Talk:Big dumb booster

Negative implication
"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)


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


 * 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)

Some info for this subject
See http://www.optipoint.com/far/ for some possible related discussion. 58.143.236.225 12:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Operating costs not taken into account
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)


 * 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)