So I’ve heard and seen the newest launch, and I thought for a private firm it seemed cool they were able to do it on their own, but I’m scratching my head that people are gushing about this as some hail mary.
I get the engineering required is staggering when it comes to these rocket tests, but NASA and other big space agencies have already done rocket tests and exploring bits of the moon which still astounds me to this day.
Is it because it’s not a multi billion government institution? When I tell colleagues about NASA doing stuff like this yeaaaars ago they’re like “Yea yea but this is different it’s crazy bro”
Can anyone help me understand? Any SpaceX or Tesla fans here?
The Space Shuttle missions did not recycle the rockets, not to mention that the SpaceX missions were rated super-heavy: Only Apollo has done this before in America.
You think they didn’t?
No, they didn’t. Enterprise conducted 5 approach and landing tests where she was carried aloft by a 747 and then detached to glide to a landing, three with that aerodynamic tailcone thing, two with mockup main engines to simulate a return from space. Though there were issues with PIO revealed during the last flight, all five of Enterprise’s approach and landing test flights resulted in successful landings.
I would not describe any space shuttle as “crashed.” Challenger exploded during launch and Colombia broke up during re-entry; destroyed in service yes, crashed no. Enterprise, Atlantis, Discovery and Endeavour all survived service and are on display at museums. No other airworthy space shuttles were built. Explorer/Independence and Inspiration are 1:1 scale models, and Pathfinder was basically a boilerplate meant for testing and incapable of flight.
The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) from shuttle launched were recycled. They parachuted into the ocean after being jettisoned and were recovered and refused. They just didn’t land themselves. The external fuel tank was not reused.
There was an extensive amount of refurbishment required to re-use the SRBs. Not to mention they had to be physically recovered, and salt water certainly made the process more complicated.
The shuttle itself needed each of its heat shield tiles replaced, which due to the shape of the shuttle were all unique.
The fuel tank was not reused.
The shuttle was meant to be a leap forward in rocket reusability, but it didn’t really pan out that way. There’s good reason the program was scrapped and not replaced with another space plane.
The Starship booster has the potential to launch multiple times per day. The only refurbishment period is how long it takes to refuel it.
Agreed. As I mentioned elsewhere, Falcon 9 is still revolutionary, but I was just clarifying that the SRBs were recycled, as that is sometimes forgotten.
TIL, thanks. That’s just a small part of the rocket though
Between the orbiter (reused), the boosters (reused), and the external fuel tank (not reused), which parts are not “just a small part” (in terms of technology/complexity/cost, not physical size)?
I take the part about “a small part” back as that’s a misleading term for what I meant: The Super Heavy booster is much bigger in both technology/complexity and physical size and has many more parts than the old space shuttle rockets as it needs to carry the weight of two space shuttle orbiters. Plus, spaceplane is weird.
Remember, unless we’re talking about Enterprise, “space shuttle rockets” includes the orbiter itself. The orbiter’s main engines were where all that fuel from the external tank was going, after all! From that perspective, I would argue that the main “space shuttle rocket” was definitely much more complex than the Super Heavy booster, because the crew stuff, cargo stuff, spaceplane stuff, etc. was integrated into it.
I feel like your criticism of the shuttle system being less reusable than advertised might have been more applicable if we were talking about the Soviet Buran (which indeed used expendable Energia rockets to reach orbit), not NASA’s shuttles.
I was under the impression that a “rocket” does not include the payload. Now that I search it up, I am not sure what to call that part.
Sure, I think you’re totally correct… if the part with the engine is separable from the part with the payload. But with the Space Shuttle, that isn’t the case unless you’re limiting yourself to talking about the SRBs. The orbiter is a spaceplane and that makes it weird, but its main engines are rocket engines (as opposed to a hybrid ramjet or something) and it launches vertically, so I think it’s still fair to also call it a rocket.
Or as another example, consider the problem scaled aaaaaaaall the way down to something like this:
Is the whole thing a “rocket,” or does that only describe the bottom half and it’s called something else from the payload bay up?
In my impression, the payload includes the entire spacecraft, none of which is part of the rocket.