Was the Shuttle really worth it?

The aims of the shuttle for NASA was to bring cheap affordable reliable space travel.

But with 2 fatal accidents, a 1kg to LEO that was $10,000 (compared to protons $4000kg to LEO or Soyuz $5000) and a program cost of $209 Billion could the money have been better spent? Would carrying on the Gemini or Apollo craft have been cheaper?
Could we have been on mars by now? Did the 2 catastrophic faluires result in public opinion souring and budgets being cut?


I would say yes to the above and that the shuttle set NASA back 3 decades.


sources on figures:
source
source

reply to post by crazyewok


anything to get us off this rock sooner rather than later is worth it

or we wait for this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

funny now

not so funny if it happens

Another_Nut
reply to post by crazyewok

 

anything to get us off this rock sooner rather than later is worth it

or we wait for this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

funny now

not so funny if it happens

But did the shuttle tie up so much resources for such little gain it put us back a number of years getting of the rock?

It was only able to reach LEO and was not meant to reach the moon or mars. Yes it helped build the ISS but seeing as russia built MIR without a shuttle could we have built the ISS for better value without the shuttle extremly high cost?

I think the Gemini and Apollo both could have been expanded greatly expecialy Gemini, like soyuz NASA could be still useing varients of it today.

reply to post by Another_Nut


Your thread has literally nothing to do with this one. Nice derail.

It was worth it,

They beat the commies thanks to it, or you think those capsules looks cooler than the mean space plane.

You may think i'm fooling around but you look at the era when it was made, all was a competition against USSR, it may be a drag but it looks superior to communist tech and that was a point for America

Indigent
It was worth it,

They beat the commies thanks to it, or you think those capsules looks cooler than the mean space plane.

Beat them to what? Apollo beat them to the moon.


And no a spaceplane looks cooler but cool does not equal= practcal, safe or cost effective. I argue a dedicated crew capsule could have reduced the NASA manned space flight bill at least by half along side a dedicated heavy payload lifter rather than combining the two in a mish mash, over complicated, expensive, maintenance heavy, unsafe single vessel.

crazyewok
The aims of the shuttle for NASA was to bring cheap affordable reliable space travel.

But with 2 fatal accidents, a 1kg to LEO that was $10,000 (compared to protons $4000kg to LEO or Soyuz $5000) and a program cost of $209 Billion could the money have been better spent? Would carrying on the Gemini or Apollo craft have been cheaper?
Could we have been on mars by now? Did the 2 catastrophic faluires result in public opinion souring and budgets being cut?


I would say yes to the above and that the shuttle set NASA back 3 decades.


sources on figures:
source
source

As in many things the promise does not resemble the actual outcome. Hind sight/history seems to repeat time after time, No? I agree that the shuttle was a huge waste of money that at the time seemed like a good idea; or so the sales pitch went.

I have never understood why a large transport aircraft is not used to take a space vehicle to 40 or 50 thousand feet where it is released and powered to space by rockets. We were doing that with B-52s and the X-15 back in the early 60s..

Burt Rutan seems to be using that method for his launches and certainly makes sense to me because of the astronomical fuel used just to get a payload to those low altitudes.

reply to post by crazyewok


No, it wasn't worth it. There was a series of lectures given at MIT that really explains just about everything one could ask about the shuttle and explain a whole list of flaws. They are available for download as podcasts.

reply to post by crazyewok


New inventions that were going to make every thing better …


Bronze sword, the arrow, gun powder, TNT, the machine gun, Nuclear weapons, Nuclear Power, and yes "space travel".

What have we learned? Space is coooold, desolate, lifeless, and very, very expensive.

Hasn't been "worth it" to you and me, just the corporations that profited.

Flame on.

reply to post by crazyewok


Stagnation in the form a stunted progress to give the perception to the public into believing we are technologically advancing...interesting concept other than black projects or filtering money I wonder what purpose it would serve ?

Perhaps humans are not yet ready to colonize another planet until they figure out how to live sustainably on the one they currently inhabit? Or perhaps they are not ready until they learn to live less under the guise of nationalism, territorial, war like selfish and immature and more as entire species of humanity finding significance in our differences?

Just a thought...

reply to post by 727Sky


I agree it did look good on paper and if it had deliverd on its promises it would have been worth it.

I think that may have been its issue. It tried to deliver two much. It tried to be reusable, a crew transport and a heavy cargo transport all in one. If maybe it had focused on say only transporting crew and being resuable maybe it would have worked out better?

anton74
reply to post by crazyewok

 

No, it wasn't worth it. There was a series of lectures given at MIT that really explains just about everything one could ask about the shuttle and explain a whole list of flaws. They are available for download as podcasts.

OOO linky? sounds intresting.

reply to post by crazyewok


It was worth it considering the repair crews sent up to fix the Hubble Telescope (which was placed in orbit in 1990 by the shuttle). That alone was worth the price of entry.

It also placed many satellites in orbit.

I don't think the ISS was worth the detour, but the Space Shuttle, for my reasons above, puts me in the yes column.

It was a great cover for the military's own space program(s).

The military launches more of its own rockets from places like Vandenberg AFB than NASA ever did/does.

crazyewok
It was only able to reach LEO and was not meant to reach the moon or mars. Yes it helped build the ISS but seeing as russia built MIR without a shuttle could we have built the ISS for better value without the shuttle extremly high cost?

That's something I always wondered myself. It was capable of reaching higher orbit with a bit more fuel. The payload bay could probably have held a lander or an extended life support module. Why didn't they do that from time to time?

And it seems like just when they get all the bugs fixed and have spent all that money...they scrap the program. WTH!?

I think the Shuttle program was overall more expensive and was not as reliable as the previous system. There may have been some good reasons for the shuttle but in the long run we would have been better off with the rockets.

Aleister

It was worth it considering the repair crews sent up to fix the Hubble Telescope. That alone was worth the price of entry.

Price of the shuttle program $209 Billion

cost of the hubble $2.5 billion

hmmm sums dont match up there. With the money saved from the shuttle you could sent up nearly 200 hubbles. Bigger better ones too. Certanily not worth the $209 Billion developmnet cost of the shuttle.

Aleister

It has also placed many satellites in orbit.

Which could have been sent up on a cheaper launch vessel at half the price? Yes the shuttle did them but maybe not in the most efficiant way.

reply to post by crazyewok


I downloaded them from Itunes, they are long and really explain alot of stuff that went into the decision to scrap it.

It wasexpected that it would cost alot less to operate and be faster to turn for another flight. Also, the expected to lose more than we did.

TDawgRex


And it seems like just when they get all the bugs fixed and have spent all that money...they scrap the program. WTH!?

Dont get me started on NASA spending waste.

There should be a cancellation Window. Once the project hits $200 million congress is locked out so they cant get there grubbu mits on it.

reply to post by crazyewok


i believe so

the science we got from it was needed