4 ms·

> Also, remind me, did NASA develop reusable rockets? I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not but... yes, of course NASA developed reusable rockets. The space s

> Also, remind me, did NASA develop reusable rockets? I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not but... yes, of course NASA developed reusable rockets. The space shuttle missions reused the shuttles and the boosters.

marcinzm 6y ago
The Space Shuttle was reusable (with massive refurbishing after each flight) but given that'd it cost significantly more than a non-reusable rocket per pound I think the point stands. SpaceX managed to make a financially viable reusable rocket.
- thelean12 6y ago
  > I think the point stands No it doesn't. The person was trying to say SpaceX > NASA. Many people here are trying to shit on the other side as if they have a real point. They're both doing cool and useful things and they're both really really good at what they do.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    I'm not trying to say that SpaceX is better than NASA. I am responding to the point that NASA has done things that SpaceX hasn't (e.g. landing on other celestial bodies) by pointing out that SpaceX has done things NASA hasn't (e.g. SpaceX rockets land and can be reused). I don't think it makes sense to talk about which is better unless there is some specific metric that can be measured so a conclusion could be reached. I am encouraged though that SpaceX has a trajectory that will allow greater access to space. By bringing the cost of space travel down, I expect we will get a lot more of it. NASA (and other governmental space programs) started the initiative, but I think SpaceX is continuing it marvelously.
    - Daho0n 6y ago
      I'm not saying SpaceX isn't doing good but the price has gone up per (re)launch, not down as projected, so at the moment of it were possible to buy a trip to space for a few tourists it would be cheaper on a shuttle.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  They really didn't. SpaceX is not cheaper than the shuttle no matter how many times it gets repeated. That SpaceX fudges the numbers so it is hard to compare doesn't make it true. In reality SpaceX is more expensive than not only the shuttle but also their own projections. Here's a breakdown: https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU
  - tristanb 6y ago
    you're wrong. That video is a bunch of crud
    - Daho0n 6y ago
      And I'm sure you believe that US and foreign competitors of SpaceX who says the same thing are just spewing PR, right? It was a random video. The message is not wrong. Being snippy doesn't change facts.
      - shazmosushi 6y ago
        The Thunderf00t video is wrong, see my video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4
  - Nekhrimah 6y ago
    > Here's a breakdown: https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU I watched the first 90 seconds of this. On the cost of re-usability of a falcon 9 point, the figures are shown as from Wikipedia. So 1) not a primary source. 2) fails to calculate the percentage correctly between $62m and $50m as "around 10%". It's almost 20% on those figures. 3) and most importantly, those numbers are the cost to the customer, not SpaceX's internal cost. As they have no current competition in rocket re-usability, they are able to recoup the R&D cost for developing this technology. I don't think I'll bother watching the rest of the video.
    - m4rtink 6y ago
erulabs 6y ago
They did, you're not wrong at all, but just to add a little bit of clarity the space shuttle was never as reusable as was hoped - it wound up costing a huge amount of time and money to retrofit the shuttle again before each launch. Reusable and Re-usability are different things :P As far as I know no solid state boosters were ever re-used (how would that work?) - but then again SpaceX doesn't re-use solid state boosters either (because they do not use any)... Things can be more complex and nuanced than quippy internet back and forth suggest. That's not even touching on the ship-of-theseus problem that is many former NASA engineers working at SpaceX these days.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  The SRB segments vere regularly reused, not sure about the parachutes and the nozzle stearing gear. Still reportedly it was more expensive to reuse the segments (basically big metal tubes) than to build new set if SRBs for each flight, possibly using better techniques (monolithic carbon fibre overwrapped solid motors, like on Ariane 5/6).
  - erulabs 6y ago
    Oh interesting! Very cool, thanks for the info :)
- retzkek 6y ago
  > s far as I know no solid state boosters were ever re-used (how would that work?) Nitpicking of "reuse" vs "refurbish" aside the SRBs were significantly reused: > The RSRM was designed to make the most use of recoverable hardware. The majority of metal hardware was recycled through ATK’s Clearfield refurbishment plant in Utah and returned to a flight-qualified conditioned. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20120001536 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20120001536 The boosters used for the final mission, STS-135, even included parts from STS-1! https://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/fdf/135srbs.pdf https://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/fdf/135srbs.pdf
- Daho0n 6y ago
  It doesn't really matter much because a look at the actual numbers shows that SpaceX charge more than the cost of launching the exact same payload would have cost using the shuttle. Besides the reusability point is disingenuous when talking cost since SpaceX's cost have actually gone up per (re)launch, not down. So yes, it is more complex than quippy internet back and forth suggests. Here is a video that explains it in decent details if you are interested, but the TL;DR is that SpaceX is more expensive than the shuttle and way more expensive than they said they would be: https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU
ALittleLight 6y ago
The space shuttle was partially reusable.

