3 ms·
Hmm, you're aware that the space shuttle was "reusable" though, right? Because in this context, your question would squarly land around the time before STS-1 w
by ffsm8 1y ago
Hmm, you're aware that the space shuttle was "reusable" though, right?
Because in this context, your question would squarly land around the time before STS-1 was launched in '81
For this to be about space x, you'd have to add some qualifiers - like "privately owned"
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> you're aware that the space shuttle was "reusable" though, right? Shuttle was reüsable on paper. It couldn’t unlock high-cadence launch because it was not built on an assembly line and had long, manual and error-prone refurbishment requirements. Put practically, one couldn’t build a LEO constellation like Starlink or aim for in-orbit refuelling with the Shuttle. One can do the former with Falcon 9. One can attempt the latter with Starship.
- ffsm8 1y agoI don't disagree, after all, the shuttles booster was(at least to my knowledge) more expensive them the reusable shuttle, but that's once again a qualifier to the statement that - without that qualifier, does continue to point to the shuttle.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> without that qualifier, does continue to point to the shuttle The qualifier is only semantically meaningful. The engineering benefits one gets from reusability--low costs and high cadence--weren't there for the Space Shuttle.
- philipallstar 1y agoThe shuttle's rockets were not reusable.
- nycdotnet 1y agoThe shuttle’s solid rocket boosters splashed down in the ocean via parachute, and were recovered and reused. The main engines and thrusters/rcs were also reused. Only the external tank was disposed. The issue with the shuttle (among many) was that the reuse was not actually economical due to the maintenance required between each launch.
- philipallstar 1y ago> the reuse was not actually economical Well - yes :) That is what reusable actually means. Anything's "reusable" if you spend enough money. The idea is it's worth doing.