Re: MSNBC (Oberg) - Deadly space lessons go unheeded

From: baDBob (pagerw_at_bellnorth.net)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:57:35 -0500

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:03:33 +0100, Andrew Nowicki <andrew@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>
>> They are not suitable for launching payloads
>> into orbit because they are not reusable.
>
>George William Herbert wrote:
>
>> They are not optimal for launching payloads
>> into orbit because of their high cost.
>> Cost and reliability are the only criteria
>> that matter.
>
>Can you imagine a reusable first stage?
>Something like the space shuttle booster
>except that it would burn liquid propellant.
>No turbopump. Sturdy tanks. Regenerative
>cooling. Parachutes and splashdown.
>You can call it big dumb booster.
>How much damage can it suffer during
>reentry and splashdown? Can it be 100%
>reusable? I mean as reusable as an
>automobile, which, by the way, has more
>moving parts.

Let's see you dunk your automobile in the ocean after every drive.
Won't last long.

Relevant Pages