Why do we need reusable capsules in astronautics?

Question

Space

After reading a recent article about the delivery of astronauts to the ISS, I thought about the words about the Boeing capsule - “Boeing is developing a manned capsule CST-100, which is supposed to deliver up to 7 astronauts to the ISS and back to Earth. Capsule with touchscreens and internet access can be used up to 10 times.”
And accordingly, the question arose: How justified is the use of such reusable capsules? I have always believed that the main cost of a launch is the cost of fuel and launch vehicle. The shuttle project was still clear to me. He had the ability to deliver astronauts, launch satellites into orbit, and even repair them (if you remember Hubble). But the capsule for the delivery of astronauts ... Isn't the issue of reliability put in the first place in matters of delivering a person into orbit? After all, equipment that has already experienced overloads and vibrations during launch / landing should be much less reliable. And accordingly increases the risk of emergency situations. Or is the cost of the capsule itself in the launch cost so high that it can be neglected?

Answer 1

I have always believed that the main cost of a launch is the cost of fuel and launch vehicle.

The cost of fuel is a few percent. Here they write 1-5%%.
The cost of the launch vehicle and the capsule make up a much larger share, so they are trying to make them reusable.

Answer 2

All. what is below - purely IMHO.
The question is what functions, in addition to the return of astronauts, the capsule will carry. If there is a decent cargo compartment, a lot of useful equipment, the ability to go to OK in a spacesuit, then this is practically a full-fledged spacecraft, and it is still profitable, up to a certain stage, to make it reusable. An unimaginable amount of internal stuffing is still easier to just carefully check than to dismantle-carefully check-shove it into a new KA-thoroughly check.
Well, lately there is still a tendency to make reusable spacecraft or their large components - the same Dragon and other Musk creations suggest that the creation and subsequent verification of reusable spacecraft is more profitable than disposable "matches", otherwise private the company, even with the support of NASA, would not be doing this.

Answer 3

It all depends on the organization of production. You can make the device reusable, you can make it disposable, but massive. The price will be the same. In the case of shuttles, it turned out that maintenance between launches is very expensive, which nullified the whole idea of ​​reusability. There were no tasks unique only to shuttles. The alternatives are cheaper.
In the Russian Federation, production can be called mass, serial, this reduces the cost. Also, Soyuz capsules can be considered 50% reusable, expensive frames and capsule equipment are reused.

Answer 4

Тут ещё вот такой нюанс есть: допустим удастся как-то уменьшить стоимость запуска и спрос на услугу резко вырастет. Существующая индустрия, система сертификации и испытаний не готовы к тому чтобы начать производить корабли действительно массово (хотя бы сотню в год). Даже отечественное "массовое" производство - это мелкая серия в несколько изделий в год, с множеством этапов испытаний, контроля и т.п. Просто напросто нету ни у кого в мирое мощностей, которые бы позволяли раз в 3 дня новую капсулу производить, сохраняя нынешний уровень надёжности.
Не говоря уж о том, что массовость приводит к удешевлению только до определённого этапа - см. на ту же самую пассажирскую авиацию, где каждый болтик до сих пор стоит либо дорого, либо очень дорого.
Those. Mask's plan incl. is that reusable ships will be able to meet the needs of the market when there is a sharp increase in demand. One-time solutions will not be able to do this in principle.