5 ms·
The 'state of the art' that SpaceX is pushing is nearly entirely a software thing aided by Falcon's unique engine arrangement. Hardware-wise Falcons are no more
by kunai 4y ago
The 'state of the art' that SpaceX is pushing is nearly entirely a software thing aided by Falcon's unique engine arrangement. Hardware-wise Falcons are no more advanced than an SLS core stage, and are likely even ore technically primitive than most LVs. If SLS' mission criteria included an emphasis on reusability, NASA would have a fully reusable booster + core stage by now.
This decision was entirely due to doctrine. STS was designed as a mostly reusable product and failed costs-wise, so the government basically forced NASA to go with something expendable instead. It is genuinely impressive that SpaceX proved that reusable launch vehicles can be made cost-effective, but it's nowhere near the kind of massive quantum leap that SpaceX's legion of hardcore followers seems to be convinced it is. Everything on a Falcon or a Dragon is public domain 60s technology besides the code and guidance hardware (based on COTS components). The same is likely be true of Starship, which explains a lot of the significant teething issues it has suffered over the past several flight tests.
- georgeg23 4y agoThe Falcon 9 booster landing also borrowed a lot from DC-X development. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
- szundi 4y agoWe are always standing on the shoulders of giants. That is going to be the case always in the future. However it is a question what SLS will do when they run out of these engines that's cost is in the same ballpark per piece as a full Falcon heavy. Or something like that. And those are just the engines. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-staggering-146-million-for-each-sls-rocket-engine/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-stag...
- georgeg23 4y agoThey have a low cost replacement engine being completed and tested very soon.
- kiratp 4y agoSpaceX is making significant breakthroughs that you can appreciate if you understand the tech. > As of 2019, only three full-flow staged combustion rocket engines had ever progressed sufficiently to be tested on test stands; the Soviet Energomash RD-270 project in the 1960s, the US government-funded Aerojet Rocketdyne Integrated powerhead demonstration project in the mid-2000s,[6] and SpaceX's flight capable Raptor engine first test-fired in February 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle If you want to learn more https://youtu.be/LbH1ZDImaI8 https://youtu.be/LbH1ZDImaI8
- gruturo 4y ago> Everything on a Falcon or a Dragon is public domain 60s technology besides the code and guidance hardware What a nice way to belittle the enormous significance of their achievements. Reliability, total mass to LEO/GEO/TLI/Whatever, and $/kg in each of these cases, coupled with an amazing launch cadence, are where you can see the magnitude of the progress they've enabled. Whether you do it with expendable or reusable vehicles, burning RP-1, methane or a custom mixture of concentrated Jack Daniels and dog hair, doesn't really matter. They do it reliably, often and amazingly cheaply. SLS does none of that, and neither do any of the other launch systems. Also if you value their improvements so little over "public domain 60s technology", how come nobody else did it in 50 years? Come on, Elon is immensely questionable, but SpaceX is awesome (thanks in no small part to Gwynne Shotwell!) and SLS is... not, but at least it finally launched and didn't even blow up, so let's celebrate that instead of turning this into an opportunity to disparage them.
- hoseja 4y agoMhm, say, when in the 60s have they made a full-flow staged-combustion methalox engine? Bare-skin stainless steel rockets?