>Scraps the shuttle because it's too expensive. >Commissions a launcher that only pushes crew (literal meatbags) into spacelab level orbit that doesn't even have cargo capabilities, costing more per person by 10 million. Why is the US so retarded? https://youtu.be/RqLNIBAroGY?t=1476

File: 73 KB, 540x391, 1538226853729.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Mar 2 06:44:15 2019 No.10430352 [Reply] [Original]

>Scraps the shuttle because it's too expensive.

>Commissions a launcher that only pushes crew (literal meatbags) into spacelab level orbit that doesn't even have cargo capabilities, costing more per person by 10 million.

Why is the US so retarded?

https://youtu.be/RqLNIBAroGY?t=1476

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 06:47:28 2019 No.10430362 >>10430352 You seem to have a better solution, please proceed to enlighten them and bring us the future you see. No need to waste time explaining it here tough.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 06:53:46 2019 No.10430375 >builds self landing boosters >can't just used parachutes to save the boosters. The US just likes spending money, let them have their fun.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:02:52 2019 No.10430395 >>10430352 >costing more per person by 10 million Source? Either way, you save a shitton of money in the grand scheme of things because you don't need to ferry 7 people up for every little satellite deployment.

Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:06:30 2019 No.10430401

>>10430395
>because you don't need to ferry 7 people up for every little satellite deployment
Why was that ever the case anyways? Wasn't the Shuttle capable of remote controlled operation?
Or is it because if you're gonna have to keep the vehicle man-rated you're gonna waste as much money for certifications and stuff anyways so you might as well carry people inside?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:06:34 2019 No.10430402 >>10430375 parachute landing would wreck the boosters

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:07:36 2019 No.10430405 >>10430401 >Wasn't the Shuttle capable of remote controlled operation? No, it was not. Buran was tough.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:13:44 2019 No.10430420 >>10430395 It's in the link retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:22:12 2019 No.10430445 >>10430405 Sounds like it would be a simple avionics upgrade if that was actually required though.

Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:30:27 2019 No.10430470

>>10430352
>$1.4B to launch 7 astronauts
>vs $200M to launch 4.
You can't deny Commercial crew is pretty efficient at doing its job of sending crew to space.
Now nothing prevents you from sending a payload on another rocket and still win money over the shuttle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:33:15 2019 No.10430476 >>10430352 If you need to send big hardware up you can just use a separate launch. It took dozens of shuttle launches to build the ISS. Skylab had 1/3 the pressurized volume of the ISS and was lifted in a single launch.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:38:10 2019 No.10430490 >>10430476 >Skylab had 1/3 the pressurized volume of the ISS and was lifted in a single launch. That was done with a saturn rocket, not like we have those anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:46:01 2019 No.10430503 >>10430490 Yes but new vehicles with similar lifting capability are being built. There's no reason we couldn't have built them years/decades ago either.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:47:00 2019 No.10430505 >>10430470 >$1.4B to launch 7 astronauts NO. 242 million per launch for the shuttle. That doesn't con't for the tonnage it can haul into orbit. The shuttle was built to be efficient, dillweed.

Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:51:58 2019 No.10430518

>>10430375
Money cost by landing a 70M 550 ton booster with 500kg unreliable parachutes + reinventing the self landing rocket when people want to go to mars >>>> All the money cost by engineering self landing boosters

Give me one example using a parachutes to recover the booster and actually reusing it without tons of refurbishment

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 07:59:29 2019 No.10430533 >>10430505 >242 million per launch for the shuttle You are an idiot, case closed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 08:00:23 2019 No.10430535 >>10430533 Nah you're the only retard here. Learn measurements faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 08:03:52 2019 No.10430542 The shuttle has better cost per pound. Musk cucks will argue this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 08:20:30 2019 No.10430588 >>10430445 It was basically a political decission to have people fly the shuttle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 08:21:32 2019 No.10430590 >>10430420 >Dodd guesstimating on the fly Wow, sure great fucking source you have there mate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 08:22:32 2019 No.10430594 >>10430505 >242 million per launch for the shuttle. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA >242 million for a shuttle launch HAHAHAHAHA. God you're fucking funny.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 08:28:44 2019 No.10430606 File: 26 KB, 400x400, 1533992854423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10430594 >>10430590 Where's your source? Oh wait, you don't have any... funny isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 09:45:00 2019 No.10430753 >>10430606 It's literally in the video, fagget.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 09:47:41 2019 No.10430754 File: 32 KB, 500x500, 1544694640049.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10430753 go back to /b/ retard

