Timeline for Documented economics of STS Solid Rocket Booster reuse?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2019 at 0:56 | comment | added | Organic Marble | To be clear: I am looking for a reference that includes "actual studies or analysis on the economics of Shuttle SRB re-use" and "documentation to support the claim that it would it have been cheaper / essentially the same cost to build new boosters for each Shuttle flight". Not a throwaway line in an quora answer by an ISS instructor. | |
| Sep 3, 2019 at 0:02 | history | edited | Prashanth Chandrasekar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 136 characters in body
|
| Sep 2, 2019 at 23:59 | comment | added | Prashanth Chandrasekar | Fair on the reference. Here's an article that quotes a NASA official on the same: www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/01/05/why-doesnt-nasa-develop-reusable-rockets/amp/ | |
| Sep 2, 2019 at 23:14 | comment | added | Organic Marble | I'm afraid your conclusion is unsupported by your reference. Since a reference to prove one way or another about the value of SRB reuse is precisely what I am looking for, I must conclude that this does not answer my question. If I missed something in the reference, please point it out. | |
| Sep 2, 2019 at 19:47 | comment | added | Organic Marble | Can you refer me to where it says that in your reference? | |
| Sep 2, 2019 at 19:35 | history | edited | Prashanth Chandrasekar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 139 characters in body
|
| Sep 2, 2019 at 19:34 | comment | added | Prashanth Chandrasekar | Less expensive to reuse SRBs for the space shuttle (due to the frequency) since the space shuttle had a high frequency of trips. | |
| Sep 2, 2019 at 18:53 | comment | added | Organic Marble | So, was it cheaper or more expensive to re-use the SRBs? | |
| Sep 2, 2019 at 17:49 | history | answered | Prashanth Chandrasekar | CC BY-SA 4.0 |