Comment on Second SpaceX Starship launch ends with explosion. What happens next?
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 11 months agoAgain, I’m not trying to say these words have a single defined meaning. I’m saying that SpaceX’s reusable rockets are in a different category compared to SRBs. Call those reusable and refurbishable if you like, or call them anything else. I just use the reusable refurbishable terminology because that’s what everyday astronaut uses.
Do you know the turn around time on an srb? I couldn’t find it in your doc or in the wiki.
drdabbles@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The only difference is propulsive landing. You’re obviously attempting to backpedal here, and it’s not working. SpaceX also refurbishes their units, you’re just bullshitting at this point. It’s painfully transparent.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
NASA stopped refurbishing their SRBs because it costs more to do so. SpaceX is able to drastically lower it’s launch costs because of the immense savings they can realize by a quick turnaround for reuse. That’s the difference.
drdabbles@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Russia has drastically lower launch costs than SpaceX. Justify it now.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Mind giving your source? I found 2.5k/kg for falcon 9 vs 5k/kg for soyuz. The shtil is as far as I can tell military surplus and is now retired, so it’s costs aren’t really reflective of long term usage.
georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/…/t-minus-6-s…
marspedia.org/Financial_effort_estimation