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.
-- When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
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 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.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(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.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(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.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.