5 ms·

"Not as successful as was originally hoped" is quite an understatement. The program missed all of its economical and operational targets (reliability, cost per

by mppm 2y ago

"Not as successful as was originally hoped" is quite an understatement. The program missed all of its economical and operational targets (reliability, cost per kg in orbit, launch frequency) by a factor of one hundred. It was supposed to usher in a new era of scientific, commercial and civilian spaceflight, and competing programs were cancelled and deprioritized because they were about to be obsoleted by this amazing new reusable space lauch system. What it ended up being, instead, was an epic exercise in space budget whoring, which continues to this day with the Artemis program that insists on "reusing" Space Shuttle derived hardware for that exact reason.

avar 2y ago
It spent way more money than initially planned, while doing so consistently over decades, and in all the right congressional districts. It was wildly successful. You're just under the mistaken impression that the goal was to go to space cheaply or whatever. But the success of the shuttle program pales in comparison to the SLS and Artemis. Now they're spending more money in all the right places, without that pesky distraction of launching the thing into space.
- avmich 2y ago
  > You're just under the mistaken impression that the goal was to go to space cheaply or whatever. You're way off in the wonderland considering the goals and achievements. Just remember who's the actual goal setter is. Don't fool yourself.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Sure, if you define "successful" in the most cynical way possible. I don't disagree with you at all that many projects (even many non-space-related) are just jobs programs masquerading as "progress" or "research" or whatever. But so what? I don't care about that measure of "success". I care about reliable, reusable, cost-efficient space launches, and all the technological and scientific advances that can bring. By those measures, the space shuttle was a disaster of a failure. That's what we care about.
golergka 2y ago
It explored an idea that ended up being a dead end. But we only know it in hindsight. Decisions need to be judged given the information available at the time. Was there a consensus that shuttle was a bad design at the time? Was it obvious that it will be the case?
- mppm 2y ago
  Obviously it was not known from the beginning that it would be a dead end. However, engineers have this blind spot for keeping track of bigger-picture objectives, as opposed to technical specifications. If you set out to build a lawn mower, and end up with a rubber duck, this will be deemed a failure. But if you do build the lawn mower, all is good. Even if it costs a million dollars, and all the lawns in the country remain unmowed (except for a handful of government properties). So long as someone is paying for continued development, where's the problem? In other words, a lot of such government-backed projects utterly fail in their objectives, not so much due to lack of prophetic foresight, but due to inability to re-evaluate when it becomes clear that the previously chosen approach can no longer lead to the envisioned outcome. ITER is another fine example of this.

by mppm 2y ago

avar 2y ago

It spent way more money than initially planned, while doing so consistently over decades, and in all the right congressional districts. It was wildly successful. You're just under the mistaken impression that the goal was to go to space cheaply or whatever. But the success of the shuttle program pales in comparison to the SLS and Artemis. Now they're spending more money in all the right places, without that pesky distraction of launching the thing into space.

avmich 2y ago
> You're just under the mistaken impression that the goal was to go to space cheaply or whatever. You're way off in the wonderland considering the goals and achievements. Just remember who's the actual goal setter is. Don't fool yourself.
kelnos 2y ago
Sure, if you define "successful" in the most cynical way possible. I don't disagree with you at all that many projects (even many non-space-related) are just jobs programs masquerading as "progress" or "research" or whatever. But so what? I don't care about that measure of "success". I care about reliable, reusable, cost-efficient space launches, and all the technological and scientific advances that can bring. By those measures, the space shuttle was a disaster of a failure. That's what we care about.

golergka 2y ago

It explored an idea that ended up being a dead end. But we only know it in hindsight. Decisions need to be judged given the information available at the time. Was there a consensus that shuttle was a bad design at the time? Was it obvious that it will be the case?

mppm 2y ago
Obviously it was not known from the beginning that it would be a dead end. However, engineers have this blind spot for keeping track of bigger-picture objectives, as opposed to technical specifications. If you set out to build a lawn mower, and end up with a rubber duck, this will be deemed a failure. But if you do build the lawn mower, all is good. Even if it costs a million dollars, and all the lawns in the country remain unmowed (except for a handful of government properties). So long as someone is paying for continued development, where's the problem? In other words, a lot of such government-backed projects utterly fail in their objectives, not so much due to lack of prophetic foresight, but due to inability to re-evaluate when it becomes clear that the previously chosen approach can no longer lead to the envisioned outcome. ITER is another fine example of this.