Anonymous Sat Mar 2 09:53:25 2019 No.10430758

>>10430754
Took me 2 seconds in jewgle.
>When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation, was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 10:04:50 2019 No.10430774 >>10430758 >Wikipedia This is bait, by the way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 10:05:29 2019 No.10430777 File: 45 KB, 558x614, 1536413713110.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10430758

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 10:12:10 2019 No.10430794 >>10430352 I also miss the space shuttle

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 17:29:03 2019 No.10431937 >>10430395 >>10430470 dragon can carry seven people, just like shuttle so it's seven times cheaper

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 21:21:05 2019 No.10432567 >>10430352 Democrats.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 23:18:46 2019 No.10432799 >>10431937 It can't carry cargo or deploy satellites or have the mission versatility. Just stop Elon, and go back to writing html scripts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 23:37:06 2019 No.10432829 >>10432799 >It can't carry cargo or deploy satellites Yeah, you just launch those into orbit on conventional boosters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 23:39:32 2019 No.10432832 >>10430352 this is what happens when a talking gorilla takes charge of the country. everyone thinks its progressive to go backward.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 23:48:39 2019 No.10432845 >>10432829 it's cheaper to send them together!! Now we are at full circle!! Jesus these elon cult faggots are delusional and hopeless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 23:51:07 2019 No.10432852 >>10430352 >that doesn't even have cargo capabilities But that's just wrong you retard. Unless you're talking about Starliner, then you may be right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 2 23:51:23 2019 No.10432854 >>10430352 Earth is flat

Anonymous Sat Mar 2 23:58:19 2019 No.10432866

>>10432845
>it's cheaper to send them together!!
But it's not. At least not in comparison to Shuttle Launches.

Even with the Shuttle they didn't do large satellite delivery and ISS missions together, because they have different orbital characteristics and the Shuttle had limited orbital maneuverability.

>>10432799
Dragon 2 can be used in cargo mode to deliver cargo instead of people and in either configuration it has the unpressurized trunk which can deliver cargo that is destined for the ISS exterior, including small sats.

Anonymous Sun Mar 3 00:02:09 2019 No.10432871

>>10430470
>>10430505
I don't see where you guys are getting your numbers from, a cursory search got me an average of $450mil per shuttle launch, with a cargo cost of $10k per pound. A SpaceX launch lofting 5k pounds costs around 27k per pound but the cost is estimated to drop to $9100 per pound once they're hoisting their maximum of 7300lbs. The major factor that will let fully loaded down Dragons edge out the shuttle for per-pound efficiency is that they only cost around 133 million to launch, plus their launch vehicle (falcon or falcon heavy) is mostly reusable, unlike the shuttle's launch vehicle which was mostly expendable, and the Crew Dragon will be preferable from a safety standpoint because unlike the shuttle it has a functional launch abort system, so if something is fucked the crew isn't guaranteed to be instantaneously incinerated. I don't get this argument completely though because the Falcon and Falcon Heavy aren't meant to directly take over all the roles of a shuttle, it would make a lot more sense to compare the shuttle and a BFRship when those start flying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 00:08:39 2019 No.10432890 >>10432852 show me

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 00:13:15 2019 No.10432907 >>10432871 The only decent and intelligent post in this thread. Everyone else in here are retards from /g/ posing as high IQ faggots that actually know what they are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 00:24:59 2019 No.10432933 >>10432890 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_2

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 00:25:23 2019 No.10432936 >>10430375 parachutes aren't going to stop the fairings from getting salt water on them

