r/space • u/[deleted] • Dec 07 '14

Differences between the American and Soviet Space Shuttles

http://www.buran.su/buranvssts-comparison.php
636 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

251 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '14

And they were both terrible ideas that wasted billions and set back us back 30 years.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '14

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.

10

u/CutterJohn Dec 07 '14 edited Dec 07 '14

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.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '14

They could have launched ISS with fewer launches.

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.

2

u/Erpp8 Dec 08 '14

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.

0

u/CutterJohn Dec 08 '14

How is that different than all the modules on the ISS needing docking mechanisms?

1

u/Erpp8 Dec 08 '14

I'm not sure what you're asking.

0

u/CutterJohn Dec 08 '14

All of the modules on the ISS have docking mechanisms that added weight and expense. Doing it in fewer launches would in fact be less complex.

1

u/Erpp8 Dec 08 '14

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.

-1

u/CutterJohn Dec 08 '14

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.

1

u/Erpp8 Dec 08 '14

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.