4 ms·
The entire reusability thing was not really a thing before spacex
by owlmirror 9y ago
The entire reusability thing was not really a thing before spacex
- akhatri_aus 9y agoThere was already a working program that had their funding axed: Here's a video from 1995: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o. There were others too.
- aerovistae 9y agoTo answer your deleted question, there would be no point in listing their achievements for you because you're obviously determined to ignore them, and having them listed for you won't change that.
- wellboy 9y agoYes, because it is incredibly hard to bring reusable rockets from concept to full execution. The idea has been arouns for a long time and there have ben dozens of attempts of course, just as flying cars, autonomous cars, real A.I, space elevators. Concept an execution are vastly different animals, it is at least 1000 times more difficult to achieve resuable rockets than to have the idea and at least 100 times more difficult than to try it.
- JulianMorrison 9y agoIt really isn't a working program if it's never going to have enough payload capacity to lift its own fuel to orbit. It's a shiny prototype of computer controlled autonomous stabilized flight, like SpaceX Grasshopper. But that's about it.
- bduerst 9y agoWasn't the space shuttle and it's SRBs reusable?
- eric_the_read 9y agoIn the sense that both were effectively rebuilt from almost-but-not-quite-scratch for each launch, yes.
- bduerst 9y agoDespite claims about the future, doesn't SpaceX also refurbish their SRBs between flights?
- greglindahl 9y agoSpaceX's rockets are all-liquid fueled. SRB = solid rocket booster.
- bduerst 9y agoSo they don't refurbish the liquid fuel engines?
- greglindahl 9y agoNot significantly. And they've re-flown a bunch of them.