4 ms·
I really appreciate and mostly agree with your sentiment, but I still keep thinking to myself: The Space Shuttle was reusable too. With the Space Shuttle, we
by ninkendo 11y ago
I really appreciate and mostly agree with your sentiment, but I still keep thinking to myself:
The Space Shuttle was reusable too.
With the Space Shuttle, we returned the primary motors to the ocean, but it was incredibly expensive to refurbish them (they were essentially scrapped and used as parts), and of course the shuttle itself was completely reused.
What SpaceX achieved here is a potentially better margin of costs for reuse, but even that hasn't been proven until we actually start reusing the rockets, seeing how their reliability trails off after each use, etc.
As great as I think this achievement is, it's not orders of magnitude better than the Space Shuttle. And it remains to be seen whether space travel will become truly accessible and cheap because of it.
- Malice 11y ago> it's not orders of magnitude better than the Space Shuttle I think it might be. The Space Shuttle cost an estimated $1B / launch. So while it was technically reusable, it wasn't practically reusable in the same way that Musk is aiming for (launch, land, refuel, refly).
- omni 11y agoI believe the current target with only Stage 1 being reusable is $40MM/launch with the Falcon 9. Currently a F9 launch costs in the neighborhood of $60MM. These are both cost to the customer, not to SpaceX.