![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
![]() |
#4 |
Fleet Admiral
![]() |
![]()
I have a different opinion. The STS was nice while it lasted but needed to be killed. The design had too many political, economic, and technical compromises. Some of which prevented any real major improvements.
The re-useability was mostly in name only as we were never able to turn the orbiter around for another flight without major repairs and inspections. It is unfortunate that the concept of re-useability added a lot of the cost and did not really garner that much of a benefit. The cost in the terms of pounds to low earth orbit were much higher in this "re-usable" system. In 1995, when I wrote my paper, using the STS cost $6,000 per pound into LEO. Using the 100% expendable S1B (one of the more expensive systems we had), it cost $2,000 per pound in LEO. Technology has advanced to where we could build a better more efficient STS. But according to the actual rocket scientists I work with, there really is no need for an STS. What is needed is a reliable, relatively inexpensive, and more importantly expandable launch vehicle, which we have developed with the Delta/Atlas/EELV families of lift vehicles. These can do more than the STS could, cheaper, more reliably and as the technology matures, more modifiable. It was a novel idea, but at the time, the compromises of the design limited its practicability and cost.
__________________
abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right. |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|