Talk:Big dumb booster

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry Low‑importance

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Negative implication[edit]

"In general, Russian rockets are closer to the BDB concept than their US counterparts."
This sounds negative. The modern Russian Soyuz system is (statistically seen) the most secure and reliable system for launching humans into space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.105.116 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, look at the context. --Belg4mit (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be nitpicky, but the Saturn V never failed outside of early tests. Of course, the Soyuz is the operatational best. However, a BDB offers fewer modes of failure than a complex one, though the complex rocket can have more failsafes. BioTube (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some info for this subject[edit]

See http://www.optipoint.com/far/ for some possible related discussion. 58.143.236.225 12:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operating costs not taken into account[edit]

While the manufacturing and procurement cost is addressed here, one simple fact seems to be neglected: there is a price to be paid for the "big, dumb, rugged" approach: performance, and operating cost. A heavier, less "smartly" designed rocket (such as the Russians are doing) will consume (waste) more fuel to launch a certain amount of payload (or else less payload with a given rocket size.) Add to that, that such vehicles are 100% expendable, so all this fuel and metal (or whatever material) are thrown away; how does this all fit in with the current "green" trend? This needs to be reflected in the article. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical rockets are around 1% by cost fuel cost. BDBs would be a few percent (4-5%). Other than shuttle, all launch vehicles are completely expended / thrown away after each flight now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]