Re: Does NASA save money reusing SRB's?
- From: Russell Wallace <russell.no.spam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:02:14 +0100
Rand Simberg wrote:
There is no simple answer to that question. It depends largely on the flight rate. Few if any existing launch systems currently have a high enough flight rate to justify reusability.
You seem to be implying that high flight rate favors reuse of strap-on solid boosters; I'm curious as to your reason for this? Usually the main reason for economy of scale comes from the fact that you can use more automation and still cover your fixed costs; and I would have thought the activity of rolling new boosters off a production line, was a lot more amenable to automation than the activity of fishing used boosters out of the sea, shipping them back to the factory, disassembling, cleaning and inspecting etc?
-- "Always look on the bright side of life." To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name. .
- References:
- Does NASA save money reusing SRB's?
- From: The Apprentice
- Re: Does NASA save money reusing SRB's?
- From: Scott Lowther
- Re: Does NASA save money reusing SRB's?
- From: The Apprentice
- Re: Does NASA save money reusing SRB's?
- From: Rand Simberg
- Does NASA save money reusing SRB's?
- Prev by Date: Re: Constellation architectures
- Next by Date: Re: A lunar rover
- Previous by thread: Re: Does NASA save money reusing SRB's?
- Next by thread: Re: Does NASA save money reusing SRB's?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|