Apollo vs. the Space Shuttle?

Posted Apr 27, 2013 20:58 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: Apollo vs. the Space Shuttle? by pboddie
Parent article: Huang: The $12 Gongkai Phone

Thus, from what I've read from various historical accounts, the idea with the Space Transportation System was to promise a scalable platform with something supposedly affordable in the beginning that could be expanded through further investment later on, thus deferring the expense to future taxpayers: a classic political move.

Sorry, by no, not even close:

Another competing approach was maintaining the Saturn V production line and using its large payload capacity to launch a space station in a few payloads rather than many smaller shuttle payloads. A related concept was servicing the space station using the Air Force Titan II-M to launch a larger Gemini capsule, called "Big Gemini", rather than using the shuttle.

The shuttle supporters answered that given enough launches, a reusable system would have lower overall costs than disposable rockets. If dividing total program costs over a given number of launches, a high shuttle launch rate would result in lower per-launch costs. This in turn would make the shuttle cost competitive with or superior to expendable launchers. Some theoretical studies mentioned 55 shuttle launches per year, however the final design chosen would not support that launch rate. In particular the maximum external tank production rate was limited to 24 tanks per year at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility.

From the very beginning it was the opposite of your portrayal: yes, Space Shuttle promised savings "sometime in the future" but of course R&D budget was huge from the very beginning - exactly as proposed insane plan for sewers.