3 ms·
Part of the Shuttle's reusability problems stemmed from Congress (and other decision-makers) forcing NASA to use facilities in ~40-50 different states and multi
by cryptoz 12y ago
Part of the Shuttle's reusability problems stemmed from Congress (and other decision-makers) forcing NASA to use facilities in ~40-50 different states and multiple subcontractors. And, full & rapid reusability was never in the Shuttle plans. They aimed for moderate reusability and then failed spectacularly at that. SpaceX is much more centralized and much more efficient.
There are certainly comparisons to me made, and lessons to be learned, but I think that SpaceX has already met/surpassed all levels of success that NASA achieved in reusability, the only caveat being that they haven't technically done it in a production environment yet.
- nickff 12y agoWe should put less focus on reusability, and pay more attention to labor (inspection and repair time) per launch. If you compare SpaceX and NASA under this paradigm, or by looking at launch cost per unit of mass, SpaceX has long since surpassed all other launch providers. The shuttle had a number of issues, including design issues due to DoD requirements, engine pressure issues due to internal NASA priorities, and budget trade-offs due to Congressional directives. The most important lesson to take away from the shuttle is that returning the most costly components to earth does not necessarily translate into cost savings.
- nicholasdrake 12y ago'What percentage of a launch vehicle (rocket to space) do you think is the cost of labour? It's about 80-90%! It's labour!' Peter Diamandis, X-Prize
- avmich 12y agoHere is an example of how inspection could be done by professionals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dWCI4S4fGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dWCI4S4fGg