3 ms·

They were also basically empty metal tubes that solid fuel was packed into. But perhaps more relevant to point, the shuttle itself was "reusable". It remains t

They were also basically empty metal tubes that solid fuel was packed into. But perhaps more relevant to point, the shuttle itself was "reusable". It remains to be seen if SpaceX can reuse rockets in a more cost effective way than the shuttle.

noir_lord 11y ago
> It remains to be seen if SpaceX can reuse rockets in a more cost effective way than the shuttle. Given that the launch cost of a Falcon is already way less than the reused launch cost of a Shuttle I think if they can get 3-4 launches per rocket they'll massively reduce the cost to put stuff up. They already have done that anyway, they undercut pretty much everyone who is currently launching, sometimes hilariously. Musk said in one of his speeches to congress (iirc) (paraphrasing) "Our launch costs are so low that the cost of launch plus the satellite is less than ULA's launch cost alone, so you buy a launch and get a satellite for free".
- JshWright 11y ago
  Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm an all-in SpaceX fanboy, I just think getting the stage back on the ground is likely a smaller fraction of the task than we expect.
  - noir_lord 11y ago
    I agree somewhat however you need it to not become a fireball on landing first, then you need to figure out if you can launch it again at all and then you need to figure out how to get that re-launch cost down. They've designed this for that purpose but he mentioned in the post launch talk that they will do 10 test firings on this one before they re-launch it. I think they'll pull it off but they might have a few undergo rapidly unplanned disassembly along the way.
    - JshWright 11y ago
      Yeah, I'm just trying to balance the impression people seem to have that now that SpaceX can land stages, the 'reusable rocket' problem is completely solved. It's a major milestone, but there is a still a lot of work to be done.
      - timdiggerm 11y ago
        We had rockets. Now we have recoverable rockets. So now we can start developing reusable rockets.
deelowe 11y ago
The shuttle arguably wasn't really that "reusable." Also, SpaceX is already more cost effective. Though, that's not a good comparison given that the shuttle was designed for carrying much larger payloads.
- manarth 11y ago
  > the shuttle was designed for carrying much larger payloads. Falcon 9 has about half the payload capability of the shuttle, but Falcon Heavy has more than twice the capacity, so you can make meaningful comparisons. Falcon Heavy's cost is $1,890,000 per metric ton to LEO [1], and Falcon 9's is around $5,856,000. The shuttle payload cost to LEO was initially estimated at $260/kg(!!) [2], but turned out to be $60,000/kg [3], or $60,000,000 per metric ton. Which makes Falcon 9 around 10 times more cost-effective than the shuttle, and Falcon Heavy around 31 times. The spaceshuttle had a maximum payload of 25,060 kg (24,310 kg to LEO) [4]. Falcon 9 has capacity for only 10,450 kg to LEO [5], but Falcon Heavy allows 53,000 kg [6]. [1] http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle... [4] http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Space_Shuttle/Shuttle_technical_facts http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Space_Sh... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
  - deelowe 11y ago
    Ohh wow. Didn't know that. Thanks. I should have said that the shuttle was built for a different purpose.
mikeash 11y ago
It's true that it remains to be seen, but it's not likely to be a problem. The Shuttle needed extensive refurbishment because it operated at the bleeding edge. The engines operated just short of tearing themselves to pieces. SpaceX's approach is much more "big and dumb." They don't go for maximum efficiency, and they're operating pretty far from the margins. They've also extensively studied the stage they recovered in December, and while they're pretty quiet about what they've found, what we've heard so far is quite promising. One of the engines apparently ate some debris and acted a little weird when fired, but everything else looked good. It sounds like it's not going to be too far from Elon's "wash it off and relaunch" goal.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  SpaceX's approach is much more "big and dumb." There was a self published Sci-fi book from a few years back, where some dot-com billionaires funded a "big and dumb" design philosophy reusable two stage to orbit rocket. It also used aluminum computer aided machining and friction stir welding to increase seam strength and lower structural weight. http://www.amazon.com/The-Rocket-Company-Library-Flight/dp/1563476967 http://www.amazon.com/The-Rocket-Company-Library-Flight/dp/1...

