow sense that the better launch vehicle had been cancelled, so it was the only project left to do the job. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station#Assembly_sequence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_...
- nolok 8y ago
  Yes it's a fair comparison but it's also a terrible comparison, since the shuttle was crippled in that area due to other requirements tackled onto it. If you're talking about the one aiming to be best in the field to describe how good it is performing, you usually don't compare it to the broken clock of the group.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > Yes it's a fair comparison but it's also a terrible comparison, since the shuttle was crippled in that area due to other requirements tackled onto it. It's a fair comparison if the real product of the space shuttle program is compared with the real product of the Falcon Heavy program. Comparing what the space shuttle could hypothetically have been with what Falcon Heavy actually is would not be a fair comparison.
    - nolok 8y ago
      Again please read my message again, I didn't say the comparison was unfair, I said it was fair but terrible and not providing any value.
kanox 8y ago
> The shuttle isn't really designed to put basic stuff in space The shuttle was absolutely designed to "put basic stuff in space". By being partially reusable it was meant to be cheaper than all other "expendable" US rockets and replace them all even even for simple satellite launches. The fact that the original goals couldn't be met was only made clear after the Challenger disaster.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  For reference, I interned on the the space station. Also context, consider cost complexity: manned space flight >> space flight >> aerospace >> automotive. Each increase in risk implies considerably more expense, and the difference between space flight that includes humans, and flight that doesn't is quite massive. They are different programs entirely. So if you're putting something in space with 'humans going along' - it will always be way more expensive, no matter what. The shuttle was supposed to be cheaper than multiple manned rockets, but not cheaper than regular satellite launches. So for putting out complex things like Hubble, or 'fixing it' 'retrofitting' etc. - the Shuttle might make sense. But it was never going to be cheaper than regular rockets for putting relatively straightforward satellites in space.
  - codeulike 8y ago
    I interned on the the space station. Say what? I didn't know they had interns up there.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      Ha :) on the space station project :)
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > shuttle was supposed to be cheaper than multiple manned rockets, but not cheaper than regular satellite launches This isn’t how it was sold to the public. > I interned on the the space station Thank you. Without the ISS, we wouldn’t have SpaceX.
dotancohen 8y ago
The space shuttle was to be America's "pickup truck to space". It was designed to haul everything from polar-orbiting spy satellites to interplanetary scientific missions, as well as being an on-orbit research platform. In fact, naively for the first few years it even looked like it hit those goals. At first.
nabla9 8y ago
Shuttle was specially designed to put basic stuff in space. It was designed to be launched 50 times per year (once a week) as a space truck. Shuttle failed spectacularly from the engineering perspective and ate NASA's budget for decades. It was failure turned into success story with clever PR. * But they developed lots of cool tech is not a good defense. Failing to deliver did not bring the tech. It was inevitable. * But there were missions that only Shuttle could do is not right either when you think it over.
- philwelch 8y ago
  > * But there were missions that only Shuttle could do is not right either when you think it over. I can think of two admittedly unlikely mission profiles that only STS or Buran could have pulled off: * Recovering a satellite already in orbit safely back to Earth. * Orbital bombing. While you could launch an orbital missile platform, it would have a predictable enough orbit to be vulnerable to ASAT. You would have to execute multiple burns for evasive maneuvers and that’s easier with a manned spacecraft. This, specifically, was the capability the Soviets feared enough to design Buran. This is also a violation of international law, not that such things matter in a scenario where you are dropping hydrogen bombs from orbit.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    > Recovering a satellite already in orbit safely back to Earth. Shuttle was used for recovery only four times. It would have been cheaper to ditch all those satellites and build and send new ones compared to recovering them. > Orbital bombing ICBM's do it better.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      > Shuttle was used for recovery only four times. It would have been cheaper to ditch all those satellites and build and send new ones compared to recovering them. I didn't say it was a valuable use case, nor did I say you were recovering your own satellites. > ICBM's do it better. ICBM's follow a predictable ballistic trajectory and are more vulnerable to countermeasures. Again, this might not be a good use case, but it is one. In the words of cosmonaut Oleg Kotov: "We had no civilian tasks for Buran and the military ones were no longer needed. It was originally designed as a military system for weapon delivery, maybe even nuclear weapons. The American shuttle also has military uses....A shuttle is particularly useful for this because it can change its orbit and trajectory – so an attack from it is almost impossible to protect against." Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20664-cosmonaut-soviet-space-shuttle-was-safer-than-nasas/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20664-cosmonaut-sovie...

