[OT] End of Space Shuttle Program

[Man-wai Chang]

So is it a total success with significant money saving compared to then
traditional single-use rocket approach ?

--
@~@ You have the right to remain silent.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
^ ^ 19:23:01 up 9 days 52 min 0 users load average: 1.02 1.07 1.06
ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

 

[Michael Black]

So is it a total success with significant money saving compared to then
traditional single-use rocket approach ?

In 1981 when the shuttle first went up that spring, all I had was a Mos
Technology KIM-1, 1K of RAM, a 6502 running at 1MHz, and a calculator
style keyboard and readout (there was a serial interface, but who could
afford a terminal to go with it?) and a cassette interface.

It wasn't till that fall that I got an OSI Superboard, still a 1MHz 6502
but all of 4K (and I splurged and bought 4K more to fill out the sockets)
and a video interface (I used a surplus Ball Brothers 7" monitor) and
Microsoft BASIC in ROM, oh and an ASCII keyboard to make it all work.

When the SHuttle went up, there was talk of the computer onboard, And not
much to it if I remember properly, since the design was old. I guess it
wasn't too bad, I was initially thinking of the period when small
computers were compared with the one on the Apollo, but it wasn't that far
beyond what was available, though at the time it might have looked that
way. I seem to recall something about Microware's OS-9 operating system
(said to be "unix-like") on the shuttle, but I can't remember if that's a
garbling of my memory or not.

30 years later, the computers on the shuttle are better than they were
originally, and we all have computers at home that dwarf much of what was
in the way of computers back then.

Michael

 

[Paul]

So is it a total success with significant money saving compared to then
traditional single-use rocket approach ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle

"This works out to an average cost per flight of about US $1.5 billion."

"large payload bay measuring 15 by 60 feet"

"Capacity Payload to LEO 24,400 kg (53,600 lb)
Payload to GTO 3,810 kg ( 8,390 lb)
Payload to Polar orbit 12,700 kg (28,000 lb)"

Now, all you need to do, is get a figure for a rocket carrying
the same payload, and what it would cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems

"Saturn V LEO 118,000 Kg (1.11 billion in 2011)"

But who knows whether that's a fair comparison.

*******

The US military, apparently has their own "shuttle like"
vehicle, independent from the ones being retired. I guess
they're still testing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

"Manufacturing on the second X-37B, OTV-2 was underway in 2010;
it was completed and was first launched in March 2011."

Paul

 

[david]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle

"This works out to an average cost per flight of about US $1.5
billion."

"large payload bay measuring 15 by 60 feet"

"Capacity Payload to LEO 24,400 kg (53,600 lb)
Payload to GTO 3,810 kg ( 8,390 lb) Payload
to Polar orbit 12,700 kg (28,000 lb)"

Now, all you need to do, is get a figure for a rocket carrying the same
payload, and what it would cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems

"Saturn V LEO 118,000 Kg (1.11 billion in 2011)"

But who knows whether that's a fair comparison.

*******

The US military, apparently has their own "shuttle like" vehicle,
independent from the ones being retired. I guess they're still testing
it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

"Manufacturing on the second X-37B, OTV-2 was underway in 2010;
it was completed and was first launched in March 2011."

Paul

The X-37 is very small, much smaller than the STS, and unmanned. Not
really shuttle-like other than appearance.

 

[Seum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle

"This works out to an average cost per flight of about US $1.5 billion."

"large payload bay measuring 15 by 60 feet"

"Capacity Payload to LEO 24,400 kg (53,600 lb)
Payload to GTO 3,810 kg ( 8,390 lb)
Payload to Polar orbit 12,700 kg (28,000 lb)"

Now, all you need to do, is get a figure for a rocket carrying
the same payload, and what it would cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems

"Saturn V LEO 118,000 Kg (1.11 billion in 2011)"

But who knows whether that's a fair comparison.

*******

The US military, apparently has their own "shuttle like"
vehicle, independent from the ones being retired. I guess
they're still testing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

"Manufacturing on the second X-37B, OTV-2 was underway in 2010;
it was completed and was first launched in March 2011."

Paul

Paul, is there anything you DON'T know about?

 

[Paul]

Paul, is there anything you DON'T know about?

It's all in this big book I read...

One of the first really big books I got, was the CRC Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics. But I only got it, because one leg
of my table was short, and it was just the right height

Paul

 

[Seum]

It's all in this big book I read...

One of the first really big books I got, was the CRC Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics. But I only got it, because one leg
of my table was short, and it was just the right height

Paul

OK, for me it's back to kindergarten again

 

[Bug Dout]

So is it a total success with significant money saving compared to
then traditional single-use rocket approach ?

In retrospect it was probably a boondoggle.

But what about the International Space Station? I can't think of any
useful thing that has done, and it's hugely expensive. What zero-g
experiments are conducted on it, that could not be done with an unmanned
satellite? What science or technology returns are we getting, compared
to spending the $100 billion-plus on other science?

The ISS is a huge waste of money and a distraction from real scientific
and technological progress.