|
I hate to say it, but this is forwards, not backwards. For all the good intentions of the space shuttle programme, its reusability came at great cost. Between each shuttle flight, the vehicle needs to be partially disassembled and reassembled, tens of thousands of parts need to be checked, and thousands of parts need to be replaced. The manpower behind this is intense, and thats where the huge cost comes in. Building and discarding many launcher and capsule combinations is actually cheaper and allows for more launches using lower manpower.
And in case nobody noticed, the current administration doesn't give a shit about the environment, the shuttle is now too expensive for mere satellite launches using modular cargo pods, and the USAF doesn't use it for polar reconnaissance. Which pretty much puts paid to the shuttle's advantages. :)
It's a fantastic machine, but its ill conceived, under-funded and improperly used. Everything it does today could be done better with heavy-lift ELVs, and if the same political pressure that resulted in the space shuttle wasn't being exerted, the US could just use a variant of an existing European or Russian launcher. However, the US is just a vassal of Lockheed Martin these days, and it determines what we spend money on and when we prosecute wars.
--
DrGoon
|
