Hussar_Regimeny t1_isr64zf wrote on October 18, 2022 at 2:21 AM

Reply to comment by NotAnotherNekopan in NASA outlines case for making sole-source SLS award to Boeing-Northrop joint venture by jeffsmith202

>Hardly reusable

My guy what was the orbitor then. Also the SRBs could be reused although due to how cheap they were it was easier to just build new ones.

WiscoAstro t1_isr9eui wrote on October 18, 2022 at 2:48 AM

The shuttle had to undergo a heavy refurbishment every launch, the tank and SRBs were expendable, even if they claimed the SRBs were to be reused. It was promised to be much more reusable than what we got in reality

NotAnotherNekopan t1_isrbdyb wrote on October 18, 2022 at 3:04 AM

Exactly. And for what was reused, the cost associated with refurbishing it was far higher than anticipated.

TheGoldenHand t1_isru0r0 wrote on October 18, 2022 at 6:18 AM

> the SRBs could be reused although due to how cheap they were it was easier to just build new ones.

There is no official accounting or source from NASA about the SRBs complete costs, which are very difficult to quantify because of the large nature of the program. NASA said they were potentially cheaper because of the frequency of launches (which was never substantiated). No group has ever released a source or study accurately accounting for all costs.

What we do know, is dumping metal into a salty ocean damages them almost instantly. There is a reason SpaceX lands their engines on dry platforms.

ReasonablyBadass t1_iss72s6 wrote on October 18, 2022 at 9:29 AM

That thing had to have it's tiles reglued by hand after every launch. it was a failure.