Anonymous Sun Mar 3 00:29:11 2019 No.10432952

>>10432871
>a cursory search got me an average of $450mil per shuttle launch
The question here is if they include the refurbishment costs in with the launch costs.
The 450mil figure could easily be the cost to launch post-refurbishment, so what we really want is a cost breakdown to verify that figure.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 00:47:06 2019 No.10432985 >>10430352 shipping up cargo and crew on the same rocket is utterly retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 01:27:29 2019 No.10433059 >>10432985 Not for cost per pound ratio brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 01:41:56 2019 No.10433090 >>10433059 Not everything can be quantified in cost to pound ratio.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 01:45:19 2019 No.10433097 >>10433090 YES IT CAN! THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON WHY THEY SCRAPPED THE SHUTTLE PROGRAM

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 01:51:21 2019 No.10433115 Democrats need to reduce America's prestige, and deny access to the high ground. Obama changed NASA's mission to - I Shit You Not - muslim outreach. Apparently, democrats believe there are a lot of muslims in space. Who knew?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 01:54:30 2019 No.10433124 >>10433097 No, it's not. The Shuttle was expensive, unsafe and aging. The fact there were cheaper rides for non-human payloads into orbit was just another nail in the coffin.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 01:57:06 2019 No.10433132 >>10433115 I'm so glad that fucking muslim terrorist is fucking gone for good.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 02:32:42 2019 No.10433219 >>10433115 Well I guess how much muslim is in space can be determined by the size of the suicide vest.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 02:41:59 2019 No.10433244 >>10433219 based

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 02:45:09 2019 No.10433252 >it's yet another thinly veiled SpaceX hate thread made by the same cunt who shits up every single fucking SpaceX thread and is made obvious by his writing style

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 02:49:28 2019 No.10433259 >>10433252 Little paranoid fella, aren't ya?

>>	Sage Sun Mar 3 02:50:25 2019 No.10433262 And then he trots out the exact same line every time. Very tiresome.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 02:54:04 2019 No.10433270 File: 868 KB, 1218x686, 1523795381571.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10433262 Didn't mean to offend your lord and savior.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 03:10:10 2019 No.10433289 >>10433115 An offhand quote from a guy talking on aljazeera. He's just giving lip-service to them and knows nobody will ever check his facts.

Anonymous Sun Mar 3 11:40:08 2019 No.10434364

>>10430352
>cancel Shuttle without replacement
>"Okay, now what? Uh, I guess see if some private companies wanna do it instead? Cool, get back to us in a decade with that"
>"What do we do in the meantime? Buy flights from Russia, of course!"
I blame Obama

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 11:43:20 2019 No.10434375 >>10434364 To be fair to the Obama administration, the planned Shuttle replacement at the time (Ares I) had some nasty safety issues. Dropping it and starting the commercial crew program was necessary.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 12:01:34 2019 No.10434423 >>10433270 >Didn't mean to offend No one is offended. It's just an observation that you seem to have a very serious axe to grind for literally so reason and bend over backwards to inject your personal butthurt everywhere.

Anonymous Sun Mar 3 12:12:28 2019 No.10434446

>>10430476
NO you can't
The shuttle can lift build and many other tasks as repairs on other smaller things inside the bay doors.
isis was more important than space exploration
Before that Vietnam because JFK sent the biggest troops and apolo was canceled in1972
Think of we're Americans could be if the had stayed with a space program since 1972.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 12:15:27 2019 No.10434453 >>10430588 There is no need to put humans in space and exploration 2011 NASA It went private There is nothing out there American president canceled the programs Pray to god that is your hope

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 12:17:45 2019 No.10434461 >>10430606 American needs to bailout British from wars is why America space exploration has suffered

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 12:22:54 2019 No.10434480 >>10434364 7 years to get 450 pounds to ISS

Anonymous Sun Mar 3 12:33:51 2019 No.10434505
File: 162 KB, 1024x1024, kpqjd9psfsoy[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10434446
>The shuttle can lift build and many other tasks as repairs on other smaller things inside the bay doors.

