The shuttles in the STS were fully re-usable, yet they consumed an average of US$1.5B per flight...
I was heartbroken to see the end of the STS program - but I do admit that privatisation was a smart move all around, even if the primary motivation due to Uncle Sam's tightrope budget. NASA can focus on flights beyond LEO, especially on the golden grail of a manned mission to Mars, and flights to the ISS will have reduced operating costs due to private competition.
However, it must be pretty galling for Americans to watch the Russians and Chinese expand outward while NASA's sitting there engaged in R&D.
English
-
They we're not fully reusable. There was junk from separation and it required a lot of refits after a launch. The STS program is honestly better of to be gone, although the transition has been bumpy. NASA has stopped taking risks entirely because their budget is like a noose. SpaceX is achieving FAR more when it comes to rocketry.
-
[quote]SpaceX is achieving FAR more when it comes to rocketry.[/quote] A bit of a nonsensical statement given that NASA laid down it's basic foundations an odd-half century ago; but you would expect private competition to spur on the development of new technologies faster than NASA would be capable of.
-
I'm not saying NASA is useless, that's where most of SpaceX funding comes from anyway. Space X has made leaps in the efficiency of engines. I think it was a 40% efficiency increase. They're going to be the first one's to achieve single stage to orbit.