Costs of Shuttle vs traditional rockets

Shuttle has been accued of being very expensive to operate. And one
cannot deny the numbers are high.

Out of curiosity, if the USA were to fully replace the shuttle (manned
capsule and launcher, cargo launcher as well as space guidance and auto
berthing/docking capabilities) would the costs of developping and then
constantly building all these different components still be vastly
inferior to operating the shuttle or would they end up being in the same
ballpark ?

In other words, while the shuttle may not be the best (financially) in
any one of its missions, is it possible that having a single versatile
vehicle makes the total costs more competitive ?

Considering the very low percentage of the budget Nasa get, I guess the
costs of whatever they do are relative, and cheap for the country for what
is both a good advert for the US, and a kind of wildcard in the research
front.

There is always the argument that the budget will go further if people stay
on the ground of course, but that argument is a cultural one as much as an
economic one.

Anyone who could say for sure that one method of doing something is going to
be cheaper when its not built yet is brave. One fact is true however, the
Shuttle hardware is getting old and hard to maintain, and I just wonder if
we all were doing the same thing now (and remember in the beginning the
military wanted it) if it might look different, but still have a similar
chunk of the budget.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Shuttle has been accued of being very expensive to operate. And one cannot
deny the numbers are high.

Out of curiosity, if the USA were to fully replace the shuttle (manned
capsule and launcher, cargo launcher as well as space guidance and auto
berthing/docking capabilities) would the costs of developping and then
constantly building all these different components still be vastly
inferior to operating the shuttle or would they end up being in the same
ballpark ?

In other words, while the shuttle may not be the best (financially) in any
one of its missions, is it possible that having a single versatile vehicle
makes the total costs more competitive ?

In other words, while the shuttle may not be the best (financially) in
any one of its missions, is it possible that having a single versatile
vehicle makes the total costs more competitive ?

sadly the shuttle has killed 2 crews, and will kill again.........

the lack of launch boost escape is just one issue, let alone its
operating costs.

the whole purpose of replacing the shuttle is to cut costs, and that
means fewer workers.

the shuttle was designed by commitee, and isnt optimized for anything.

we shouldnt risk lives delivering freight.

launch boost escape should be mandatory

moving people should be done on already existing expendables.

nasa should be OUT of the launch business and contract out whats
needed.

the past and current management run nasa as a pork piggie, rather than
realistically as a science program.

the next shuttle accident will be the LAST ONE, the remaining vehicles
will go to museums and thats where they belong.

John Doe wrote:

Shuttle has been accued of being very expensive to operate. And one
cannot deny the numbers are high.


Back when Shuttle was proposed, it was supposed to be a cheaper way into
LEO. Didn't work out that way though.

On Nov 30, 11:09�am, robert casey wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Shuttle has been accued of being very expensive to operate. And one
cannot deny the numbers are high.

Back when Shuttle was proposed, it was supposed to be a cheaper way into
LEO. �Didn't work out that way though.

nasa really doesnt care about operating expenses, more concerned with
pork.

if they truly wanted low cost they would of used expendables for new
crew system, and saved years of devlopment time.

with robust launch boost escape on a existing expendable the money
saved could of been invested in a robust capsule and service module.

nasa only cares about handing out pork and obama is probably right.

On a pleasant day while strolling in sci.space.shuttle,
a person by the name of John Doe exclaimed:
In other words, while the shuttle may not be the best (financially) in
any one of its missions, is it possible that having a single versatile
vehicle makes the total costs more competitive ?

Don't think so. The vehicle has not really proved to be
very versatile, as it can only do LEO and requires
expensive crew on every mission. Hence other launchers
are used to do most tasks.
--
aaronl at consultant dot com
For every expert, there is an equal and
opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke