← Back to context Comment by jbgt 1 day ago Landing boosters, reducing costs etc etc 2 comments jbgt Reply me_me_me 1 day ago Is that it? Landing boosters is not saving money as of now. Because a rocket engine is not a rental bike.Hmmm I wonder if there was a tech that recovered a spacecraft and tried to reuse it to cut costs... hmmm... no, nothing comes to mindAlso SpaceX is charging Nasa more than russians did when they had monopoly over space flights. inemesitaffia 1 day ago Landing boosters saves money and helps with cadence.SpaceX is charging NASA less. Even Boeing is charging NASA less than Russia.
me_me_me 1 day ago Is that it? Landing boosters is not saving money as of now. Because a rocket engine is not a rental bike.Hmmm I wonder if there was a tech that recovered a spacecraft and tried to reuse it to cut costs... hmmm... no, nothing comes to mindAlso SpaceX is charging Nasa more than russians did when they had monopoly over space flights. inemesitaffia 1 day ago Landing boosters saves money and helps with cadence.SpaceX is charging NASA less. Even Boeing is charging NASA less than Russia.
inemesitaffia 1 day ago Landing boosters saves money and helps with cadence.SpaceX is charging NASA less. Even Boeing is charging NASA less than Russia.
Is that it? Landing boosters is not saving money as of now. Because a rocket engine is not a rental bike.
Hmmm I wonder if there was a tech that recovered a spacecraft and tried to reuse it to cut costs... hmmm... no, nothing comes to mind
Also SpaceX is charging Nasa more than russians did when they had monopoly over space flights.
Landing boosters saves money and helps with cadence.
SpaceX is charging NASA less. Even Boeing is charging NASA less than Russia.