So what DID turn out to be a good decision with regards to cost saving?
There are so many discussions regarding why STS was a failure, or why it was so expensive. So what DID turn out to be a good decision with regards to cost saving? The original ideal of STS was to reduce launch costs, so the engineers must've designed every piece with thoughts towards reducing costs in mind. Did it really cost more to replace every single component than it did to refurbish them over the life of the program?Just as a possible example, was it ultimately cheaper reusing the SSMEs, or would it have been cheaper to manufacture a new set for every flight?
I'm not sure the cost argument against STS holds up today - not with EELV program costs skyrocketing. It would take a billion dollar Delta 4 Heavy and a half-billion dollar EELV Medium-something, both topped by billion dollar throwaway spacecraft, to roughly equal the capability of one STS. That reality alone shows how STS actually did provide a relatively decent deal for the nation's money.
Quote from: Naito on 04/03/2014 12:59 amThere are so many discussions regarding why STS was a failure, or why it was so expensive. So what DID turn out to be a good decision with regards to cost saving? The original ideal of STS was to reduce launch costs, so the engineers must've designed every piece with thoughts towards reducing costs in mind. Did it really cost more to replace every single component than it did to refurbish them over the life of the program?Just as a possible example, was it ultimately cheaper reusing the SSMEs, or would it have been cheaper to manufacture a new set for every flight?STS was NASA's longest running manned space program. It provided capability and flexibility that no other system has provided before or since. Shuttle missions were reprogrammed, sometimes on short notice. Cargo was hauled up and down. Some of the down included complete satellites. I'm not sure the cost argument against STS holds up today - not with EELV program costs skyrocketing. It would take a billion dollar Delta 4 Heavy and a half-billion dollar EELV Medium-something, both topped by billion dollar throwaway spacecraft, to roughly equal the capability of one STS. That reality alone shows how STS actually did provide a relatively decent deal for the nation's money.In my opinion, Shuttle's flaws were mostly related to the eventually unacceptable risks it posed to crews, which is why it ended and why we're enduring the "gap" right now. - Ed Kyle
C'mon Jim, Shed some light on the subject at hand.Re: What aspect of STS was EFFECTIVE at reducing costs?It makes me wonder if "NASA Spinoffs" has an article or two on the subject?
There wasn't any aspect that was. It made any spacecraft on it, more expensive due to manrating requirements.STS was effective in servicing a space station and providing a platform for small experiments to get zero g time
Now that I've had time (and incentive ) to think about it more I'll probably post another alternate STS on the "What would a better STS have looked like thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28474.0;all
but wondered if there were ANY reusable bits that really did pay off as being built reusable rather than replaceable
Was there an alternative to STS that would have been cheaper? - if man rating raises the cost of a payload (which it does), what model would be cheaper?How would we build ISS with this "other" approach?
Quote from: BrightLight on 04/03/2014 03:16 pmWas there an alternative to STS that would have been cheaper? - if man rating raises the cost of a payload (which it does), what model would be cheaper?How would we build ISS with this "other" approach?See Mir. Or a large part of the Russian segment of ISS. The contrast is pretty huge.
There were many, many things done to bring down costs. Some big and some small. There were still many other things that could have been done. It's frustrating to see those who were not there, that have no knowledge of anything about it jump on here to make only snarky comments like "ending it" or calling it a failure. I would be willing to bet that those individuals will never be involved in something remotely as rewarding and something remotely as challenging as this program was. Something where lives were at stake on every flight (and sometimes on the ground), the nation watching, building a space station - the most complex assembly ever to name just a few. I would suggest to those who do just want to come in here and do that, there are plenty of SLS threads where your "informed" opinion can be shared. But leave history to those who lived it and wrote it.
That COULDN'T have been the only things, I hope!How about some other little things, like how most of the expensive valving was put on the orbiter side rather than the tank side so that it could be reused instead of discarded, did it really save money vs building new ones every time?That thread was kinda where I got this idea from I knew about how the SRBs ended up almost as expensive to build new as to refurbish every flight, but wondered if there were ANY reusable bits that really did pay off as being built reusable rather than replaceable, and if any of the features that were purposely built-in to make these bits reusable actually paid off (if only just barely), or did they all become just extra bit to maintain?
The "savings" were overshadowed by other costs and there are other methods (don't dispose of anything in the first place) that are better. Spending 10 million to save 1 million doesn't' make sense. The ET cost as much as some ELV's.