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
      Ballistic reentry doesn't really require any human intervention. The Russians have been doing it that way since Yuri. The craft wasn't reusable but it is so simple that you can build another for probably the same price of recertifying an old one. Making a manned, multi-purpose vehicle like the Shuttle really starts to get expensive when you just want to launch a big satellite. Sure, they perform a bunch of science up there but that's as secondary goal to getting the main payload into orbit. The Shuttle had good goals in mind but turns out its just cheaper in the long run to make something that won't last more than one launch. What sounds like a more attractive option, owning and operating a semi to make round-trip deliveries cross country where the driver goes sight-seeing along the way or to buy and ship a shipping container that makes a one-way trip?
- ProAm 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 This is simply not a true statement.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
No, not at all. They are totally different configs, for totally different purposes. It's like comparing a drone to a jet or to a cargo plane.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > for totally different purposes For every “send things to the ISS” and “put thing in orbit” mission, the two are directly comparable. The Space Shuttle simply wasn’t using its maximum capacity that often for big packages. The Space Shuttle was a boondoggle. For crew launches, the per-person cost of the Shuttle still compares unfavourably to SpaceX’s projected crew launch costs. But projected isn’t actual, so we’ll let the Shuttle keep its spot for now. (Special repair projects and ISS boosting are two things the Shuttle can do that SpaceX currently cannot.)
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    The space shuttle carried up human beings, often to 'do stuff'. That alone puts it in a completely different category than Falcon. FYI many (most?) drone missions that the US does right now would not be carried out by manned aircraft for a whole host of reasons.
- mikejb 8y ago
  I agree. One is used to bring supplies to the research station, the other was used to build the research station.
mikejb 8y ago
It's not a fair comparison: You're comparing how much it costs to move 1kg with a Mini Cooper vs moving 1kg with an 18 Wheeler. I'm not disagreeing with the Falcon 9 being incredibly cheap, and the SpaceShuttle being outrageously expensive - I agree with both statements. I just think the direct price comparison is bad.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > You're comparing how much it costs to move 1kg with a Mini Cooper vs moving 1kg with an 18 Wheeler Most of the Shuttle’s payloads were aggregates of smaller payloads. For big stuff, sure, the Shuttle retains its mantle. But it simply wasn’t launching that much big stuff.
  - mikejb 8y ago
    > But it simply wasn’t launching that much big stuff. Just most parts of the ISS
    - dogma1138 8y ago
      This is something people forget or ignore. Without the shuttle we couldn’t have the ISS, MIR wasn’t much larger than Skylab. https://i.stack.imgur.com/v13FW.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/v13FW.jpg The Shuttle is what allowed us to launch a station the size of the ISS and construct it in orbit.
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        Is it impossible to have both projects? (sincerely asking, maybe it's economically not feasible)
      - avar 8y ago
        Skylab was 77 tons and launched on a single Saturn V. The ISS is 420 tons and took, among other things, 27 space shuttle launches to put together[1]. So to a first approximation the ISS could have been over 2000 tons if NASA had just stuck with and scaled up the Saturn V architecture, which history has shown was both more capable and cheaper. So no, the Shuttle isn't what allowed us to construct the ISS. Except in the narrow sense that the better launch vehicle had been cancelled, so it was the only project left to do the job. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station#Assembly_sequence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_...
nolok 8y ago
Yes it's a fair comparison but it's also a terrible comparison, since the shuttle was crippled in that area due to other requirements tackled onto it. If you're talking about the one aiming to be best in the field to describe how good it is performing, you usually don't compare it to the broken clock of the group.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Yes it's a fair comparison but it's also a terrible comparison, since the shuttle was crippled in that area due to other requirements tackled onto it. It's a fair comparison if the real product of the space shuttle program is compared with the real product of the Falcon Heavy program. Comparing what the space shuttle could hypothetically have been with what Falcon Heavy actually is would not be a fair comparison.
  - nolok 8y ago
    Again please read my message again, I didn't say the comparison was unfair, I said it was fair but terrible and not providing any value.

