It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MrSpad
The shuttles were far to expensive to maintain and complex to operate for such tasks.
originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Xeven
NASA should have developed a cheap Soyuz like capsule craft in conjunction with the shuttle.
Shuttle was overkill for most missions.
Yes this smaller shuttle seems much more suited to a repair task than the larger ones which took too much fuel to move around in comparison. Getting fuel into orbit is very expensive.
originally posted by: Maxatoria
plus don't the us military have that new drone shuttle (forgotten its designation) that can do a lot of what you are after aka pick up and drop off stuff
originally posted by: TheGreazel
SpaceX is building a reusable rocket , but with fossile fuel engine type systems i dont see anyone get far in actual manned flights to other planets or objects besides the moon. i like the idea however but very fuel consuming
www.youtube.com... ( cant seem to insert it , it wont play it then )
Because we use these resources to power our rockets we have no choice other then building these stage ejection rockets because once the fuel tanks have been depleted you want to ditch them for weight reduction and to lower atmospheric drag.
But on the other hand this is an expensive business , with almost no "profit" to be made so removing money from your expenses bill by re designing and building your space vehicles so that they are highly reusable even in orbit for me does make some sense.