Author Topic: Reusability effect on costs  (Read 140257 times)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2777
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #780 on: 11/13/2017 08:09 PM »
You said "reflown boosters should be more reliable but that hasn't happened yet".

Yet it is the reusable part that hasn't caused loss of mission, while the expendable part has, twice.  Whatever the true reliability of reuse is, it's performing better than expendable right now.
Which should come as no surprise.

The Shuttle never failed in the orbiter. The failures in the mfg and/or design of the expendable parts destroyed them, the second failure being due to the "minor" redesign of the ET's spray on foam insulation being (in fact) not so minor.  :(

The question is at what point does a semi reusable design become stable enough that the benefits of reuse in terms of reliability start to show themselves? Empirically the answer is "not yet."

The Shuttle never had a LOM failure in the orbiter, but parts of the orbiter failed rather frequently. Some of them came pretty close to causing LOM.
« Last Edit: 11/13/2017 08:10 PM by envy887 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6192
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 830
  • Likes Given: 5169
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #781 on: 11/14/2017 02:19 PM »

The Shuttle never had a LOM failure in the orbiter, but parts of the orbiter failed rather frequently. Some of them came pretty close to causing LOM.
I hate to sound callus but close does not count. The vehicle completed its mission and the part was either repaired or replaced, which is what you'd expect to be able to do on a reusable vehicle.

Of course if that did happen often enough you'd expect either the part to be redesigned or replaced with a different system, but I don't think that was done often.  As others have noted had all the lessons learned flying Shuttle been incorporated in a new vehicle "OV201" would have been very impressive.

WRT to this thread of course the question is "was Shuttle cheaper?", and I think the consensus was not only "no," but by quite a long margin, and for multiple systemic reasons.  :(
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4500
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3052
  • Likes Given: 1019
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #782 on: 11/16/2017 08:06 AM »
Quote
[Karim Michel] Sabbagh [SES]: have seen launch costs for a 3.5-ton satellite go from more than $100M to closer to $60M now, and expect to drop to half that. #NewSpaceEurope

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/931079161573146625

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4500
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3052
  • Likes Given: 1019
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #783 on: 11/27/2017 10:55 PM »
Quote
EU governments’ indecision on SpaceX challenge seen as threat to Ariane system’s survival
by Peter B. de Selding | Nov 27, 2017

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/eu-governments-indecision-spacex-challenge-seen-threat-ariane-systems-survival/

Article includes:

Quote
United Launch Alliance thinks SpaceX’s reuse of the Falcon 9 first stage makes no economic sense unless each stage is used at least 10 times. Germany’s DLR disagrees, and says SpaceX’s new launch cadence puts it within reach of making reusability pay. [Attached slide Credit: ULA]

DLR’s analysis suggesting 20 - 25 flights per year are enough for significant savings.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 252
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #784 on: 11/27/2017 11:38 PM »
DLR’s analysis suggesting 20 - 25 flights per year are enough for significant savings.

To be clear, the image is ULA's well-discussed Dr. Sowers analysis, not DLR's.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2017 11:39 PM by RedLineTrain »

Tags: