this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
143 points (87.8% liked)

Technology

58151 readers
4262 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
143
Second SpaceX Starship launch ends with explosion. What happens next? (www.nationalgeographic.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Again, 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.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Russia has drastically lower launch costs than SpaceX. Justify it now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 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.

https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2023/04/20/t-minus-6-seconds-starship-and-humanitys-next-major-step-into-space/

https://marspedia.org/Financial_effort_estimation