this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
54 points (78.1% liked)

Technology

60140 readers
4133 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

And makes turnaround much faster since it's already back on the launch pad.

Though it does make it so a damaged launch pad from either an abnormal launch or landing can stop all launch progress until things are rebuilt. We've seen the very reliable Falcon 9 damage the drone ships with a hard landing.

Would be interesting to see more than the two launch towers created to create more redundancy.

[–] progandy@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how fast a turnaround would really be. Can all the checks be run on the launchpad and how likely are repairs that cannot be done there?

[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They're assuming zero maintenance and all that's needed is refueling. I think if they have any anomalies they'll need to pull the booster to another location for inspection/repair.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

That’s an extremely bold assumption.

The space shuttle was designed originally to be rapidly reusable, but its shortest turn around time was still measured in weeks, not days.

And its main engines only produced water as a by product, no soot or carbon deposits to worry about.

[–] death_to_carrots@feddit.org 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Well, if your infrastructure is mission critical, then you need one more as spare.

In this case a new one a qarter mile to the side with a redundant power supply. Mission control could be smack in the center between the launchpads.

Of course someone®©™ has to make sure, that the whole facility is only utilized in such a way that n-1 launchpads is considered 100% usage.

Rant/advice over from someone working in a data center, where spare machines are always in use, because someone©®™ said moar power is more important then reliability.

[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which is great, but as soon as one tower is out, then you're back to N towers.

[–] death_to_carrots@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago

Well, N towers are supposed to be enough. That's the reason you should have N+1 in the first place.

Also this assumes that you can repair/replace a tower faster than it takes on average a tower to fail.