View Single Post
  #19  
Old October 27th 17, 02:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-10-25 07:13, Jeff Findley wrote:

On top of that, both SpaceX and Blue Origin are pursuing reusability
with a tenacity never before seen in the industry (space shuttle SRBs
and orbiters were refurbished after flight over many months, so they
don't really count). That will be the next step towards even cheaper
access to space.


In fairness, SpaceX is likely at the same stage now that NASA was when
it had flown a Suttle orbiter 2 or 3 times. Doing costly turn-around
examinations in order to gauge how much work will really be needed in
the future.

Until it has reflown enough stages, AND SpaceX releases some number of
the work/costs involved in turning stages around "in production", nobody
outside of SpaceX know how cost effective turning stages around is.


SpaceX doesn't need to release anything. You can look at what they
charge customers for expending a stage vs allowing it to be recovered
and what discount they offer for using a 'used' stage to get some idea
of the costs.


It may very well be a no brainer either way (eg: 50% cheaper than new
stages or 75% cheaper than new stages ) So the question becomes how MUCH
will SpaceX revolutionlize launch industry, not whether it will or not.


Look at the manufacturing cost for a new stage, which we can estimate
from what they charge for a launch. Even if you have to do a complete
tear down it's going to be cheaper to reuse than to buy new. This was
even true for the Space Shuttle (look at what a new Shuttle Orbiter
cost).


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn