![]() To determine these load factors, the total weight (including all Orbiter's weight or length capability that the customer's payload The price charged to a customer is based on the percentage of the Shuttle commercial launch pricing policy, circa 1985: Cost projections were based on unrealistic flight rates so the efficiencies of scale were never going to happen.ĭata on early comsat launches culled from Space Shuttle Missions Summary ![]() Now, did the planned economics make sense? Almost certainly never. Coke and Pepsi even paid to fly their products on STS for promotional purposes. A total of 18 commercial satellites were deployed from the Shuttle. The first 4 missions were test flights, so omitting them, you can see that 11 of the 21 "operational" missions before the policy change carried commercial satellite payloads, often multiple, up to 3 comsats per mission. This destroyed any economic rationale for making STS self supporting or a revenue generator. However, after the loss of the Orbiter Challenger only seconds into mission STS-51-L, US policy was changed to only allow the Shuttle to launch scientific and military payloads that required human presence. The original plan, ridiculous as it was in hindsight, was for STS to be the sole US launcher of all payloads. The STS-5, STS-7, STS-8, STS-41-B, STS-41-D, STS-51-A, STS-51-D, STS-51-G, STS-51-I, STS-61-B, and STS-61-C Space Shuttle missions all launched comsats for paying customers. NASA did take money from the private sector to do these things. So why didn't NASA take money from the private sector to do these Your question is based on a false assumption namely:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |