4 ms·
Pedantic trolling noted; I’ll engage just to hone my thoughts. Every production rocket is fully expendable. Launch, expect discard of 100%* of launch system. S
by ctdonath 6y ago
Pedantic trolling noted; I’ll engage just to hone my thoughts.
Every production rocket is fully expendable. Launch, expect discard of 100%* of launch system. Starship is designed for 100% reusable, with same-day fly/land/refuel/repeat. That’s obviously a huge difference.
* - exceptions:
Space Shuttle discarded most of the launch system, acting as glider to return crew/cargo and some engines. Reuse turnaround was months, with extensive repairs expected. Boosters required prolonged recovery and refurbishing, with high likelihood of loss.
Falcon 9 is only one remotely viable for same day return to pad and reuse of first stage. Second stage is discarded.
SN# is a fast-reuse second stage. Landing involves leveraging the terminal velocity physics of a brick (not gentle glide of Shuttle), followed by effectively flipping a 16-story building ~90° in free fall with powered deceleration to 0m/s in less than 2km vertical.
Nothing in the industry resembles the fast launch/fall/relight/reorientate/decelerate/land/refuel/repeat sequence, of SN#. There is no established industry specifications addressing such operation. And as the history of rocketry shows, establishing such specifications practically involves lots of crashes. [cue How Not To Land A Booster]
- gridspy 6y agoAll true. Also, the only company doing propulsive landings of 10 storey tall rockets is SpaceX. I'm looking forward to seeing the landing structure that is going to catch the booster using the grid fins at the launch site.