3 ms·
Using a large number of existing flight tested components and construction techniques that have been in production since the 70's. And with a cost and construct
by stetrain 3y ago
Using a large number of existing flight tested components and construction techniques that have been in production since the 70's. And with a cost and construction time that limits it to around 1 launch per year going forward at $4b per launch, optimistically.
SLS can theoretically launch 100T to LEO. Starship can theoretically launch 150T reusable, 250T expendable. Construction rate is already on the order of around one per month, although obviously they are working out issues with the launch infrastructure to actually be able to make that many launch attempts.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoIrrelevant. My point was that you can essentially prove the design is sound before you even build the thing. Rapid failure/iteration is not the only way to build rockets.
- avmich 3y ago"Can" doesn't mean you "should", and for such a price it's a doubtful proposition.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago>My point was that you can essentially prove the design is sound before you even build the thing That depends on your design and if you need experimentally derived inputs
- throwaway4aday 3y agoNot if you're using new engines, new fuel systems, new heat shielding, new materials for the body, and making both the booster and second stage fully reusable by landing them with the help of a never before tried system that catches them before they touch the ground.
- stetrain 3y agoNASA has blown up a lot of RS-25s over decades in testing to get to that point. And a couple of Shuttles. When half your components have decades of reliability under their belt of course it’s easier to have a successful first launch. If your development methodology results in a product that is unsustainable to launch due to costs and scalability, that absolutely seems relevant to whether that methodology was successful.