noir_lord 11y ago

> It remains to be seen if SpaceX can reuse rockets in a more cost effective way than the shuttle. Given that the launch cost of a Falcon is already way less than the reused launch cost of a Shuttle I think if they can get 3-4 launches per rocket they'll massively reduce the cost to put stuff up. They already have done that anyway, they undercut pretty much everyone who is currently launching, sometimes hilariously. Musk said in one of his speeches to congress (iirc) (paraphrasing) "Our launch costs are so low that the cost of launch plus the satellite is less than ULA's launch cost alone, so you buy a launch and get a satellite for free".

JshWright 11y ago
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm an all-in SpaceX fanboy, I just think getting the stage back on the ground is likely a smaller fraction of the task than we expect.
- noir_lord 11y ago
  I agree somewhat however you need it to not become a fireball on landing first, then you need to figure out if you can launch it again at all and then you need to figure out how to get that re-launch cost down. They've designed this for that purpose but he mentioned in the post launch talk that they will do 10 test firings on this one before they re-launch it. I think they'll pull it off but they might have a few undergo rapidly unplanned disassembly along the way.
  - JshWright 11y ago
    Yeah, I'm just trying to balance the impression people seem to have that now that SpaceX can land stages, the 'reusable rocket' problem is completely solved. It's a major milestone, but there is a still a lot of work to be done.
    - timdiggerm 11y ago
      We had rockets. Now we have recoverable rockets. So now we can start developing reusable rockets.

deelowe 11y ago

The shuttle arguably wasn't really that "reusable." Also, SpaceX is already more cost effective. Though, that's not a good comparison given that the shuttle was designed for carrying much larger payloads.

manarth 11y ago
> the shuttle was designed for carrying much larger payloads. Falcon 9 has about half the payload capability of the shuttle, but Falcon Heavy has more than twice the capacity, so you can make meaningful comparisons. Falcon Heavy's cost is $1,890,000 per metric ton to LEO [1], and Falcon 9's is around $5,856,000. The shuttle payload cost to LEO was initially estimated at $260/kg(!!) [2], but turned out to be $60,000/kg [3], or $60,000,000 per metric ton. Which makes Falcon 9 around 10 times more cost-effective than the shuttle, and Falcon Heavy around 31 times. The spaceshuttle had a maximum payload of 25,060 kg (24,310 kg to LEO) [4]. Falcon 9 has capacity for only 10,450 kg to LEO [5], but Falcon Heavy allows 53,000 kg [6]. [1] http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle... [4] http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Space_Shuttle/Shuttle_technical_facts http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Space_Sh... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
- deelowe 11y ago
  Ohh wow. Didn't know that. Thanks. I should have said that the shuttle was built for a different purpose.

mikeash 11y ago

It's true that it remains to be seen, but it's not likely to be a problem. The Shuttle needed extensive refurbishment because it operated at the bleeding edge. The engines operated just short of tearing themselves to pieces. SpaceX's approach is much more "big and dumb." They don't go for maximum efficiency, and they're operating pretty far from the margins. They've also extensively studied the stage they recovered in December, and while they're pretty quiet about what they've found, what we've heard so far is quite promising. One of the engines apparently ate some debris and acted a little weird when fired, but everything else looked good. It sounds like it's not going to be too far from Elon's "wash it off and relaunch" goal.

stcredzero 11y ago
SpaceX's approach is much more "big and dumb." There was a self published Sci-fi book from a few years back, where some dot-com billionaires funded a "big and dumb" design philosophy reusable two stage to orbit rocket. It also used aluminum computer aided machining and friction stir welding to increase seam strength and lower structural weight. http://www.amazon.com/The-Rocket-Company-Library-Flight/dp/1563476967 http://www.amazon.com/The-Rocket-Company-Library-Flight/dp/1...