- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 393 (0.07/day)
- Location
- Pacific Coast
| System Name | Z77 Rev. 1 |
|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i7 3770K |
| Motherboard | ASRock Z77 Extreme4 |
| Cooling | Water Cooling |
| Memory | 2x G.Skill F3-2400C10D-16GTX |
| Video Card(s) | EVGA GTX 1080 |
| Storage | Samsung 850 Pro |
| Display(s) | Samsung 28" UE590 UHD |
| Case | Silverstone TJ07 |
| Audio Device(s) | Onboard |
| Power Supply | Seasonic PRIME 600W Titanium |
| Mouse | EVGA TORQ X10 |
| Keyboard | Leopold Tenkeyless |
| Software | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit |
| Benchmark Scores | 3DMark Time Spy: 7695 |
Yes, they have said that from the start, but also they are still testing that theory with heavier payloads. As far as I know, they haven't yet reached the point that they have proven that reusability is cost-effective. It's a marketing point, for sure. A theory for sure. But not yet proven or decided, as far as I know. And from all indications, they just proved that they will sacrifice reusability when flying heavier payloads. I don't know, but I think that they used too much fuel on the payload and that's why the booster didn't relight properly; it is a very very fine line after all.
The problem with rockets is that the power to weight ratio is terrible at first, and is best at the end. If you choose not to use the last bit of fuel on the payload in order to save it for reusability, you waste the most effective portion of thrust, greatly reduce the effectivity of the whole thing, and increase the cost of the whole thing by a surprisingly massive amount. As far as I know, SpaceX said that they need to fly the same booster with little to no maintenance at least three times in order to break even on cost-effectivity. And as far as I know, they still haven't done that.
I wouldn't assume that it has yet been decided. Once they fly Starship for money for a few years, we'll be more certain of what they decided was the best approach.
SpaceX isn't the first to think about rocket reusability or even successfully test rocket reusability. Other people thought about it, successfully tested it, but then came to the conclusion that it didn't make sense. Even if it hasn't yet made sense to do, SpaceX is pretty well married to it. Their marketing is based on it and their expensive and complex engine and fueling design is based on it. Once they have consistent heavy payload customers, we'll know what they decide. Until then, they have too much momentum and sunk cost to redesign their entire approach. You have to consider that a non-reusable rocket can have a vastly simpler design and therefore much reduced cost; so throwing away a cheaper booster has always proven to be the cheaper and more cost-effective option. Until SpaceX proves otherwise....
Last edited:
