A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #36  
Old October 31st 17, 04:39 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 2017-10-30 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.