5 ms·

Calling the Space Shuttle "mostly reusable" is laughable. It cost 1.5 billion dollars per launch[1] whereas a reused Falcon 9 costs 50 million to launch. [1] h

Calling the Space Shuttle "mostly reusable" is laughable. It cost 1.5 billion dollars per launch[1] whereas a reused Falcon 9 costs 50 million to launch. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

Steltek 5y ago
I don't get the need to bag on the Shuttle program here. The Shuttle was designed nearly 50 years ago with drastically different requirements and stakeholders.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  It's because people still defend it, or imply it was more worthy than it actually was. And because the same mistake is being repeated right now (SLS).
  - mulmen 5y ago
    SLS isn’t the currently-in-development spacecraft that utilizes hundreds of ceramic tiles to aerobrake through the atmosphere. SLS is basically a modern Saturn V. A complete departure from the Shuttle, with the exception of-re-using the SRB design. On paper a very conservative choice. Starship looks a lot like Shuttle 2.0 to me. Except the landing is somehow even more terrifying. As far as I can tell the idea with Starship is to design a vehicle that can survive losing a few tiles because that’s inevitable.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      The point of SLS is that it's a politically motivated boondoggle. This is also what the shuttle was. Nixon ok-ed it not because it was a good idea, but because of aerospace votes in California.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        What is that based on?
        pfdietz 5y ago
        Which part? The bit with Nixon is well known (see, for example, John Logsdon's book "After Apollo?"). As for SLS, it's called the "Senate Launch System" for a reason. Shelby in particular has saved it, to the extent that work on propellant depots was targeted for extermination (no one in NASA is to utter the "D" word.) Depots and propellant transfer render irrelevant the SLS's supposed advantage of large payload mass.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        The Nixon bit isn't well known, but thanks for the reference. I've never heard the rest. Is there a source? It's easy to attribute political reasons to whatever Congress does, because Congress is filled with politicians. But members have other motives too, and private businesses, despite the hype, have plenty of corrupt and political motives - throwing contracts to allies and friends, undermining enemies, etc. - though they are far less transparent and are unchecked by the public or other institutions.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/rocket-scientist-says-that-boeing-squelched-work-on-propellant-depots/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/rocket-scientist-say... which references https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1156294287245660160 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1156294287245660160 Quote: > Digging through some old notes. Found this quote from a few years ago from a senior academic engineering source at the time. > "Senator Shelby called NASA and said if he hears one more word about propellant depots he’s going to cancel the space technology program."
        wolverine876 5y ago
- nexuist 5y ago
  It's not that the Shuttle wasn't an absolutely astonishing display of engineering proficiency - it was - it's that if that money had gone into a Falcon-9 style rocket instead, we would all be much better off now in 2022.
jedberg 5y ago
The shuttle could cary 29,000kg to orbit, the Falcon 9 can only carry 22,000kg (30% more capacity) plus 8 astronauts (Falcon can only carry 3), and was designed and built in the 70s. So yeah the Falcon is an improvement and I'm sure will be better one day, but the Space Shuttle was a huge achievement for its time, and as of today there is no lift system that can match it for both capacity and reusability.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  At no point in the history of the Shuttle program would it have been a mistake to shut it down. By any metric, I'd call it a failure.
- cecilpl2 5y ago
  Slight nitpick - Crew Dragon currently carries 4 crew members and there's no particular reason it couldn't carry more (ie the rocket could handle it).
- avmich 5y ago
  > The shuttle could cary 29,000kg to orbit Sigh. Where did you get that number? Wikipedia lists 27,500 kg to LEO, but according to Guinness "With a mass of 22,753 kg (50,161 lb), Chandra X-ray Observatory telescope launched on 23 July 1999 is the heaviest satellite the shuttle has ever launched." And I suspect that if the flight required abort and won't reach orbit, the shuttle would have out-of-specification loads at landing, as the payload mass which is safe for landing is less than that.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    > Sigh. Where did you get that number? From NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/584722main_Wings-ch3a-pgs53-73.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/584722main_Wings-ch...
    - avmich 5y ago
      Wonder if it was planned payload for some of Orbiters (they had different masses).
manquer 5y ago
Reusable does not mean cheap . Usually you want reusable to make it cheaper but not always. For example your standard AA/AAA batteries are much cheaper if they are one time use than reusable [1] Reuse may be desirable in a product for environmental impact, turn around time, security or many other concerns. Shuttle was mostly reusable even the booster components , not cheaply but reusable nonetheless. [1] it is a crude example, overall cost being more expensive, TCO per cycle will be cheaper for rechargable batteries

