View Single Post
  #28  
Old October 27th 17, 11:52 PM 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 2017-10-27 06:27, Jeff Findley wrote:

Again, SpaceX has publicly stated the first reuse of a first stage cost
less than half the cost of building a new one.


Is that PR speak or "auditor" speak? The first reflown stage was not
the first landed stage. Say the first reflown stage uses some engines
that were refurbished from other recovered stages, and their reburb
costs billed to "R&D". Not saying this is what happened, but just one
way to skew numbers for good PR.


You try far too hard to muddy things up. Must they provide you with
an inventory of every ****ing nut, bolt, and rivet to assure you
they're all the same booster?

Customers are already choosing to fly on refurbished first stages
because it gets their payloads in orbit faster


But lets wait until SpaceX actually delivers on a launch rate. Not
doubting it will, but the sample size right now is too low to allow
conclusions.


What are you jabbering about now?

SpaceX has done proof of concept. It appears extrememy promising. But it
hasn't yet proven it will deliver that launch rate.

Just because SpaceX has very good image that gives people confidence it
will deliver doesn't provide proof that it will deliver.

We are still talking about ODDs that SpaceX will deliver being very
high. So if you were betting, you'd bet SpaceX will deliver. But we're
still talking about odds because this is too new to have empirical evidence.


Then you will NEVER have 'empirical evidence' that you will expect
because they could launch 100 in a row successfully and then have 20
in a row fail. It's always 'odds', you nitwit. Life is a bet at long
odds.


--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush