3 ms·
There is a categorical difference between the Space Shuttle boosters and the Falcon 9 rockets. First of all, the external tank of the space shuttle didn't get r
by jgilias 6y ago
There is a categorical difference between the Space Shuttle boosters and the Falcon 9 rockets. First of all, the external tank of the space shuttle didn't get reused. The solid rocket boosters were, but only after they were recovered from splash-landing into the ocean, requiring extensive and expensive refurbishing before further launches. Which Falcon 9 boosters largely avoid by landing vertically.
And the Shuttle itself was reusable, but that's sort of besides the point, as that's a space-plane, not a rocket used to bring things into orbit. Whether capsules or space-planes is a better concept for the spacecraft itself is a different discussion altogether.
The per kg cost to orbit of Falcon 9 launches is an order of magnitude less than it was for Space Shuttle, so credit should be given where credit is due.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> First of all, the external tank of the space shuttle didn't get reused. To be fair, the Falcon 9 similarly discards its entire second stage. I really wish they'd have boosted the Shuttle tank to stable orbit and used it for space stations.
- rzzzt 6y agoWhat would be the use for an external tank in orbit?
- ceejayoz 6y agoIt's an enormous, sealed, empty metal tank that they were already taking mostly to orbit already. One would make a pretty serviceable space station. 100+ would make one hell of a space station if you designed them to be strung together. Some early NASA concepts: http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexternaltankstation.html http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexternaltankstation.html
- rzzzt 6y agoCool! Did it contain anything hazardous while in regular use? I'm only seeing liquid H2 and O2. Maybe wall thickness would be a concern for habitation.
- TimBurr 6y agoI'm not sure what was on the Shuttle tank, but other vehicles carry hydraulic fluid (for engine gimballing) & hydrazine (for small thrusters). They're usually vented at the end of a mission to safe the vehicle. If you're wondering about practicality, Skylab was a Saturn V tank. Unlike the external tank suggestions, Skylab was built on the ground and never had fuel in it. But it was basically the same structure as the Saturn's third stage. Like ISS, Skylab had some micrometeorite shielding outside of the main tank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab More recently, Nanoracks has looked at refurbishing ULA's Centaur upper stage into a habitat. Like the Shuttle, Centaur runs on a H2 + O2 cycle. Their plan is to lift an equipment kit onboard the Centaur. They'd cut a hole after the end of the mission and use on-orbit welding (not mature yet) to install all the floors/decks/airlocks. https://nanoracks.com/in-space-outpost-demonstration/ https://nanoracks.com/in-space-outpost-demonstration/
- ceejayoz 6y agoNo nastiness on the Shuttle tank; gimballing and RCS were left up to the Shuttle itself. It's basically just two tanks and some plumbing.
- TimBurr 6y agoThanks! I looked at some tank drawings, but couldn't tell if they were omitting auxiliary tanks for simplicity's sake. Didn't want to say anything inaccurate.