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

Technology

58303 readers
14 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeeeah, so, you didn't read your own link I guess? Because it says, on a Tesla simp blog, that it was a refurbishment. Not an inspection.

Here's a nice write-up from NASA on what the SRB refurb process was. Feel free to read it.

https://llis.nasa.gov/lesson/836

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year 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