Steltek 5y ago

I don't get the need to bag on the Shuttle program here. The Shuttle was designed nearly 50 years ago with drastically different requirements and stakeholders.

pfdietz 5y ago
It's because people still defend it, or imply it was more worthy than it actually was. And because the same mistake is being repeated right now (SLS).
- mulmen 5y ago
  SLS isn’t the currently-in-development spacecraft that utilizes hundreds of ceramic tiles to aerobrake through the atmosphere. SLS is basically a modern Saturn V. A complete departure from the Shuttle, with the exception of-re-using the SRB design. On paper a very conservative choice. Starship looks a lot like Shuttle 2.0 to me. Except the landing is somehow even more terrifying. As far as I can tell the idea with Starship is to design a vehicle that can survive losing a few tiles because that’s inevitable.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    The point of SLS is that it's a politically motivated boondoggle. This is also what the shuttle was. Nixon ok-ed it not because it was a good idea, but because of aerospace votes in California.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      What is that based on?
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        Which part? The bit with Nixon is well known (see, for example, John Logsdon's book "After Apollo?"). As for SLS, it's called the "Senate Launch System" for a reason. Shelby in particular has saved it, to the extent that work on propellant depots was targeted for extermination (no one in NASA is to utter the "D" word.) Depots and propellant transfer render irrelevant the SLS's supposed advantage of large payload mass.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        The Nixon bit isn't well known, but thanks for the reference. I've never heard the rest. Is there a source? It's easy to attribute political reasons to whatever Congress does, because Congress is filled with politicians. But members have other motives too, and private businesses, despite the hype, have plenty of corrupt and political motives - throwing contracts to allies and friends, undermining enemies, etc. - though they are far less transparent and are unchecked by the public or other institutions.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/rocket-scientist-says-that-boeing-squelched-work-on-propellant-depots/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/rocket-scientist-say... which references https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1156294287245660160 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1156294287245660160 Quote: > Digging through some old notes. Found this quote from a few years ago from a senior academic engineering source at the time. > "Senator Shelby called NASA and said if he hears one more word about propellant depots he’s going to cancel the space technology program."
        wolverine876 5y ago
nexuist 5y ago
It's not that the Shuttle wasn't an absolutely astonishing display of engineering proficiency - it was - it's that if that money had gone into a Falcon-9 style rocket instead, we would all be much better off now in 2022.

jedberg 5y ago

The shuttle could cary 29,000kg to orbit, the Falcon 9 can only carry 22,000kg (30% more capacity) plus 8 astronauts (Falcon can only carry 3), and was designed and built in the 70s. So yeah the Falcon is an improvement and I'm sure will be better one day, but the Space Shuttle was a huge achievement for its time, and as of today there is no lift system that can match it for both capacity and reusability.

pfdietz 5y ago
At no point in the history of the Shuttle program would it have been a mistake to shut it down. By any metric, I'd call it a failure.
cecilpl2 5y ago
Slight nitpick - Crew Dragon currently carries 4 crew members and there's no particular reason it couldn't carry more (ie the rocket could handle it).
avmich 5y ago
> The shuttle could cary 29,000kg to orbit Sigh. Where did you get that number? Wikipedia lists 27,500 kg to LEO, but according to Guinness "With a mass of 22,753 kg (50,161 lb), Chandra X-ray Observatory telescope launched on 23 July 1999 is the heaviest satellite the shuttle has ever launched." And I suspect that if the flight required abort and won't reach orbit, the shuttle would have out-of-specification loads at landing, as the payload mass which is safe for landing is less than that.
- jedberg 5y ago
  > Sigh. Where did you get that number? From NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/584722main_Wings-ch3a-pgs53-73.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/584722main_Wings-ch...
  - avmich 5y ago
    Wonder if it was planned payload for some of Orbiters (they had different masses).

manquer 5y ago

Reusable does not mean cheap . Usually you want reusable to make it cheaper but not always. For example your standard AA/AAA batteries are much cheaper if they are one time use than reusable [1] Reuse may be desirable in a product for environmental impact, turn around time, security or many other concerns. Shuttle was mostly reusable even the booster components , not cheaply but reusable nonetheless. [1] it is a crude example, overall cost being more expensive, TCO per cycle will be cheaper for rechargable batteries