• BestBouclettes
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    23 flights for a single rocket booster is absolutely mad. 30 years ago you’d have been called a madman for even suggesting it.

    • Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The space shuttle orbiters, engines and solid boosters have similar numbers, and similarly high maintenance costs. Very much a ship of Theseus question.

      • BestBouclettes
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The space shuttles were different vehicles altogether, they needed three disposable parts to get to space. The SRB and the main tank were discarded after each use, they needed to be built from scratch every time.
        It’s not comparable to what Falcon can do, which is drop a payload in space, come back and fly again after a quick routine check and a refuel.

        I love the space shuttle but it was a very different vehicle.

        • Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          The srbs were recovered and reused. It was utterly ridiculous.

          And the most expensive and complicated bits of the rocket, the SMEs and the Orbiter itself, were reused.

          The only bit not reused was the main tank which was relatively simple in comparison to the other components

          • BestBouclettes
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Oh yeah you’re right, I read that a few years ago and didn’t question it as it made sense given the cost of each shuttle launch. Thanks for the info!