3 ms·
If you add up all of the US launches then its numbers don't look so bad either. It's not quite apples-to-apples. The big problem with the shuttle was that it wa
by Tloewald 13y ago
If you add up all of the US launches then its numbers don't look so bad either. It's not quite apples-to-apples. The big problem with the shuttle was that it was a non-solution to arguably a non-problem, and having created this very expensive non-solution, a mission had to be found for it. And it also turned out to be horribly unsafe (aside from the people lost in the Apollo fire -- which was during a training exercise, all of the US casualties in space vehicles have been from the shuttle).
E.g. one of the highest profile achievements of the shuttle program was repairing Hubble. But without the shuttle program Hubble would simply have been replaced (more cheaply). IIRC it turns out that the US air force had (and presumably still has) several superior telescopes sitting in warehouses in case they need to replace a spy satellite in a hurry.
And of course the single biggest achievement of the shuttle program is the ISS which is an utter boondoggle.
- oofabz 13y agoThe ISS is definitely expensive and doesn't produce much tangible return. But they are up there doing research 24/7, and have been for more than ten years. I still like it a lot better than the alternative, which is to have nothing. Wikipedia says we have spent $150 billion on the ISS. That's very expensive but it's cheaper than a war and only slightly more expensive than the TSA. At least the ISS has a net positive impact.
- Tloewald 13y agoSlight correction: they are up there doing "research" 24/7. The alternative to the ISS is not nothing; and it's hard to demonstrate that it's a net positive. I'd happily agree that the TSA is a negative, but "better value for money than the TSA" is hardly an awesome rallying cry.