4 ms·

How does starlink compares to the space shuttle program regarding cost per launch? Regarding peak capacity the program was able to do a launch per month with on

How does starlink compares to the space shuttle program regarding cost per launch? Regarding peak capacity the program was able to do a launch per month with only a few navets. I'm kind of convinced that starlink is actually inferior on most metrics it's simply that space navets are banned because of irrational aversion despite their excellent track record (over 150 successful launch, among the two main accidents, one was ridiculous (inept management not listening to the unique conditions (launch colder than anyone before it)) so a cause that has no real reason to ever happen again in history. As for Columbia, i wonder if the insulating product they putted on the wing could have been made safer. There must be a reason why it only cause issues for a minority of flights. Moreover when it induce damage, they coulf always throw the navet and return manually or stay on the ISS.

ianai 5y ago
1.6 billion per shuttle flight, more like 60 million per falcon 9 flight per google. This isn't to say it's a sign that NASA was bloated. Often the first movers to fast moving tech experience the most costs. That was, in fact, part of the original mission of building a NASA - get the 80% of the original cost down for future development to improve upon.
- The_rationalist 5y ago
  Interesting but firstly the shuttle would be more comparable to the starship regarding payload size. Secondly the shuttle could have been unmanned hence massively reducing cost and security paranoid costs. Thirdly it's not just that the shuttle navets had higher capacity, in practice their payloads and missions were more complex than routine satellite launch AKA remote repairing hubble and building the ISS Finally had the shuttle been ran by a private company.. Economic efficiency would have been more aligned.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Keep in mind the space shuttle had other goals beyond acting as a delivery mechanism to space. Such as the ability to repair satellites (or sabotage/steal satellites).
  - wmf 5y ago
    Ten years after the shuttle was retired, do we miss those capabilities?
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      I assume the USAF either does or has replaced them. But without them, we would not have had the Hubble this whole time.
wmf 5y ago
Even after all the improvements the shuttle was less safe than Soyuz or Crew Dragon and it was ridiculously expensive.

ianai 5y ago

1.6 billion per shuttle flight, more like 60 million per falcon 9 flight per google. This isn't to say it's a sign that NASA was bloated. Often the first movers to fast moving tech experience the most costs. That was, in fact, part of the original mission of building a NASA - get the 80% of the original cost down for future development to improve upon.

The_rationalist 5y ago
Interesting but firstly the shuttle would be more comparable to the starship regarding payload size. Secondly the shuttle could have been unmanned hence massively reducing cost and security paranoid costs. Thirdly it's not just that the shuttle navets had higher capacity, in practice their payloads and missions were more complex than routine satellite launch AKA remote repairing hubble and building the ISS Finally had the shuttle been ran by a private company.. Economic efficiency would have been more aligned.
HWR_14 5y ago
Keep in mind the space shuttle had other goals beyond acting as a delivery mechanism to space. Such as the ability to repair satellites (or sabotage/steal satellites).
- wmf 5y ago
  Ten years after the shuttle was retired, do we miss those capabilities?
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I assume the USAF either does or has replaced them. But without them, we would not have had the Hubble this whole time.

wmf 5y ago

Even after all the improvements the shuttle was less safe than Soyuz or Crew Dragon and it was ridiculously expensive.