|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-10-30 18:01, Fred J. McCall wrote: Over 20% of all boosters flown this year were 're-used boosters'. That's a pretty high flight rate for the first year of the capability being production. 3 first flights, which likely got a lot more tender loving care than would normally happen in production when your refurb procedures are established and becomes routine. Once it's commercial production it *IS* 'routine' by definition. They've proven it can be done. They haven't proven they can launch 15 times per year with reflown stages. Of course they have. When I argued that had not yet proven with high reflight rate, one of the cheerleaders reponded that they had done 15 flights this year and that was proof of high rates. But only 3 of those are reflight. You didn't argue that. You've been corrected on this numerous times by several people. Now you're not only mentally challenged, you're an outright liar. and will also probably refly only once. Block 5 hardware is the final design and will refly 10 times with only inspections and up to 100 times with refurbishment. Perfect example of cheerleading. Has any Block 5 flown yet ? has any been reflown? How many times has a block 5 been reflown? Gee, I'm sorry you consider THE FACTS to be cheerleading. Run along back to your delusions, Mayfly. So you make assertions the same way people predicted the Shuttle would turn around quickly and make dozens and dozens of flights per years. And you're a lying sack of **** with substandard communication skills and large mental challenges. You are using goals and turning them into accomplished deeds when none of those have actually happened yet. Just because peoople have high confidence in SpaceX achieving a large part of their goals doesn't mean they have already achieved them. And that is my argument. They've already demonstrated that they can refly BLOCK 3 hardware with sufficiently short turn around times and low enough costs so that they could conduct the bulk of a year's launches on used hardware. Your 'argument' is conflating multiple things and that's why your argument is moronic. -- "You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear." -- Mark Twain |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Are rotating stations realistic ? | John Doe | Space Station | 2 | May 19th 10 10:15 AM |
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA" | gaetanomarano | Policy | 19 | November 27th 07 05:59 AM |
shuttle, tank and boosters on its crawler | Rich | Space Shuttle | 37 | September 11th 06 09:09 AM |
Shuttle Liquid Fly-Back Booster to save money, improve safety(flashback) | Bob Wilson | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 16th 06 02:12 AM |
Space Shuttle Boosters and Launch Pad Revell Model Kit on eBay | TB | Space Shuttle | 2 | February 1st 05 07:00 AM |