“Ya mean ya didn’t like the shuttle missions making 24,000 orbits of the earth? “
Don’t get me wrong, the machines were impressive manifestations of 1970’s technology, but the first law of space launch (if there isn’t one, there should be) is that once you get something into orbit, don’t waste the orbiting resource and the energy to get it there by bringing it back!
That too, but all it did was obit the earth, and really didn’t go anywhere. My idea of space exploration, is going to Mars, and building a small exploration base on the lunar surface for starters.
Just imagine if those in the ships of Columbus’s day had decided to endlessly circle around the Mediterranean instead of making the big exploration leaps.
The Shuttle was part of the Apollo Technology Program which started in the late 1960s. NASA wanted to make the most of technology from the Apollo program so that not all of the technology would wither on the vine once the project ended. ATP led to Skylab (two launch articles were made and only one launched) and the Shuttle. The latter had as ONE of its mission objectives to work with Skylab and build a larger space station. With the completion of the ISS, the “Space Station Construction Mission” was finished. Part of the reason for having a reusable launch vehicle was to retrieve reparable satellites and even swap-out space station modules (not just assemble a station). In short, the Shuttle program was not an arbitrary decision on the part of NASA; it was seen as a deliberate follow-up of the Apollo program.
I think you are ignoring the benefial economic consequences of reusable spacecraft.Imagine BOEING having to rebuild an airliner from scratch for every trip Only the very rich would ever partake in airplane journeys. Normal cargo flights would be non existant.