This post is related to the NextBigFuture recent post. One of the comments there raised the question of the value of reusable rockets since the rocket engines themselves may be subject to excessive wear, and therefore would have a shorter lifespan than what is anticipated. A good point, as mentioned in this quote below:
SpaceX also has plans to recover and reuse the second stage rocket, but for now, it will recover only the first stage and its nine Merlin engines, which make up the bulk of the cost of the rocket.--- Michael Belfiore
I think this concern may be overstated, as the NERVA program demonstrated a longer equipment lifespan than what would be necessary to make reusability work economically. The NERVA program demonstrated an endurance of some 600 minutes and 60 cycles. If that could be done with nuclear thermal engines, I have a hunch that it can also be done with conventional chemical engines. Additional reading throws a little cold water on it, but still, if only one reuse can be achieved, it would half the most expensive part of a flight.
By itself, that's not revolutionary, but it does enable significantly cheaper operations thus giving an opportunity to achieve more launches which would develop the technology even further.
No comments:
Post a Comment