kanox 8y ago

> The shuttle isn't really designed to put basic stuff in space The shuttle was absolutely designed to "put basic stuff in space". By being partially reusable it was meant to be cheaper than all other "expendable" US rockets and replace them all even even for simple satellite launches. The fact that the original goals couldn't be met was only made clear after the Challenger disaster.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
For reference, I interned on the the space station. Also context, consider cost complexity: manned space flight >> space flight >> aerospace >> automotive. Each increase in risk implies considerably more expense, and the difference between space flight that includes humans, and flight that doesn't is quite massive. They are different programs entirely. So if you're putting something in space with 'humans going along' - it will always be way more expensive, no matter what. The shuttle was supposed to be cheaper than multiple manned rockets, but not cheaper than regular satellite launches. So for putting out complex things like Hubble, or 'fixing it' 'retrofitting' etc. - the Shuttle might make sense. But it was never going to be cheaper than regular rockets for putting relatively straightforward satellites in space.
- codeulike 8y ago
  I interned on the the space station. Say what? I didn't know they had interns up there.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Ha :) on the space station project :)
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > shuttle was supposed to be cheaper than multiple manned rockets, but not cheaper than regular satellite launches This isn’t how it was sold to the public. > I interned on the the space station Thank you. Without the ISS, we wouldn’t have SpaceX.

dotancohen 8y ago

The space shuttle was to be America's "pickup truck to space". It was designed to haul everything from polar-orbiting spy satellites to interplanetary scientific missions, as well as being an on-orbit research platform. In fact, naively for the first few years it even looked like it hit those goals. At first.

nabla9 8y ago

Shuttle was specially designed to put basic stuff in space. It was designed to be launched 50 times per year (once a week) as a space truck. Shuttle failed spectacularly from the engineering perspective and ate NASA's budget for decades. It was failure turned into success story with clever PR. * But they developed lots of cool tech is not a good defense. Failing to deliver did not bring the tech. It was inevitable. * But there were missions that only Shuttle could do is not right either when you think it over.

philwelch 8y ago
> * But there were missions that only Shuttle could do is not right either when you think it over. I can think of two admittedly unlikely mission profiles that only STS or Buran could have pulled off: * Recovering a satellite already in orbit safely back to Earth. * Orbital bombing. While you could launch an orbital missile platform, it would have a predictable enough orbit to be vulnerable to ASAT. You would have to execute multiple burns for evasive maneuvers and that’s easier with a manned spacecraft. This, specifically, was the capability the Soviets feared enough to design Buran. This is also a violation of international law, not that such things matter in a scenario where you are dropping hydrogen bombs from orbit.
- nabla9 8y ago
  > Recovering a satellite already in orbit safely back to Earth. Shuttle was used for recovery only four times. It would have been cheaper to ditch all those satellites and build and send new ones compared to recovering them. > Orbital bombing ICBM's do it better.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > Shuttle was used for recovery only four times. It would have been cheaper to ditch all those satellites and build and send new ones compared to recovering them. I didn't say it was a valuable use case, nor did I say you were recovering your own satellites. > ICBM's do it better. ICBM's follow a predictable ballistic trajectory and are more vulnerable to countermeasures. Again, this might not be a good use case, but it is one. In the words of cosmonaut Oleg Kotov: "We had no civilian tasks for Buran and the military ones were no longer needed. It was originally designed as a military system for weapon delivery, maybe even nuclear weapons. The American shuttle also has military uses....A shuttle is particularly useful for this because it can change its orbit and trajectory – so an attack from it is almost impossible to protect against." Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20664-cosmonaut-soviet-space-shuttle-was-safer-than-nasas/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20664-cosmonaut-sovie...