Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NotAnotherNekopan t1_isquxxy wrote

Reply to comment by ThinkingPotatoGamer in NASA outlines case for making sole-source SLS award to Boeing-Northrop joint venture by jeffsmith202

It's sarcasm. Shuttle was expensive, hardly reusable, took far longer than expected for first launch, and a fairly dangerous vehicle.

That being said we don't have anything quite like it since and there's a lot of tasks we just can't do without it.

33

relic2279 t1_isu0nxc wrote

> there's a lot of tasks we just can't do without it

We couldn't have fixed the hubble without it. It carried and helped install COSTAR which was as big as a telephone booth. Fun Fact: The guy who came up with the solution did so while in a hotel shower - he noted the way the shower head was mounted and installed and it gave him the idea. Source.

1

Hussar_Regimeny t1_isr64zf wrote

>Hardly reusable

My guy what was the orbitor then. Also the SRBs could be reused although due to how cheap they were it was easier to just build new ones.

−4

WiscoAstro t1_isr9eui wrote

The shuttle had to undergo a heavy refurbishment every launch, the tank and SRBs were expendable, even if they claimed the SRBs were to be reused. It was promised to be much more reusable than what we got in reality

5

NotAnotherNekopan t1_isrbdyb wrote

Exactly. And for what was reused, the cost associated with refurbishing it was far higher than anticipated.

4

TheGoldenHand t1_isru0r0 wrote

> the SRBs could be reused although due to how cheap they were it was easier to just build new ones.

There is no official accounting or source from NASA about the SRBs complete costs, which are very difficult to quantify because of the large nature of the program. NASA said they were potentially cheaper because of the frequency of launches (which was never substantiated). No group has ever released a source or study accurately accounting for all costs.

What we do know, is dumping metal into a salty ocean damages them almost instantly. There is a reason SpaceX lands their engines on dry platforms.

5

ReasonablyBadass t1_iss72s6 wrote

That thing had to have it's tiles reglued by hand after every launch. it was a failure.

3

[deleted] t1_isr17u5 wrote

[deleted]

−10

HereHoldMyBeer t1_isr5j2h wrote

Nah, it was only 2% How many shuttle launches were there? 135? So really about 1.5% total vehicle loss.

Mortality is another subject entirely.

9

icouldbworknow t1_isr95nk wrote

Pretty sure all the astronauts that have ever been on it will die - 100% mortality.....😀

3

fail-deadly- t1_isre9ff wrote

Well 100% of people who taken a breath will die, but I don’t consider breathing hazardous.

2

mjzimmer88 t1_isrg1n8 wrote

That probably depends on where you live. Check the iOS weather so and you'll see a smog index.

This is why you never see a discount on Perri-air.

0

nautilator44 t1_isrhh9f wrote

And 100% of those that died had dihydrogen monoxide in their bodies.

0