Quote:
Originally Posted by shiumai
It's a thruster, so there's not much of a difference between one used on a multi-mission platform and a 'one and done'. The R40b has been through multiple space shuttle missions already, so we've got our money's worth out of it. Rather than let it sit unused, it makes fiscal sense to clean it up and put it to good use. I'd be more concerned if they ordered a brand new thruster costing us taxpayers more, when they had some that met the mission requirements in storage.
|
Integration of some sub-system into a new super-system can actually cost more than just building a whole new system from scratch. It all depends on how the original system for which that subsystem developed was documented. I can't speak to this case directly, but in general I have found a lot of "tribal knowledge" in legacy systems.