DocM Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Now we know the cost/flight of the shuttle program. Houston Chronicle.... Adding up the final tab for the space shuttle program: $1.5 billion per launchWith just two shuttle flights remaining before NASA retires the fleet we can now begin to close the books on the costs of the space shuttle program. And that's just what Roger Pielke Jr. and Ray Byerly have done in a letter Nature this week. Among their findings: ? The U.S. Congress and NASA spent more than US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars) on the shuttle from 1971 to 2010. ? The agency launched 131 flights. During the operational years from 1982 to 2010, the average cost per launch was about $1.2 billion. ? Including costs incurred over the life of the program (dating to 1969), this value increases to about $1.5 billion per launch. Next week the shuttle program will celebrate the 30th anniversary since the first launch, of STS-1. During that time the shuttle has provided innumerable benefits, from learning how to live and work in space to constructing the International Space Station. > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primexx Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 not bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted April 18, 2011 Author Share Posted April 18, 2011 Not bad? When commercial will be able to deliver 2x the payload and the same crew size fot ~$300M ($100M for a Falcon Heavy & very likely <$200M for a F9 + a Dragon or Dream Chaser)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lezard Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 And if religion did not slaughter the intelligent and burn our libraries during the early years post the death of the psychotic/dementia nut case called chesus, we we would had been able to lift 1x10^7 times more than anything today for pennies to a dollar. 1500 years lost to playing fantasy :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 And if religion did not slaughter the intelligent and burn our libraries during the early years post the death of the psychotic/dementia nut case called chesus, we we would had been able to lift 1x10^7 times more than anything today for pennies to a dollar. Not true. Overall, technology and knowledge advanced during those times. It's not like we suddenly forgot the Pythagorean theorem because some papers were burned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Not bad? When commercial will be able to deliver 2x the payload and the same crew size fot ~$300M ($100M for a Falcon Heavy & very likely <$200M for a F9 + a Dragon or Dream Chaser)? Standing on their shoulders though? It's just progress. It's a lot of money by anyone's standards, but if you think of all the benefits accrued through the shuttle program; knowledge, science, spin-off products and technology, I say it's money well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lezard Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Scientific advancement came to a screeching halt during the end of the Roman empire and Dark ages, it wasn't until recently that we started to advance scientifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Scientific advancement came to a screeching halt during the end of the Roman empire and Dark ages, it wasn't until recently that we started to advance scientifically. The open nature of philosophy came to a halt. Science didn't stop. Technology didn't stop. There were a few regressions in some areas but there were lots of advancements in other areas especially anything that was related to warfare and construction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zimm Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 192 billion in 40 years? That's peanuts compared to the total spending of the Irak/Afghanistan war in not even 20 years? Probably not so accurate but still http://costofwar.com/en/ I think it's money very very well spent .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 More could have been done if an overly expensive means of launching Hubble etc. had been used. Shuttle was extremely inefficient; launching 100+ mT spacecraft to deliver a 25mT payload? Please.... Cost of war tallies can be used to justify a lot of govt waste, but that doesn't convert the waste into golden apples :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottKin Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 And if religion did not slaughter the intelligent and burn our libraries during the early years post the death of the psychotic/dementia nut case called chesus, we we would had been able to lift 1x10^7 times more than anything today for pennies to a dollar. 1500 years lost to playing fantasy :no: Do you enjoy fishing in a boat on a lake wth a small motor on the boat that is run just fast enough to allow you to have your lure or bait appear to be alive? Or, are you one to hide under bridges and demand payment to cross said bridge in some arcane fashion, like receiving the correct reply to a riddle? --ScottKin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted April 20, 2011 Global Moderator Share Posted April 20, 2011 Considering the scientific advancements made possible with the shuttle program, I think it was money well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudtrooper Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Not true. Overall, technology and knowledge advanced during those times. It's not like we suddenly forgot the Pythagorean theorem because some papers were burned. Its actually very true.. If religions the world over didn't burn the great books and libraries the advancement would be much further along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudtrooper Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 More could have been done if an overly expensive means of launching Hubble etc. had been used. Shuttle was extremely inefficient; launching 100+ mT spacecraft to deliver a 25mT payload? Please.... Actually the shuttle being a replacement for the Saturn V was just as efficient mass to payload wise, and especially moreso being a completely new launch vehicle :) They were hoping the re-usable components would add price efficiencies but that never happened. Getting to space is expensive.. Most of your mass during launch is simply the fuel to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Its actually very true.. If religions the world over didn't burn the great books and libraries the advancement would be much further along. That's a different idea than saying science stopped which means there would be zero progression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Science advances, in keeping with a certain Spiritual development. If not, Humans would have self-destructed, centuries ago. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudtrooper Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 That's a different idea than saying science stopped which means there would be zero progression. For all intents and purposes it did stop. There were discoveries made but often times if they were not in line with the church and state those people were killed. Science was definitely on the back burner for 1500 years and our civilization would probably be much different if we didn't destroy all the knowledge that we had to re-learn once the dark ages were done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Not bad? When commercial will be able to deliver 2x the payload and the same crew size fot ~$300M ($100M for a Falcon Heavy & very likely <$200M for a F9 + a Dragon or Dream Chaser)? But you can't count like that, how much would those projects cost for each launch if they didn't stand on the Shuttle's shoulders ? without the government investments in the shuttle, those private companies would never be able to afford this. then there's a few other factors t calculate into this, for a fair comparison you would have to only compare the latest shuttle launches, and remove the cost from accidents and disasters. The moment one of those private shuttles has a disaster and a shuttle crash, their costs are gonna skyrocket. So you can't calculate the costs of a rocker/shuttle with old technology practically given by NASA to the cost of developing the Launch rocket, developing the Shuttle from NOTHING, practically without computers, the cost of paying S&R for the disasters, the cost of paying families and insurance companies, lost equipment (like a whole shuttle), to simply launching a "modern" shuttle, that technologically is no more advanced than the old shuttles. The development costs of the shuttle is what's making the Falcon,Dragon and Dream Chaser fly. without that cost they wouldn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 Fact is that Dragon is flying, Dream Chaser will be and the shuttle, for reasons both economic and safety related, won't be. As for dev. costs, most of that money was SpaceX's. Even if it weren't the total cost of their development is tiny fraction of what NASA would normally have spent, and they keep improving it - their latest brochure shows Falcon 9 going from 10.4 mT to 16 mT. No doubt due to Merlin 1D and the core stretch it needed for >fuel consumption. Same change as to Falcon Heavy's core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Fact is that Dragon is flying, Dream Chaser will be and the shuttle, for reasons both economic and safety related, won't be. As for dev. costs, most of that money was SpaceX's. Even if it weren't the total cost of their development is tiny fraction of what NASA would normally have spent, and they keep improving it - their latest brochure shows Falcon 9 going from 10.4 mT to 16 mT. No doubt due to Merlin 1D and the core stretch it needed for >fuel consumption. Same change as to Falcon Heavy's core. I think you missed the point. because it isn't. the shuttle and the shuttle launcher, IS part of their cost of development. without the billions NASA spent on the rockets and shuttles, and NASA selling the technology to them for what amounts to pocket change, they would be nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts