5 replaced http://space.stackexchange.com/ with https://space.stackexchange.com/
source | link

The American space shuttle program was, from what I understand, a radically different approach to space exploration at the time of its inception. With the enormous changes in technology and knowledge accrued in the 30+ years since then, I want to know: is the space shuttle program considered a financial success compared to other programs?

To be more explicit: looking back, would it have been more cost-effective to use other technologies and approaches to explore space rather than the 'reusable' Space shuttles? Did they enable us to do anything we could not do with "conventional" technologies? Were conventional tactics any cheaper to manufacture/launch?

To cite an example (http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/10350/why-didnt-nasa-use-the-shuttle-to-make-a-profit?rq=1Why didn't NASA use the shuttle to make a profit?) - the shuttle's primary advantage was "cost efficiency", but apparently this was proven to be a fiction after only one launch. If the greatest advantage of a program disappeared after just one launch, one would imagine the program would become worthless, yet it continued for thirty years.

Related:
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1173/what-made-nasa-shut-down-the-shuttle-programWhat made NASA shut down the Shuttle program?
Wikipedia's article on space shuttle criticisms

The American space shuttle program was, from what I understand, a radically different approach to space exploration at the time of its inception. With the enormous changes in technology and knowledge accrued in the 30+ years since then, I want to know: is the space shuttle program considered a financial success compared to other programs?

To be more explicit: looking back, would it have been more cost-effective to use other technologies and approaches to explore space rather than the 'reusable' Space shuttles? Did they enable us to do anything we could not do with "conventional" technologies? Were conventional tactics any cheaper to manufacture/launch?

To cite an example (http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/10350/why-didnt-nasa-use-the-shuttle-to-make-a-profit?rq=1) - the shuttle's primary advantage was "cost efficiency", but apparently this was proven to be a fiction after only one launch. If the greatest advantage of a program disappeared after just one launch, one would imagine the program would become worthless, yet it continued for thirty years.

Related:
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1173/what-made-nasa-shut-down-the-shuttle-program
Wikipedia's article on space shuttle criticisms

The American space shuttle program was, from what I understand, a radically different approach to space exploration at the time of its inception. With the enormous changes in technology and knowledge accrued in the 30+ years since then, I want to know: is the space shuttle program considered a financial success compared to other programs?

To be more explicit: looking back, would it have been more cost-effective to use other technologies and approaches to explore space rather than the 'reusable' Space shuttles? Did they enable us to do anything we could not do with "conventional" technologies? Were conventional tactics any cheaper to manufacture/launch?

To cite an example (Why didn't NASA use the shuttle to make a profit?) - the shuttle's primary advantage was "cost efficiency", but apparently this was proven to be a fiction after only one launch. If the greatest advantage of a program disappeared after just one launch, one would imagine the program would become worthless, yet it continued for thirty years.

Related:
What made NASA shut down the Shuttle program?
Wikipedia's article on space shuttle criticisms

    Post Closed as "too broad" by kim holder, Hohmannfan, Organic Marble, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Fred
    Post Reopened by Nathan Tuggy, TildalWave, Erik, duzzy, Jerard Puckett
4 Added an example of cost-analysis.
source | link

The American space shuttle program was, from what I understand, a radically different approach to space exploration at the time of its inception. With the enormous changes in technology and knowledge accrued in the 30+ years since then, I want to know: is the space shuttle program considered a financial success compared to other programs?

To be more explicit: looking back, would it have been more cost-effective to use other technologies and approaches to explore space rather than the 'reusable' Space shuttles? Did they enable us to do anything we could not do with "conventional" technologies? Were conventional tactics any cheaper to manufacture/launch?

To cite an example (http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/10350/why-didnt-nasa-use-the-shuttle-to-make-a-profit?rq=1) - the shuttle's primary advantage was "cost efficiency", but apparently this was proven to be a fiction after only one launch. If the greatest advantage of a program disappeared after just one launch, one would imagine the program would become worthless, yet it continued for thirty years.

Related:
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1173/what-made-nasa-shut-down-the-shuttle-program
Wikipedia's article on space shuttle criticisms

The American space shuttle program was, from what I understand, a radically different approach to space exploration at the time of its inception. With the enormous changes in technology and knowledge accrued in the 30+ years since then, I want to know: is the space shuttle program considered a financial success compared to other programs?

To be more explicit: looking back, would it have been more cost-effective to use other technologies and approaches to explore space rather than the 'reusable' Space shuttles? Did they enable us to do anything we could not do with "conventional" technologies? Were conventional tactics any cheaper to manufacture/launch?

Related:
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1173/what-made-nasa-shut-down-the-shuttle-program
Wikipedia's article on space shuttle criticisms

The American space shuttle program was, from what I understand, a radically different approach to space exploration at the time of its inception. With the enormous changes in technology and knowledge accrued in the 30+ years since then, I want to know: is the space shuttle program considered a financial success compared to other programs?

To be more explicit: looking back, would it have been more cost-effective to use other technologies and approaches to explore space rather than the 'reusable' Space shuttles? Did they enable us to do anything we could not do with "conventional" technologies? Were conventional tactics any cheaper to manufacture/launch?

To cite an example (http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/10350/why-didnt-nasa-use-the-shuttle-to-make-a-profit?rq=1) - the shuttle's primary advantage was "cost efficiency", but apparently this was proven to be a fiction after only one launch. If the greatest advantage of a program disappeared after just one launch, one would imagine the program would become worthless, yet it continued for thirty years.

Related:
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1173/what-made-nasa-shut-down-the-shuttle-program
Wikipedia's article on space shuttle criticisms

3 Removed a "modern standards" addendum and clarified what I'm looking for.
source | link

The American space shuttle program was, from what I understand, a radically different approach to space exploration at the time of its inception. With the enormous changes in technology and knowledge accrued in the 30+ years since then, I want to know: is the space shuttle program considered a financial success by modern standardscompared to other programs?

To be more explicit: looking back, would it have been more cost-effective to use other technologies and approaches to explore space rather than the 'reusable' Space shuttles? Did they enable us to do anything we could not do with "conventional" technologies? Were conventional tactics any cheaper to manufacture/launch?

Related:
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1173/what-made-nasa-shut-down-the-shuttle-program
Wikipedia's article on space shuttle criticisms

The American space shuttle program was, from what I understand, a radically different approach to space exploration at the time of its inception. With the enormous changes in technology and knowledge accrued in the 30+ years since then, I want to know: is the space shuttle program considered a financial success by modern standards?

To be more explicit: looking back, would it have been more cost-effective to use other technologies and approaches to explore space rather than the 'reusable' Space shuttles? Did they enable us to do anything we could not do with "conventional" technologies? Were conventional tactics any cheaper to manufacture/launch?

Related:
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1173/what-made-nasa-shut-down-the-shuttle-program
Wikipedia's article on space shuttle criticisms

The American space shuttle program was, from what I understand, a radically different approach to space exploration at the time of its inception. With the enormous changes in technology and knowledge accrued in the 30+ years since then, I want to know: is the space shuttle program considered a financial success compared to other programs?

To be more explicit: looking back, would it have been more cost-effective to use other technologies and approaches to explore space rather than the 'reusable' Space shuttles? Did they enable us to do anything we could not do with "conventional" technologies? Were conventional tactics any cheaper to manufacture/launch?

Related:
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1173/what-made-nasa-shut-down-the-shuttle-program
Wikipedia's article on space shuttle criticisms

2 Edited to clarify exactly what sort of answer I was looking for
source | link
    Post Closed as "primarily opinion-based" by TildalWave, PearsonArtPhoto
1
source | link