Why were the shuttles retired? Would the tech have evolved to make them more effective and efficient? Why was there a return to rockets? Are they as reusable?
Thanks!
In: Technology
When you make a rocket you’re building an incredibly complex and expensive thing that’s not reusable to get a few tons at best into orbit. On paper the shuttle is great because it’s reusable, so it has a quicker and cheaper turn around than making a new rocket and it’s more versatile.
In practice this wasn’t the case. The Shuttle never managed to be quite what it was meant to be. Turn around was neither as cheap nor as quick as it was supposed to. Many things needed complete replacement after each flight, and multiple checks needed to be carried out to avoid accidents. The accidents that did happen really took off most of the public support for the shuttle. Ultimately times changed from when it was built and NASA realised it was unnecessarily complex. Core issues still had no solution and too much money was tied up into keeping them running and the fleet was getting long in the tooth. When it came down to deciding whether they’d make another one, the choice was obvious. They wouldn’t. Instead they’d use Russian rockets for the ISS and turn to the private sector for the rest for the most part.
Latest Answers