That’s because the shuttle was the first attempt at reusability, was always intended to be an interim solution, and we haven’t even attempted to move beyond it yet, except for the construction of the ISS, which is reusable.

If I am wrong I would love to hear it.

You’re wrong. The ISS is ample demonstration of that. Now all we need is a way to get there. Since clearly every upper stage will get to the ISS intact, that defines the upper stage reusability, since wherever you go, there you are. So full reusability hinges on recovering the boosters, whether they be SSTO or side mounted or core hydrocarbon boosters. Therefore reusability involves either recovering or reusing side mounted or core boosters, or, here is the nub of the logic, giving the core booster SSTO capabilities.

The SSME clearly is capable of the latter. Jeez, it’s almost like you guys don’t WANT to go to space. You’re wimps, not rocket men, trust me.

for instance.

had the engines been anywhere near designed for re usability they would have been ”FIRED” to whatever number of cycles they were expected to be reusable to, verified that this number works and then in ops that is the level of “care” that they would get…ie they wouldnt be demounted every flight…(which I assume still happens).

I am not aware of a single major component in the shuttle (including the shuttle avionics which come from commercial background) that are treated that way. If I am wrong I would love to hear it.

Indeed NASA doesnt have a clue what constitutes reusability.

Robert G. Oler

Which is why I clearly pointed out that we are already engaged in a slow steady incremental path to reusability, where the shuttle has already played a important part in that development, and I have clearly outlined how that endeavor can continue to proceed in an affordable and sustainable manner.

Nobody is rushing anywhere in space. Jeez. I thought you knew that? I’m pretty sure the Augustine Committee settled that analytically as well. Not that is should have been necessary after another four full years and ten bullion dollars, after the first three years after the Columbia disaster.

I just gotta wonder why the rubes just don’t get the big picture yet. I can understand why the cost plus industry is disseminating the propaganda, but I just can’t understand why space creationists still drink the koolaide, after clear methodological and analytical techniques have been applied.

I dont see the point of using any shuttle derived hardware…even the motors nor do I really see a point in rushing toward re usability. REusability implies a maturity that comes with a lot of operational experience, in WWII for instance most “motors” of warfighting airplanes were “nearly” expendable…

The shuttle is not in any of its components reusable. It is serviceable. Reusable is a Boeing 737 landing at Hobby, having fuel and other consumables put into it and then taking off again in 30 minutes.

The engines on a Boeing are reusable. The SSME is serviceable…and since I know that it would be cheaper to just toss the solids then to recover them…I bet the same is accurate of the SSME or at least close to it. Particularly after they splash down in salt water.

From everything I have seen or read of SpaceX the “rush to reusability” is more on paper then anything else. They have done some systems work, and flown some hardware…but I would bet money that in their rockets we are 5years or more toward him reflying a engine.

As for assembling things in orbit…ISS has certainly not been incremental and that knowledge will I suspect be a big part of the advance into the future of assembling larger and larger platforms.

One final thing (and we can pick this up in another thread if you want)…I dont think that the debris problem is mostly upper stages. It is their payloads and the “junk” associated with those payloads (unless the stage explodes and that has mostly been taken care of). the upper stage boosters are large, make nice radar targets and are “mostly” worked into disposal orbits.

I just dont see the need to do anything with the remaining SSME’s but put them in museums.

As for reasoning…..it is all in the eye of the beholder isnt it? Some people think that the last 8-10 years were well thought out…I never did.

happy Sunday.

Robert G. Oler

There aren’t. There are a dozen, possibly mid to high teens if you scraped.

If the Jupiter thing

Who said anything about that ‘Jupiter’ thing? The Direct guys bragged about tossing existing SSMEs away, even with a core carried all the way to orbit, which the SSMEs can easily do, especially with large segmented SRB help.

“incremental reusability”…ok how do we do that?

We already do it, we recover and refurbish the SRBs and SSMEs. Elon Musk already intends to recover his hydrocarbon booster cores and engines, and ultimately his upper stages. Since we have created an almost intractable orbital debris problems with disposable upper stages and their payloads, wouldn’t it seem reasonable to immediately reverse that behavior, since the cost or remediating near earth orbit of its debris could cost … trillions?

Ditto global warming, asteroid impacts, any number of catastrophes, nearly all of them human induced, if only by their neglect.

but the instant one starts the recovery process the cost go up very very fast….

Relative to say, a new engine development program?

Look I dont really see the need for a heavy lifter.

Who said anything about a heavy lifter? SSMEs are lightweights, compared to say, Russian hydrocarbon engines. Hydrocarbon engines are lightweights as well, as opposed to say, large segmented solid rocket boosters.

ISS taught nothing if it didnt teach how to assemble things on orbit and I think we should make use of that knowledge

You mean like the incremental advance of extending our knowledge of assembling things in orbit, to disassembling things in orbit, and shipping them back to Earth? Time hasn’t sharpened your reasoning abilities at all, Robert.

if the Jupiter thing needs three per flight…thats seven and then the show is up or we have to build more.

“incremental reusability”…ok how do we do that? I know that at one point many years ago they had done some work with an SSME or some substitute in the water off the Gulf…but the instant one starts the recovery process the cost go up very very fast….

Look I dont really see the need for a heavy lifter. To me it is a vehicle looking for a mission. ISS taught nothing if it didnt teach how to assemble things on orbit and I think we should make use of that knowledge

Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler