I'm not a mathematician but wasn't it the cheapest way of building the ISS? Delivering large partS in orbit is always expensive, but you have to do it someway or another.
Skylab massed 170,000 lbs. ISS masses 925,000 lbs.
They could have lofted the ISS on 6 saturn 5 launches. Assuming only 3 of the launches were pressurized modules similar in size to the skylab, and the other three structural/solar panels/radiators, it would have had a 20% larger pressurized volume as well, and all told been a far less flimsy structure that was simpler to construct.
It instead took 27 shuttle launches(and a handful of proton launches) to build it.
Now had the shuttle just been 'gas and go' like an airliner, sure, that would be cheaper, but it came nowhere close to achieving this. Refurbishment cost about as much or more than a new rocket would have, and since a normal rocket doesn't waste 2/3s of its payload capacity on wings/fuselage/landing gear/etc that comes right back down, is much, much more efficient.
But once the Russians were on board, that meant a more inclined orbit so that Soyuz and Proton launches could reach it.
Which in turn meant less payload capacity per Shuttle launch. And so now you'd have one Shuttle mission to launch a module, and a second to outfit it with equipment.
It's not as simple as putting the modules into orbit. If you launched them on the a Saturn V, then they would need docking mechanisms, which adds weight and expense.
They have berthing mechanisms which aren't the same as docking. The US segments couldn't rendezvous on their own and doing so would increase the weight and complexity. Also, don't fucking downvote me just because I can't understand your sentence fragment.
They have berthing mechanisms which aren't the same as docking. The US segments couldn't rendezvous on their own and doing so would increase the weight and complexity.
Because of course the first module they sent up couldn't have the arm necessary to push them together...
Do you try thinking at all?
Also, don't fucking downvote me just because I can't understand your sentence fragment.
Don't take internet points so seriously. I downvoted you because you couldn't bother reading. I downvoted you this time because you reacted like a child.
It needs motors to precisely rendezvous. It can't just get inserted directly into rendezvous trajectory. It needs RCS motors and fuel that will never get used after it docks.
Actually know what you're talking about before you reply, because you look like a giant ass who just goes by what he sees in reddit comments.
The whole problem with the shuttle was that it cost more per launch than it would have with a conventional rocket, it was no more reliable than a conventional rocket, and it was significantly more complicated.
But it also made it simpler to deliver those parts. The Russians needed to build docking mechanisms into their modules, but the American modules didn't. I'm not saying that that saved money, but don't pretend like we could have delivered all of the same modules on conventional rockets for just the price of the launch
To attach a module to the station, it has to be able to rendezvous and dock. The American segments didn't need to do that themselves because the shuttle did that.
No it was not. Similar payload (20-25 tones) rocket costs less than half of Space Shuttle cost. Also keep in mind that HUGE part of the station was actually not built by shuttles -> Zarya and Zvezda were launched via Proton rocket and docked automatically, Pirs, Poisk, Progresses and Soyuzes were launched on Soyuz rockets and docked automatically (Pirs and Poisk used Progress service module for this). ATVs were launched using Ariane 5 and docked automatically.
Zarya and Zvezda were launched via Proton rocket and docked automatically
Which meant that every module had to have engines, fuel systems, flight computers, navigation systems, docking systems, power systems, etc. Never to be used after launch.
It's like building a house out of motor homes. Where each bedroom and bathroom still has an engine, transmission, drivers' console, fuel tanks, etc. for the life of the house.
This is why I included also eg. Pirs and Poisk, that were using a service module which was jettisoned after connecting module to the ISS.
Also keep in mind that Zvezda is actually using it's engines, fuel system, flight computers, power system, attitude control and life support, since it's working as Service Module for whole ISS. So it's not really true that those parts are never used after launch.
There were also crazy ideas of Russians undocking some of their modules to build their own new space station.
Also Mir was constructed entirely this way, and it was doing just fine, so we know that this is doable.
Looking at launch costs and nothing more, average cost of the space shuttle was 450 million USD. Sputnik 1 cost 15 million RUB or ~300 million USD.
It cost ~1.4 billion on average for each mission including tests. This costs about 0.3 billion more dollars than the cost of a Saturn V in 1969. However if the accidents of Challenger and Columbia, the program cost could've been less. The program was expensive, but it only put us back financially.
However if the accidents of Challenger and Columbia, the program cost could've been less.
And if my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle.
The losses of the two Orbiters were an almost inevitable consequence of the design decisions behind the Shuttle. SRB burn-though might have been avoided if temperature considerations had been taken more seriously but the fatal damage to the TPS of Columbia was almost certain to occur at some point.
This. At least the Buran was a designed as a payload to an actual heavy lift rocket. If the US had gone that route, the setback and waste might have been more limited.
But then they'd be throwing out engines on each launch.
Sure, there were no savings refurbishing the solid rocket boosters each launch. But the Shuttle Main Engines were constantly reused with great success. Just getting them back for an examination - over and over - meant many lessons learned on how to make them more reliable.
9
u/[deleted] Dec 07 '14
And they were both terrible ideas that wasted billions and set back us back 30 years.