dk1967 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18400 times:
The SRB segments are reusable. A complete new SRB cost about $40m to manufacture, but everything in use now has been flown before. I beleive the retrieval and refurbishment program has a fixed cost of about $500m per year regardless of the number of launches.
aklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18344 times:
According to NASA web pages, it costs $450 million per launch. Of course that does not cover other costs like training, capital expenses (new equipment from time to time), and (I suspect) the operating costs of a mission after launch.
As a former engineer, I admire the shuttle. As a taxpayer, I'll be happy to see it replaced by lower cost expendables or semi-expendables like the Falcon.
The shuttle was originally touted as a way to reduce the cost of space travel. Since that didn't work out it it became a way to continue our manned presence in space. Our manned presence in space was necessary to operate the space shuttle, a nice piece of circular reasoning.
One popular bit of reasoning was that without the shuttle we couldn't have fixed the Hubble telescope, but without the shuttle we could have had the money to build a new one, or maybe two.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 942 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 22 hours ago) and read 18157 times:
Quoting aklrno (Reply 3): but without the shuttle we could have had the money to build a new one, or maybe two.
But without a (largely) prestige project such as the Space Shuttle, said public funding may well not have remained with NASA or the space vehicles industry. I'm not arguing that the money difference could not have been used for better things if there was a less expensive system in use or the shuttle's original purpose had been less dreamlike and the aircraft designed for more realistic goals..