3 ms·
I know the RS-25 engines[0] (aka SSME, Space Shuttle Main Engine) were "reusable" in an academic sense (needing a ton of refurbishment after each use) but it hu
by EvanAnderson 6mo ago
I know the RS-25 engines[0] (aka SSME, Space Shuttle Main Engine) were "reusable" in an academic sense (needing a ton of refurbishment after each use) but it hurts my heart that we're dropping them in the ocean and it makes it hard for me to feel good about the Artemis program. It's irrational but it makes the kid who loved the Space Shuttle (which, itself, was a political pork barrel and a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none kind of program) sad.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25
- philistine 6mo agoYou and me both. They don’t even put a parachute on the boosters to get them back. Some pieces on these boosters have been in use since the 80s.
- NetMageSCW 6mo agoAnd all of that reuse was so expensive that it set back reusable rocketry for decades as the common wisdom said it was uneconomical - even after it was demonstrated that you could have reuse without expensive refurbishment.
- magicalhippo 6mo agoI'm reminded of Ian over at Forgotten Weapons which has presented several rifles which were converted from the old thing to the new thing, say bolt action to semiautomatic. Each time the government looked at existing stock, thought "hmm surely we can save money by refurbishing these old firearms". And just about each time they at best ended up with a subpar weapon that cost as much as a brand new model designed from scratch. And often something which cost way more... The idea looks better on paper than it usually is.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> it hurts my heart that we're dropping them in the ocean They are functionally obsolete. Chances that we’re still using SLS in ten years is slim. Any resources going towards refurbishment are better spent on Starship and Blue Moon.