General > General Technical Chat
orbital maintence tools? a threat?
wraper:
--- Quote from: Dan123456 on December 23, 2023, 05:09:29 am ---Na, the space shuttle boosters were reusable. Just the external tank was not.
--- End quote ---
Do you understand that in SRB engine and propellant is the same thing? All that is left afterwards is an empty husk. They could not even reuse that without taking them apart into pieces, stripping all paint, etc, and from what I've read it the process spending 1.5 times more than it would take to just using brand new.
Dan123456:
--- Quote from: wraper on December 23, 2023, 01:01:10 pm ---
--- Quote from: Dan123456 on December 23, 2023, 05:09:29 am ---Na, the space shuttle boosters were reusable. Just the external tank was not.
--- End quote ---
Do you understand that in SRB engine and propellant is the same thing? All that is left afterwards is an empty husk. They could not even reuse that without taking them apart into pieces, stripping all paint, etc, and from what I've read it the process spending 1.5 times more than it would take to just using brand new.
--- End quote ---
Yes, I am aware how solid rocket boosters work. That is why they had to take them apart to refuel them.
Anyways, we are derailing this thread but you stated:
--- Quote from: wraper on December 23, 2023, 02:36:57 am ---US may have looked into it but never tried actually building a reusable rocket booster.
--- End quote ---
So I just wanted to point out that is not quite true.
wraper:
--- Quote from: Dan123456 on December 23, 2023, 02:01:00 pm ---Yes, I am aware how solid rocket boosters work. That is why they had to take them apart to refuel them.
Anyways, we are derailing this thread but you stated:
--- Quote from: wraper on December 23, 2023, 02:36:57 am ---US may have looked into it but never tried actually building a reusable rocket booster.
--- End quote ---
So I just wanted to point out that is not quite true.
--- End quote ---
And I said it's a stretch to call them reusable. When you take maybe 20% of what takes to build the thing, take apart, heavily refurbish it and then use to build a new booster, it's very far from being reusable booster. Call it refurbishable booster shell, not reusable booster. Also it's way more complicated than refueling.
BrokenYugo:
As I recall from Feynman's autobio he gave a pretty detailed account of his visit to the shuttle SRB refurb facility.
Basically the empty tube would hit the water and, as one would expect, get all tweaked and twisted from the impact. Then once returned to land people would clean and straighten the sections out with hydraulics and hammers, and they'd by refilled and reassembled for flight. They were about as reusable in practice as a cardboard tube model rocket engine. A great case of just because you can doesn't mean you should.
CatalinaWOW:
--- Quote from: Dan123456 on December 23, 2023, 05:09:29 am ---
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.
--- End quote ---
There is quite a bit of reason to believe they are reusable. For starters the externals aren't repainted and show the evidence of prior use. But sure, that could be a smoke screen for complete replacement of the internals. But doing a complete replacement of the internals in 21 days buggers my imagination and should give you a little pause. Most important, NASA and the military customers who are buying many of the launches are watching very closely and they seem to agree. And over time have changed their policy from requiring a new booster for their flights to accepting what are now called "flight proven" boosters. I also find the fact that they are able to price launches at 50-75% of what other vendors can provide evidence. Either they have found a way to manufacture these things far more cheaply than others, or they are re-using with relatively low refurbishment costs. None of this may meet your standard for re-usable. If you require that the only thing that happens upon a booster return is to stand it up, fuel it and light the fire, I doubt that it meets that standard. But if you can re-launch $50 million dollar booster with a few million dollars of inspection and repair I think it counts. It is also my guess that the inspection and repair costs have been dropping as they have learned and made adjustments based on the prior flights. That database is rapidly growing, and will soon be larger than for any other space vehicle.
Caution with respect to Musk's statements is wisdom. Assuming that everything his companies do is a lie is not. Tesla cars aren't as good as Musk claims. But they are generally serviceable vehicles with more on road mileage than all other vendors combined. The Tesla powerwall is expensive but works. Starlink works.
Find a way to hold Musk accountable for the falsehoods without throwing out the successes.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version