4 ms·

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 amo

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
- shazmosushi 6y ago
  Because you've posted a link containing a lot of misinformation multiple times in this thread, I am posting this video correcting the misinformation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4

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

shazmosushi 6y ago
Because you've posted a link containing a lot of misinformation multiple times in this thread, I am posting this video correcting the misinformation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4