Literally never utilized. Cost per launch and cost per kg of conventional expendable rockets is way below that of the Shuttle. Not even talking about reusable SpaceX ones here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 12:34:49 2019 No.10434509 >>10432845 >it's cheaper to send them together!! Idiocy overload detected.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 12:49:03 2019 No.10434549 >>10434505 >Literally never utilized. stopped reading right there.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 12:49:30 2019 No.10434550 >>10433059 yes, even in terms of cost per pound. A cargo rocket doesn't need to be human rated, thus it can be much cheaper. What a fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 12:52:11 2019 No.10434560 >>10434550 >t. seething musk fag

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 12:53:04 2019 No.10434564 question: what is stopping them from putting some cargo in the pressurized section of the dragon together with the crew?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 13:58:40 2019 No.10434734 >>10434564 Nothing, it's designed so seats can be added / removed as needed so if it has under 7 crew seats can be replaced with storage containers.

Anonymous Sun Mar 3 14:42:15 2019 No.10434857

>>10434560
Actually this is one of the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board(CAIB).
>>the overriding mission of the replacement system is to move humans safely and reliably into and out of Earth orbit. To demand more would be to fall into the same trap as all previous, unsuccessful, efforts.
Chapter 9, page 211 of "Report of Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Volume I"
http://s3.amazonaws.com/akamai.netstorage/anon.nasa-global/CAIB/CAIB_lowres_chapter9.pdf
TL;DR if you're gonna make a rocket to shoot humans into space, it should only carry humans and nothing else
>>CAIB feels that "NASA needs to separate people from the cargo as soon as possible."
>>As has been highlighted by the notion of adding a crew escape module and the resultant decrease in cargo carrying capacity, balancing crew survivability and cargo capacity results in one or the other function being somewhat compromised.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=865
>>CAIB recommended that future launch systems should "separate crew from cargo" as much as possible
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34471
>>10434564
Common sense. You compromise the capabilities of the launch escape system when you add more cargo.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 14:53:27 2019 No.10434900 >>10434564 They do. The one they sent up has cargo in it. It can carry both pressurised and unpressurised cargo.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 14:55:19 2019 No.10434904 >>10434375 He should have kept the shuttle flying then.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 14:59:56 2019 No.10434913 >>10434904 And risk another Colombia disaster? And besides, the Shuttle program was on its way out during the Bush administration.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 15:02:18 2019 No.10434923 >>10434913 They flew the shuttle for years after Colombia.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 15:06:17 2019 No.10434935 >>10434923 So? The program was still very old and needed to be replaced by something new. Plus the Shuttle was an expensive vehicle per launch, something that the recession minded Obama administration didn't like and wanted to reduce costs to space.

Anonymous Sun Mar 3 15:08:31 2019 No.10434940

>>10434904

Cost of continuing the Space Shuttle for another 8 years: 24 billion
Cost of Dragon 2 development: 3 billion

The Shuttle didn't negate Soyuz purchases since Shuttle missions only lasted 2 weeks and the Syouz remains docked for months as the emergency egress option.

The Bush admin cancelled the Shuttle. Bush's Constellation program included Shuttle cancellation and a lengthy gap during which only Soyuz would fly while the Ares 1 and Orion were developed for LEO crew flights. Obama switched out that LEO plan for Commercial Crew which was more fit for the mission, cheaper, and activated sooner. As it happens Orion was continued and received more generous funding than the Commercial Crew program and won't come online until 2023.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 15:28:49 2019 No.10434997 >>10434904 The shuttle still had it's fundamental flaw, which is no launch abort system.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 19:13:57 2019 No.10435559 >>10432799 >can't carry caro thats funny, crew Dragon just un-loaded 400 pounds of cargo onto the ISS this morning

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 19:20:50 2019 No.10435571 >>10430352 If we really wanted to save money, we wouldn't have a space program in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 19:33:23 2019 No.10435605 >>10435571 manned space program*

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 21:51:24 2019 No.10435917 >>10435571 >If we really wanted to save money, we wouldn't have left caves in the first place

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 21:53:29 2019 No.10435926 >>10430375 Parachute landing was done with the shuttle srb's, they had to be dismantled and extensively refurbished between flights. Didn't really pencil out.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 3 21:55:30 2019 No.10435932 >>10430405 Buran only flew in prototype form, once, for two orbits. It was flown unmanned by remote control because it was a boilerplate model without a functional life support system or crew accommodations. Like the orion prototype.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math