4 ms·
The Falcon 9 second stage doesn't survive reentry and the booster only needs to get through a partial reentry at much slower velocity.
by namlem 2y ago
The Falcon 9 second stage doesn't survive reentry and the booster only needs to get through a partial reentry at much slower velocity.
- gibolt 2y agoIt is not fully reusable. But partial reentry is reentry, something no other rocket had been able to do.
- mulmen 2y agoYou can’t re-enter if you never leave. If Falcon 9 “survives re-entry” then so do minivans. Falcon 9 is an impressive and revolutionary vehicle. We don’t need to overstate the capabilities.
- ceejayoz 2y agoThe Falcon 9 first stage goes past the Karman line and does a reentry burn. It’s not reentering from orbit, but it is from space.
- mulmen 2y agoSo does New Shepard. If crossing the Karman line is your definition of re-entry then the Falcon 9 isn’t unique. What Starship is doing is completely different from what Falcon 9 is doing. Falcon 9 is not the only other sub-orbital booster to propulsively land. Starship isn’t the only other spacecraft to survive hypersonic re-entry. It’s not even unique in being reusable. Starship and Falcon 9 are incredible achievements. It’s simply not necessary to lie about their capabilities.
- HPsquared 2y agoI guess the Space Shuttle did have main engines (and orbital maneuvering engines) but it's notable that they weren't expected to relight afterwards.
- mulmen 2y agoWhy is that one implementation detail notable? Is it also notable that Starship's main engines are unused at launch? I realize re-lighitng main engines is novel but it isn't unique and even if it was that doesn't make the up-thread claims any less inaccurate. Shuttle was a reusable orbital vehicle with multi-day endurance capable of hypersonic reentry. Falcon 9 is not that.
- HPsquared 2y agoI guess it implies that all major systems are still fully operational after re-entry. The engines still work etc. So in theory you could just refuel and send it back up.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]