A Replacement for the Shuttle

When the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced its follow-on projects that would replace manned exploration of the moon, one of the ideas that popped up was to develop a "space tug." This space tug would be able to "shuttle" back and forth to the moon, help build a permanently manned space station, and essentially be the pickup truck of the U.S. space program. But more importantly, the space "shuttle" would save America money because it would be "reusable."

Eventually, the plans for the "shuttle" were pared down. The "tug" would actually be a "shuttle." Not going to the moon, but staying in low earth orbit. Then, they were pared down some more. The shuttle would not be fully reusable, only partially reusable. Do to extreme start up costs, the shuttle would use an external fuel tank and smaller solid rocket boosters. The external fuel tank would be expendable. The solid rocket boosters would parachute back to earth.

When NASA envisioned a space shuttle, it was in the midst of having just created the largest rocket ever built, the Saturn V. These multi-staged, fully expendable rockets were expensive to build. In fact, during the Apollo program, it cost the U.S. about $3,800 per pound to put something into space. This, many believed, was too expensive to maintain. In all fairness, however, Apollo was never meant to be cost-effective. it was meant to get the U.S. to the moon before the Soviets. And it performed marvelously.

But, as soon as the U.S. reached the moon (and actually before) policymakers began questioning the costs of the space program. So, NASA set out to design something that would reduce these costs, allowing America to remain in space, go back to the moon, and eventually reach out to Mars and other planetary bodies, all with smaller budgets.

The answer to NASA was the Space Shuttle. But as the program was continually redesigned, corners were cut, and plans were scaled back, NASA ended up presented something to the American taxpayer that actually increased the cost per pound of delivering pay loads into space. In fact, that cost jumped from the $3,800 per pound under Apollo to over $6,000 per pound (adjusted for inflation) with the shuttle.

Imagine that, an expendable space launch program like Apollo that was considered by many as "too expensive" was actually cheaper than a partially re-usable system like the shuttle. Why? Well to begin with, NASA cut too many corners. The idea of going for cheaper start-up costs forced NASA to accept higher, long-term operating costs.

Go To Page: 1 2 3