• BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Definitely.

    The Shuttle wasn’t “just a contrivance to keep NASA alive”, it was a vehicle for the Air Force, and especially the NSA, to launch their next set of Keyhole satellites. Notably, what most people know as the Hubble chassis.

    My view of the Shuttle is it was a giant boondoggle that squandered funds that could’ve been used for much more effective programs. It wasn’t really reusable, and it killed far more astronauts than Apollo.

    • Hugin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      More deaths but more missions. Overall shuttle was safer.

      Apollo 0.21 deaths per mission. Shuttle 0.10 deaths per mission.

      • threelonmusketeersOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Is that a fair comparison? The Apollo deaths happened very early in the program, while we were still figuring out how to spaceflight. In contrast, the Columbia disaster occurred when the Shuttle was a well-established vehicle.

        Hypothetically, if Apollo kept flying as many missions as Shuttle, I wonder if it might have been safer.