4 ms·
SRBs weren't reusable in any real sense, what was left after splashdown had to be completely disassembled, separately refurbished, and then reassembled. Using t
by neuronexmachina 10y ago
SRBs weren't reusable in any real sense, what was left after splashdown had to be completely disassembled, separately refurbished, and then reassembled. Using the SRBs also made operations much more expensive, since any prep work done after they were mated to the Shuttle was extremely hazardous.
- raverbashing 10y agoThe Shuttle's main engines also had to be disassembled, refurbished and reassembled, rocket engines are complicated
- hga 10y agoI've read that's in part because they were pushing the edge of the state of the art at the time they were designed, sports cars were used as an analogy. Of course, it remains to be seen if SpaceX's scheme for engine reuse will pan out.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoWhich is another way in which the Shuttle platform wasn't that much reusable. Falcon 9 and future SpaceX rockets are intended to be just refueled and relaunched, without having to disassemble the engines after every landing.
- ThenAsNow 10y ago"Had to be..." is not quite true. How the SSME/RS-25 was designed to operate and could be operated is not the same as how NASA chose to operate it. Particularly after Challenger.