The "reusable" space shuttle boosters cost more to recover and refurbish than manufacturing new ones did. It just played better in Peoria to see them being towed back from the Indian Ocean and "reused," regardless of reality.
The economics of reuse is debatable all up and down the scale, from plastic grocery bags vs reusable totes all the way up through rocket engines.
Personally, I think the automotive industry has been selling bad tech for 40 years making new automobiles more and more disposable - straight economics would seem to point toward refurbishment as better for the environment AND the owners' pocketbooks.
However, if the SSMEs were ground-up redesigned to be single use instead of multiple use, they could likely save a significant sounding amount per engine - but the engineering hours and validation testing required to do that for a manned mission rated engine probably cost more than the differential cost of hundreds, maybe thousands of engines - not to mention the program schedule impacts.
SpaceX (hopefully, eventually) will launch a manned mission using reusable engines -- but new, not reused, on the manned launch.
I tend to believe that SpaceX has shown or is close to showing the economics of re-use. The cheap launch prices. But then, we really don't know if they are making money.
-- People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
But then, we really don't know if they are making money.
EBIDTA is, AFAIK, positive for those guys, but EBIDTA + "extravagant Research and Development expenses" is always negative for those guys, and the financial markets just keep tossing money at them, so they'll keep doing it.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday June 07 2019, @12:44AM (7 children)
I predict it will fly once if it blows up, thrice if it doesn't.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday June 07 2019, @01:55PM (6 children)
We'll get our money's worth. Especially since the SLS uses an expensive reusable space shuttle derived engine, and puts it on an expendable launcher.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 10 2019, @06:21PM (5 children)
The "reusable" space shuttle boosters cost more to recover and refurbish than manufacturing new ones did. It just played better in Peoria to see them being towed back from the Indian Ocean and "reused," regardless of reality.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday June 10 2019, @06:31PM (4 children)
I meant the SSMEs not SRBs.
Nevertheless, you definitely make a good point.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 10 2019, @08:06PM (3 children)
The economics of reuse is debatable all up and down the scale, from plastic grocery bags vs reusable totes all the way up through rocket engines.
Personally, I think the automotive industry has been selling bad tech for 40 years making new automobiles more and more disposable - straight economics would seem to point toward refurbishment as better for the environment AND the owners' pocketbooks.
However, if the SSMEs were ground-up redesigned to be single use instead of multiple use, they could likely save a significant sounding amount per engine - but the engineering hours and validation testing required to do that for a manned mission rated engine probably cost more than the differential cost of hundreds, maybe thousands of engines - not to mention the program schedule impacts.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday June 10 2019, @09:08PM (2 children)
SpaceX (hopefully, eventually) will launch a manned mission using reusable engines -- but new, not reused, on the manned launch.
I tend to believe that SpaceX has shown or is close to showing the economics of re-use. The cheap launch prices. But then, we really don't know if they are making money.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday July 02 2019, @03:45PM (1 child)
EBIDTA is, AFAIK, positive for those guys, but EBIDTA + "extravagant Research and Development expenses" is always negative for those guys, and the financial markets just keep tossing money at them, so they'll keep doing it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday July 02 2019, @04:35PM
They must think it a worthwhile investment.
Maybe a new accounting abbreviation for the extravagant research should be created.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.