marcinzm 6y ago

The Space Shuttle was reusable (with massive refurbishing after each flight) but given that'd it cost significantly more than a non-reusable rocket per pound I think the point stands. SpaceX managed to make a financially viable reusable rocket.

thelean12 6y ago
> I think the point stands No it doesn't. The person was trying to say SpaceX > NASA. Many people here are trying to shit on the other side as if they have a real point. They're both doing cool and useful things and they're both really really good at what they do.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I'm not trying to say that SpaceX is better than NASA. I am responding to the point that NASA has done things that SpaceX hasn't (e.g. landing on other celestial bodies) by pointing out that SpaceX has done things NASA hasn't (e.g. SpaceX rockets land and can be reused). I don't think it makes sense to talk about which is better unless there is some specific metric that can be measured so a conclusion could be reached. I am encouraged though that SpaceX has a trajectory that will allow greater access to space. By bringing the cost of space travel down, I expect we will get a lot more of it. NASA (and other governmental space programs) started the initiative, but I think SpaceX is continuing it marvelously.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    I'm not saying SpaceX isn't doing good but the price has gone up per (re)launch, not down as projected, so at the moment of it were possible to buy a trip to space for a few tourists it would be cheaper on a shuttle.
Daho0n 6y ago
They really didn't. SpaceX is not cheaper than the shuttle no matter how many times it gets repeated. That SpaceX fudges the numbers so it is hard to compare doesn't make it true. In reality SpaceX is more expensive than not only the shuttle but also their own projections. Here's a breakdown: https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU
- tristanb 6y ago
  you're wrong. That video is a bunch of crud
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    And I'm sure you believe that US and foreign competitors of SpaceX who says the same thing are just spewing PR, right? It was a random video. The message is not wrong. Being snippy doesn't change facts.
    - shazmosushi 6y ago
      The Thunderf00t video is wrong, see my video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4
- Nekhrimah 6y ago
  > Here's a breakdown: https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU I watched the first 90 seconds of this. On the cost of re-usability of a falcon 9 point, the figures are shown as from Wikipedia. So 1) not a primary source. 2) fails to calculate the percentage correctly between $62m and $50m as "around 10%". It's almost 20% on those figures. 3) and most importantly, those numbers are the cost to the customer, not SpaceX's internal cost. As they have no current competition in rocket re-usability, they are able to recoup the R&D cost for developing this technology. I don't think I'll bother watching the rest of the video.
  - m4rtink 6y ago

erulabs 6y ago

They did, you're not wrong at all, but just to add a little bit of clarity the space shuttle was never as reusable as was hoped - it wound up costing a huge amount of time and money to retrofit the shuttle again before each launch. Reusable and Re-usability are different things :P As far as I know no solid state boosters were ever re-used (how would that work?) - but then again SpaceX doesn't re-use solid state boosters either (because they do not use any)... Things can be more complex and nuanced than quippy internet back and forth suggest. That's not even touching on the ship-of-theseus problem that is many former NASA engineers working at SpaceX these days.

m4rtink 6y ago
The SRB segments vere regularly reused, not sure about the parachutes and the nozzle stearing gear. Still reportedly it was more expensive to reuse the segments (basically big metal tubes) than to build new set if SRBs for each flight, possibly using better techniques (monolithic carbon fibre overwrapped solid motors, like on Ariane 5/6).
- erulabs 6y ago
  Oh interesting! Very cool, thanks for the info :)
retzkek 6y ago
> s far as I know no solid state boosters were ever re-used (how would that work?) Nitpicking of "reuse" vs "refurbish" aside the SRBs were significantly reused: > The RSRM was designed to make the most use of recoverable hardware. The majority of metal hardware was recycled through ATK’s Clearfield refurbishment plant in Utah and returned to a flight-qualified conditioned. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20120001536 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20120001536 The boosters used for the final mission, STS-135, even included parts from STS-1! https://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/fdf/135srbs.pdf https://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/fdf/135srbs.pdf
Daho0n 6y ago
It doesn't really matter much because a look at the actual numbers shows that SpaceX charge more than the cost of launching the exact same payload would have cost using the shuttle. Besides the reusability point is disingenuous when talking cost since SpaceX's cost have actually gone up per (re)launch, not down. So yes, it is more complex than quippy internet back and forth suggests. Here is a video that explains it in decent details if you are interested, but the TL;DR is that SpaceX is more expensive than the shuttle and way more expensive than they said they would be: https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU

ALittleLight 6y ago

The space shuttle was partially reusable.