4 ms·
It is not fully reusable. But partial reentry is reentry, something no other rocket had been able to do.
by gibolt 2y ago
It 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]