4 ms·

That was their original plans for the shuttle. Not saying they won't be able to save money this time, but it's never that simple.

by arikrak 12y ago

cryptoz 12y ago
Part of the Shuttle's reusability problems stemmed from Congress (and other decision-makers) forcing NASA to use facilities in ~40-50 different states and multiple subcontractors. And, full & rapid reusability was never in the Shuttle plans. They aimed for moderate reusability and then failed spectacularly at that. SpaceX is much more centralized and much more efficient. There are certainly comparisons to me made, and lessons to be learned, but I think that SpaceX has already met/surpassed all levels of success that NASA achieved in reusability, the only caveat being that they haven't technically done it in a production environment yet.
- nickff 12y ago
  We should put less focus on reusability, and pay more attention to labor (inspection and repair time) per launch. If you compare SpaceX and NASA under this paradigm, or by looking at launch cost per unit of mass, SpaceX has long since surpassed all other launch providers. The shuttle had a number of issues, including design issues due to DoD requirements, engine pressure issues due to internal NASA priorities, and budget trade-offs due to Congressional directives. The most important lesson to take away from the shuttle is that returning the most costly components to earth does not necessarily translate into cost savings.
  - nicholasdrake 12y ago
    'What percentage of a launch vehicle (rocket to space) do you think is the cost of labour? It's about 80-90%! It's labour!' Peter Diamandis, X-Prize
  - avmich 12y ago
    Here is an example of how inspection could be done by professionals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dWCI4S4fGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dWCI4S4fGg
marze 12y ago
Just because a problem has been solved poorly in the past doesn't mean it can't be solved correctly in the future.
BinaryIdiot 12y ago
> That was their original plans for the shuttle. While I agree with your point I don't think it's necessarily fair to compare a for-profit company to a government agency with no requirements to create a profit. A company should always be moving in the direction of the highest profits while a government agency seems to always head in the direction of higher bureaucracy.
- ufmace 12y ago
  I think it's more accurate to say that companies exist to make money, so that's what they optimize. Government agencies exist to provide political capital to their supporters, so they optimize both the political capital created and the number of supporters it's created for.
mikeash 12y ago
The Shuttle pushed the envelope in a dozen different ways and always operated right on the edge, which made it incredibly complicated and caused it to require extensive refurbishment after each flight. If you look at costs relative to constructing new launchers, reusing the Shuttle was quite cost effective. Cost per launch was in the neighborhood of $500 million, while the cost of building a new orbiter was in the neighborhood of $2 billion. The trouble was just that the system was so expensive that even the reused cost was really high compared to expendables. None of that applies to Falcon. It's a conservative system and it's already one of the cheapest out there without any reuse. If they match the Shuttle on cost reduction (launching a reused vehicle costs 25% of the original) then they'll have substantially dropped the cost of getting things into orbit, because they're starting at ~$60 million per vehicle, instead of billions.
- semi-extrinsic 12y ago
  The Shuttle's design was also complicated by the military who required it to have a huge 1000 nm cross range capability.

That was their original plans for the shuttle. Not saying they won't be able to save money this time, but it's never that simple.

by arikrak 12y ago

That was their original plans for the shuttle. Not saying they won't be able to save money this time, but it's never that simple.

cryptoz 12y ago

Part of the Shuttle's reusability problems stemmed from Congress (and other decision-makers) forcing NASA to use facilities in ~40-50 different states and multiple subcontractors. And, full & rapid reusability was never in the Shuttle plans. They aimed for moderate reusability and then failed spectacularly at that. SpaceX is much more centralized and much more efficient. There are certainly comparisons to me made, and lessons to be learned, but I think that SpaceX has already met/surpassed all levels of success that NASA achieved in reusability, the only caveat being that they haven't technically done it in a production environment yet.

nickff 12y ago
We should put less focus on reusability, and pay more attention to labor (inspection and repair time) per launch. If you compare SpaceX and NASA under this paradigm, or by looking at launch cost per unit of mass, SpaceX has long since surpassed all other launch providers. The shuttle had a number of issues, including design issues due to DoD requirements, engine pressure issues due to internal NASA priorities, and budget trade-offs due to Congressional directives. The most important lesson to take away from the shuttle is that returning the most costly components to earth does not necessarily translate into cost savings.
- nicholasdrake 12y ago
  'What percentage of a launch vehicle (rocket to space) do you think is the cost of labour? It's about 80-90%! It's labour!' Peter Diamandis, X-Prize
- avmich 12y ago
  Here is an example of how inspection could be done by professionals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dWCI4S4fGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dWCI4S4fGg

marze 12y ago

Just because a problem has been solved poorly in the past doesn't mean it can't be solved correctly in the future.

BinaryIdiot 12y ago

> That was their original plans for the shuttle. While I agree with your point I don't think it's necessarily fair to compare a for-profit company to a government agency with no requirements to create a profit. A company should always be moving in the direction of the highest profits while a government agency seems to always head in the direction of higher bureaucracy.

ufmace 12y ago
I think it's more accurate to say that companies exist to make money, so that's what they optimize. Government agencies exist to provide political capital to their supporters, so they optimize both the political capital created and the number of supporters it's created for.

mikeash 12y ago

The Shuttle pushed the envelope in a dozen different ways and always operated right on the edge, which made it incredibly complicated and caused it to require extensive refurbishment after each flight. If you look at costs relative to constructing new launchers, reusing the Shuttle was quite cost effective. Cost per launch was in the neighborhood of $500 million, while the cost of building a new orbiter was in the neighborhood of $2 billion. The trouble was just that the system was so expensive that even the reused cost was really high compared to expendables. None of that applies to Falcon. It's a conservative system and it's already one of the cheapest out there without any reuse. If they match the Shuttle on cost reduction (launching a reused vehicle costs 25% of the original) then they'll have substantially dropped the cost of getting things into orbit, because they're starting at ~$60 million per vehicle, instead of billions.

semi-extrinsic 12y ago
The Shuttle's design was also complicated by the military who required it to have a huge 1000 nm cross range capability.