| General > General Technical Chat |
| orbital maintence tools? a threat? |
| << < (4/7) > >> |
| coppercone2:
there is also probobly a global warming effect of launching rockets. its greener to repair with smaller payloads then to keep sending giant payloads and its smarter then trying to miniaturize things and limit potential I wonder how many short term experiments and systems are stunted by power requirements. its like getting a 3 phase hookup in space to use a bigger sat for a rental. |
| fourfathom:
Well, we did send a five repair missions to the Hubble Space Telescope. And it was cheaper than sending up a new Hubble. And the ISS regularly gets repaired and updated. These are high-priced and critical assets where it makes sense to repair rather than replace. |
| Simon:
--- Quote from: u666sa on December 21, 2023, 08:56:33 pm --- I will go further. Elon Musk right now doing reusable self landing boosters. Well, Soviet Union did those in 70s and deemed them too expensive and not useful. It is old tech. What Elon Musk doing now in consumer segment is 20 + 30 = 50 years old. Soviet Union pioneered this tech and scrapped it. Just think about the technology in terms of time. You have to feel it and breath it in. What we have there up there now is 40+ years ahead of what we will have in consumer segment down here. It makes absolutely no sense to keep old crap in orbit. --- End quote --- Perhaps you could provide some evidence. |
| wraper:
--- Quote from: Dan123456 on December 22, 2023, 05:05:58 am ---You might be correct about the USSR. I dunno. But the US was looking at / using reusable stuff decades ago. One similar to what u666sa is talking about was called the DC-X and it got abandoned only for Musk to take his inspiration from it years later. There was also the space shuttle which has put the most people into orbit to date. Also, have they really reused boosters 10+ times? Or is are they just the space age version of the ship of Theseus? I do not know the answer to that (and doubt anyone outside of the company does) but am just weary to take SpaceX’s word due to the copious amounts of bullshit Musk spews constantly. I.e. weren’t we meant to be living on Mars last year? Again, I have nothing against SpaceX, just Musk. --- End quote --- US may have looked into it but never tried actually building a reusable rocket booster. Calling Space Shuttle SRB reusable would be a big stretch, those were just empty shells splashing into the sea and which would be cheaper to discard rather than take apart, heavily refurbish and use for assembly of new SRB. DC-X was a tiny suborbital single stage rocket (huge difference between orbital and suborbital). Last time I checked the most reused F9 booster had flown 18 times and a few others 2-3 times less. EDIT: Actually 3 other boosters have reached 17 launces already. Most reused booster today should fly for 19th time. Fastest reuse they achieved was 21 day. |
| Dan123456:
--- Quote from: wraper on December 23, 2023, 02:36:57 am --- --- Quote from: Dan123456 on December 22, 2023, 05:05:58 am ---You might be correct about the USSR. I dunno. But the US was looking at / using reusable stuff decades ago. One similar to what u666sa is talking about was called the DC-X and it got abandoned only for Musk to take his inspiration from it years later. There was also the space shuttle which has put the most people into orbit to date. Also, have they really reused boosters 10+ times? Or is are they just the space age version of the ship of Theseus? I do not know the answer to that (and doubt anyone outside of the company does) but am just weary to take SpaceX’s word due to the copious amounts of bullshit Musk spews constantly. I.e. weren’t we meant to be living on Mars last year? Again, I have nothing against SpaceX, just Musk. --- End quote --- US may have looked into it but never tried actually building a reusable rocket booster. Calling Space Shuttle SRB reusable would be a big stretch, those were just empty shells splashing into the sea and which would be cheaper to discard rather than take apart, heavily refurbish and use for assembly of new SRB. DC-X was a tiny suborbital single stage rocket (huge difference between orbital and suborbital). Last time I checked the most reused F9 booster had flown 18 times and a few others 2-3 times less. EDIT: Actually 3 other boosters have reached 17 launces already. Most reused booster today should fly for 19th time. Fastest reuse they achieved was 21 day. --- End quote --- Na, the space shuttle boosters were reusable. Just the external tank was not. “Once they were returned to Cape Canaveral, they were cleaned and disassembled. The rocket motor, igniter, and nozzle were then shipped to Thiokol to be refurbished and reused on subsequent flights.[13]: 124 ” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle I think you miss my point on SpaceX’s boosters. The question is are they really the same booster that first launched? Or do they just replace every single part after each launch and slap the same number on it and just call it the same booster? I do not know the answer to that. I would like to believe that they can reuse them with minor repairs, but due to Musks track record of massive overstating capabilities / straight up lying, I can not trust anything that his companies say. Especially in regards to marketing. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |