Re:Why Twitter didn’t go down: From a real Twitter SRE
by onethought on Tuesday November 22, 2022 @06:54AM
(#33704773)
The shuttle being “reusable” is ridiculous when compare with falcon 9 or heavy. The entire booster pack was discarded and the shuttle basically needed to be heavily refurbished…
I’m amazed people in good faith will minimise what SpaceX has done and pretend like “no one else cares”.
NASA has basically zero capability anymore (given they just launch their only rocket) - which was completely disposed of.
Do people really think all these other programs/companies think it’s “better” to throw the rocket out?
Why are rocketlab and others working on recovery and reuse then? Why has blue origin failed to get to orbit? Surely we’ve been doing this for 40 years, what’s wrong with them?
Re:Why Twitter didn’t go down: From a real Twitter SRE
by rpeden on Tuesday November 22, 2022 @07:50AM
(#33705188)
The shuttle SRBs provided most of its thrust and they were certainly recovered, refurbished, and raised. As was the main engine, given that it was attached to the shuttle.
Re:Why Twitter didn’t go down: From a real Twitter SRE
by snovv_crash on Tuesday November 22, 2022 @07:51AM
(#33705194)
Are you really proposing the idea that ULA & co. received less money than SpaceX?
A single shuttle launch cost the same in 1990s dollars as 20 Falcon launches in today dollars.
Note also how "launching rockets" or even going to the moon and back, was something we routinely did 40 to 50 years ago.
Heck, we even tried reusable rockets, and even had space shuttles. They weren't cancelled for political reasons, just like moon missions and NASA programs were. Not for lack of progress or technology.