Comments on: Post-launch shuttle commentary

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 06:40:54 +0000

What’s absurd is that the marginal cost of the shuttle mission is now sitting at over a billion dollars.

This is a new meaning of the phrase “marginal cost” with which I was previously unfamiliar.

As far as I know, the marginal cost remains what it’s been for years, something between one and two hundred million dollars.

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:50:25 +0000

“billion dollars”

Which is why we have expendable rockets and the Soyuz. Nobody is stopping you from using them. No, wait, it appears the US government is trying to stop you from using them. Strange.

“still not built”

For something that is not built, well, I wonder where those astronauts sleep at night.

“bolting on a new set”

Yes, engines are so damn inconvenient. One wonders how you get from LA to NY anymore.

You appear to be sinking deeper into irrationality. One would think you don’t want to go into space at all.

By: Chris Mann

Chris Mann — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:49:42 +0000

First of all, that’s absurd.

What’s absurd is that the marginal cost of the shuttle mission is now sitting at over a billion dollars.

The space station I might add is still not built despite hundreds of billions of dollars invested, massive reductions in scale, and almost a decade of delays.

reusable high performance cryogenic engines

Rebuildable cryogenic engines. It costs almost as much to service them as bolting on a new set.

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:08:46 +0000

“We’re justifiably unimpressed with a vehicle which makes it vastly more costly to go into space now than in the 1960’s.”

First of all, that’s absurd. But I feel your pain, 113 heavy lift launches, reusable high performance cryogenic engines, winged reentry, a space station, it’s just pathetic. I would think we could do better than that.

Hey, I know, let’s return to the moon!

By: Chris Mann

Chris Mann — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 00:42:40 +0000

“The point is that the public only ever hears or cares about the launches that go wrong or are delayed because too many birds were on the tarmac or because the weather forecast called for slight rain.” This is a familiar rant for space activists, who want more attention for NASA’s routine successes.

The reason why the public doesn’t care is because the Shuttle has been a routine failure. It failed before its first launch. It’s a jobs program servicing the worlds most complicated Rube Goldberg machine.

It was never designed to lower the cost of access to space, and cheaper access to space is how it was sold to the public. We’re justifiably unimpressed with a vehicle which makes it vastly more costly to go into space now than in the 1960’s.