That’s why we built the Shuttle. Ideally a fully reusable RLV needs only fuel, and fuel costs are insignificant (LH2 is 98 cents a gallon at LC-39, LOX is only 60 cents!) Most of the cost of a mission is building the spacecraft and launch vehicle (or rebuilding in the case of the SRBs).

Shuttle operating costs are much higher than predicted, but not because it is reusable. The main reason was the lack of real engineering prototypes that could test the critical new technologies in repeated spaceflight. Consequently there was no way to make accurate predictions of reliability, maintainability, and operating cost. That’s why the RLV program was started in the 1990s; to test the technologies for a new generation of fully reusable launch systems. Unfortunately Bush cancelled all RLV development by NASA, although the DOD kept the X-37 alive.

The Obama plan provided modest support for RLV development but this new compromise has apparently reduced it in order to keep Constellation going in some form. This is an error. NASA does not have a dime to waste on anything that doesn’t provide practical benefits for America.

>== What are you saying the Shuttle was built for? Was it ever used
> for intended purpose? ==

yes.
It was designed to be a do anything “space truck” that could serve about any need for any major customer they could think of. A means of moving beyond occasion stunts in space to real utilization, and offering routine safe access to space, and allowing very large scale operations and construction in space…. Then the politics gumed things up.

It functions as temporay space stations, bringing up and returning modules and forming a temp station biger then the Russian stations.

Diominated launches in the world, etc.

> Considering that the Shuttles are (were?) ==

Still are, they’ll be flying for about a year it looks like

>==always landed by a pilot, one might indeed think that they
> were to be used as a weapon, to make a sudden drop from the
> sky with deadly payload. ==

Not damn likely!

>> No people past LEO or in and spacecraft bigger then
>> the cramped Soyuz from 45 ish years.

> I guess it is better to remain alive in a cramped capsule than
> to burn alive in comfort.

The Russian safety record is worse then ours too — though both our records are really insanely bad.

Quite possible. What are you saying the Shuttle was built for? Was it ever used for intended purpose? It is obviously not needed for simply delivering payload to LEO. Considering that the Shuttles are (were?) always landed by a pilot, one might indeed think that they were to be used as a weapon, to make a sudden drop from the sky with deadly payload. But in time of powerful computers and remotely controlled systems it looks as old as a steam engine. X-37B is a better solution for a military problem, while Delta/Atlas is a better solution for sending stuff to LEO.

> NO people past LEO or in and spacecraft bigger then
> the cramped Soyuz from 45 ish years.

I guess it is better to remain alive in a cramped capsule than to burn alive in comfort.

>>@Kelly Starks: “Which is why Russians have accomplished
>> so much less then us in space.” —

> I don’t know how do you measure “much less”. The Russians
> haven’t got to the Moon, but they built the first two long-term
> operational space stations. ==

The stations were so small, Russian said the Shuttles were built to steal them. (Like a old James Bond movie.)

No development of space construction, no deep space probes, no upgrades of the Soyuz. NO people past LEO or in and spacecraft bigger then the cramped Soyuz from 45 ish years.

> Now, did the Americans get to the Moon on a Space Shuttle? It did
> not exist in the 1960-ies, but if it did, could it get there?==

Wasn’t built to get there. It was built to carry up Lunar craft – or build really big lunar or Mars craft in peaces.

Could the Saturn-V lower stages get to the moon?

>== What hardware was used to get to the Moon? A Gemini-derived
> capsule and a huge liquid rocket.==

?
No, The Apollos were not derived from the Gemini’s.

Now, it is interesting that Buran flew attached to a real rocket, not to a booster. So the Russians have improved the American concept, which allowed them to lift pretty much anything attached to the launcher or to use just the launcher with a capsule on top. This was quarter a century ago. Now the Americans reinvent Shuttle-C for mere $11B.

@Kelly Starks: “Look [the Russians] do quick rough gear, and haven’t put much into the space program. Hence why they are still flying Soyuz. Their Saturn-V equivalent blew up, and they never followed up with it.” — It blew up because they could not consolidate all the efforts in one place, like the Americans did for the Lunar program. They had several competing design bureaus, something that one would not expect from a centralized Soviet economy. But even consolidated, the funding was not nearly as lavish as in the States, and they started late. Now, if you look at the current state of affairs in the American space programs, you can see competing companies, trying to acquire programs and funding. Very similar to what the Russians had in the 1960-ies. They failed. Do you think that NASA et al will succeed?

>==
> The fact they’ve spent less and done a lot with a little is worthy of respect.

What have they done really? Yeah they got the first guys up, but never did much there.
And lets remember they hardly spend anything on space. Buildings in ill repair, staffs unpaid for long periods of time, etc.

I mean our space program is grossly under performing due to stupid politics (like never fixing shuttle to keep the labor costs up, deciding to increase costs and lower flight rates for political reasons, turning off rovers and space probes when they lose PR value, hardly even looking at the data they return, etc). And we’ve still launched the most people probes, freight, etc.

They’ve always done that. That’s they’re way. From cars to TV, fridges, radio sets and vending machines on Moscow street corners (where, if you’ve never see it, they dispensed beer in ‘community’ glasses every one shared, not in individual cans.)

Their Saturn-V equivalent blew up, and they never followed up with it.

So? The N-1 was a nightmare design but the R-7 ‘family’ of LVs is pretty reliable. And we’ve seen the PBS piece on their armed ‘MOL’ too. So what. The fact they’ve spent less and done a lot with a little is worthy of respect.

Don’t underestimate the capacity of Wall Street to create crap and a market to sell deriviative crap to and profit from the transaction. It’s a model that works for them. Commerical space may just take note of it.

>> “Problem is, no market. NASA 10 fights are a joke and one NASA
>> can cancel at a whim, after making folks jump through hoops.
>> Not something you can close a business case on.”

> Then they’ll have to create a market for their products and services,
> won’t they. ===

That’s like creating a market for taxi service to a place no one goes to.

>== In the Age of Austerity there is no way to justify subsidizing the
> ‘luxury’ of commercial space ventures with money borrowed
> from a foreign power by a government so deep in debt, it’s headed for
> bankruptcy. Those days are over.

That logics not going to get a pension fund manager to cut you a check. Right now the market for commercial crew gear looks to be 10 NASA fights from 2015-2020, and theylikely will demand some custom gear – they just always do.

Now their might be another Bigelow customer carry market that might be a flight or 2 a year – or dozens of flights. No one knows now.

> You’re too dismissive of the Russian space program. It has a proud
> heritage. This writer has lived through the space race of the Cold War
> and seen some of their space hardware in Moscow. Your dismissiveness
> smacks of an attitude one would expect circa 1970. ===

Look I’ve you want to se Mir2, its in a amusement park in Wisconsin’s Dells. I’ve watched the space race to.

Look they do quick rough gear, and haven’t put much into the space program. Hence why they are still flying Soyuz. Their Saturn-V equivalent blew up, and they never followed up with it. Did several short service life space stations (including a armed mil version with a self defence cannon of all things).

80

They just never did as expansive and sophisticated a space program as the US did. We flew shuttles for 30 years and over 130 flights, they did Soyuz for 40. (At one point they accused the US of building shuttle to steal Russian space stations and return them to the US.) We’ve flow robots to most of the planets, and landed a couple on Mars, the deep observatory sats, etc. Granted we’re shutting most of ours down now, and moving to a more limited space program, but we put a lot more into it.