Thread: SpaceX pricing
View Single Post
  #24  
Old February 21st 18, 08:02 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default SpaceX pricing

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2018-02-20 06:34, Jeff Findley wrote:

The shuttle was a magnificent machine, but it was expensive as hell and
held NASA back with its high fixed costs.


Considering how SpaceX is revolutionizing pricing by orders of magnitude
because it can re-use stages,


You left out a word. CHEAPLY.


it boggles the mind that the Shuttle
couldn't be competitive.


Not really. The sheer volume of work required to 'reuse' a Shuttle
killed it. That volume of work required a large 'standing army', all
of whom had to be paid (whether you were flying or not).


From a cheap turn-around point of view, where did the shuttle lose? Was
it the cost of turning around SRBs ? new ET for every flights ?
Hypergolics in the orbiter? tiles ? or the SSMEs ?

(if answer is "all" which were substantial?


All but "hypergolics in the orbiter". They didn't reuse SRBs. They
reused CASINGS, which was actually more expensive (2x or more) than if
they had just thrown them away. The tanks ran around $75 million
each, so an external tank cost as much as a Falcon 9. The tiles were
prone to damage and had to be inspected and repaired after every use
(standing army). The SSMEs (part of the orbiter) essentially required
a complete rebuild early in the program (more standing army). That
got somewhat better later in the program, but they were always high
strung engines that pushed performance.


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