SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
More quickly than anyone expected, NASA embraces reuse for human flights:
Weather permitting, SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft will splash down in the Gulf of Mexico on Sunday. Forecasters are closely watching conditions due to Hurricane Isaias but are hopeful the mission will find calm seas and light winds offshore from the Florida Panhandle.
[...] Although the company's next human spaceflight, Crew-1, will launch no earlier than late September on a new Falcon 9 rocket and Crew Dragon spacecraft, that will not be the case for the subsequent mission. This Crew-2 flight, due to launch no earlier than spring 2021, will reuse the Falcon 9 first stage from the Crew-1 mission, and the Dragon capsule is expected to splash down this weekend.
[...] The reuse of rockets and spacecraft always seemed like it would be part of SpaceX and NASA's extended plans for human spaceflights, but few anticipated it happening so quickly. NASA's original commercial crew contract with SpaceX called for the first six operational missions to each use new Dragons.
However, a contract modification signed in May allowed SpaceX to introduce reuse much more quickly. In exchange for extending the Demo-2 test flight—carrying NASA astronauts Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken—from two weeks to up to 119 days, SpaceX got permission to reuse spacecraft instead of building new ones. This extension allowed Behnken to participate in four spacewalks in recent weeks, swapping out battery packs on the exterior of the orbiting laboratory.
The move toward reuse was supported by NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "From my perspective, what we're really looking for in all of our missions is sustainability," he said.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @05:14AM (17 children)
Space shuttles were reused, and that's more than 30 years ago.
Dumb fuck millenials with their mayfly attention span.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 02 2020, @05:26AM (8 children)
I remember the shuttles well. But, were the rockets reused? I don't think so, and I'm too lazy to look. IIRC, only the shuttles were ever reused.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Sunday August 02 2020, @05:44AM (3 children)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/04/18/5-horrifying-facts-you-didnt-know-about-the-space-shuttle/ [forbes.com]
only the actual shuttle itself.. and even then they had to replace rockets fairly often - they were even designed to be able to be replaced on the pad [wikipedia.org]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @06:12AM (2 children)
If we were able to reuse the shuttles, you know, the unit that actually house the human cargo, as opposed to the throw-away booster rockets, and that was three decades ago, how is this "news" significant?
Why would NASA oppose economical reuse of booster rockets?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 02 2020, @06:33AM
Because the Congress would never have approved a research program for reusable boosters? After all, anything reusable would have reduced the amount of pork to barrel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 02 2020, @03:26PM
Easy answer, off the top of my head:
Rockets are all full of fire. With the metallurgy available, rockets tended to wear out in use. No one wanted to trust an engine, let alone the entire booster, after it had been fired, then allowed to fall willy-nilly into the ocean.
SpaceX explained that they don't much like recovering a booster from the water, because it requires a lot more work to get it ready for another launch.
Technology is awesome - things we only dreamed of fifty years ago, are possible today. Things that we can only dream about today, may well be possible in the year 2100. Hang around, and see what happens!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @07:06AM (1 child)
Too lazy to think, too lazy to look. Just too lazy to be educated! Ignorance is bliss, says the Runaway1965! While not understanding why no one agrees with him, or likes him. Just Runaway and the Donald are left now. So sad, too bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @02:19PM
Oh if you like that move, you'll love the one khallow(?) uses. Ask a series of questions with zero effort put in to answer them yourself. E.g. the moon landing, was it fake? Where were the technicians? Who were they working for? Why did nobody investigate Hollywood's influence? Round and round you go.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @05:53PM
If by "rockets" you mean the Solid Rocket Boosters (the white rockets attached to the sides), then yes, those were recovered and reused. Only the External Tank (large orange section) was disposable.
(Score: 2, Informative) by ncc74656 on Wednesday August 05 2020, @07:13PM
SRBs were recovered, refurbished, and reused. Only the external fuel tanks weren't reused, possibly because they were jettisoned from a much higher altitude and had stored cryogenic fuel (liquid hydrogen) and oxidizer (liquid oxygen).
(Score: 4, Informative) by esperto123 on Sunday August 02 2020, @12:34PM (2 children)
You do have a point, shuttles were reusable as were the SRBs, they basically only got rid of the external fuel tank, but they required extensive overhaul after every flight and were a far cry from the quick turn around promised.
In spaceX's case at the beginning of Dragon's development NASA was very afraid of using its reusable rockets for manned missions and said this wouldn't happen anytime soon and now are saying they will be using for the third mission, which is very soon and the rocket can basically land and be ready to fly again in a matter of days...
To be fair to NASA's change of heart, dragon was supposed to have its first manned flight quite a long time ago and at the beginning of development Falcon9 re-usability was new and unproven, now with, if I recall correctly, almost 60 launches without major issues, I think it is comfortable for them to starting using it.
(Score: 2) by esperto123 on Sunday August 02 2020, @12:36PM (1 child)
I think I made a mistake, they will be re-using the capsule, not the rocket.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday August 02 2020, @01:12PM
It looks like they will also reuse the rocket (booster) on the third crewed mission (Crew-2 [wikipedia.org]). Source [teslarati.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday August 02 2020, @12:49PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @06:59PM
This is 40 years later, they had better be able to improve on the efficiency that was possible at the time. Especially given that the plans for the original shuttles are now 50 years old.
(Score: 2) by Revek on Sunday August 02 2020, @03:58PM
Shuttles were terribly expensive to operate and service. Not the best example of reusable but it was the first attempt at it and it can be said much was learned from the mistakes made with the program.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday August 03 2020, @02:24PM
Astronauts were reused, too.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday August 03 2020, @06:45PM
Please See: Pyrrhic victory [wikipedia.org]
A victory, but at what cost?
In the end, after all said and done, several billion per launch?
I remember in 1986 after the first shuttle disaster, when Regan authorized spending $3 Billion to build a replacement shuttle vehicles.
Space X charges $61 Million for a Falcon 9 launch and about $92 ish million for Falcon Heavy. Probably more if you want optional extras. As long as you're not in a state that requires SpaceX to sell rockets through dealerships. Now F9 and FH are not the Shuttle. And Shuttle had a lot of capability. But the point is that cheap it was not.
As long as you can get them to clean their room in the basement.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.