5 ms·

The fact that SpaceX demonstrated, without a doubt, that reuse of a first stage was viable in December 2015, and that we still do not have any clearly reusable

The fact that SpaceX demonstrated, without a doubt, that reuse of a first stage was viable in December 2015, and that we still do not have any clearly reusable first stage from anyone else tells you the whole industry is complacent and juiced up on the fat margins of launching a first stage up, then chucking it in the ocean, and then asking for money for another first stage.

throwaway81523 2y ago
Erm the Space Shuttle had a reusable first stage 40+ years ago.
- Rhinobird 2y ago
  The space shuttle was refurbishable. It needed an army of 5000 engineers a few months to get it flight worthy after each launch. And ultimately that wasn't enough for safety.
  - rockemsockem 2y ago
    To be fair, falcon 9 also gets refurbished between flights. But it's way less time/labor intensive than the shuttle.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  I'm sorry this was downvoted. It is probably a bit too pithy for HN. I think you raise a good point even if there are some "technicalities" about it. Real question: I'm not an aerospace geek. The term "first stage" has probably changed at lot in rocket science in the last 50 years. From the NASA Space Shuttle to SpaceX Falcon 9, has the definition changed? From my elementary school memories, the Space Shuttle used a giant center rocket and two booster rockets that we expendable, but you are definitely right that the Space Shuttle "thing" (no idea how to call it) was used over and over again, (somewhat) safely. Something that I don't know: Where Apollo programme capsules reusued? I assume no.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    > From my elementary school memories, the Space Shuttle used a giant center rocket and two booster rockets that we expendable That's incorrect. The orange "giant center rocket" had no engines, it was an external tank which held the propellant burned by the orbiter's main engines. The SSMEs were on the "Shuttle thing" and were reused.
    - Thorrez 2y ago
      Also, the solid rocket boosters (the 2 things next to the big orange thing) were jettisoned into the ocean, then collected, refurbished, and reused.
  - nycdotnet 2y ago
    The space shuttle had three main components - the orbiter (white and black space plane with the crew and cargo), the external tank (rust brown on all but the first few flights), and a pair of solid rocket boosters. The orbiter had three engines and received its propellant (oxygen and hydrogen) from the external tank. At launch, the solid rocket boosters (SRB) and the main engines were all running so technically they can all be considered part of a “first stage”. The SRBs would expend their propellant in around two minutes and separate. They dropped into the ocean, slowed via parachute, and were recovered by boat and refurbished. The three space shuttle main engines would continue to burn for several more minutes until the external tank was depleted. The ET would be discarded and burn up on reentry. Then the orbiter would use two small rockets with internally stored hypergolic propellants to boost up to its intended orbit. Apollo/Saturn had a much more traditional staging design where the first stage booster would run then drop off, then the second stage booster would run, then drop off, etc. There exist other rockets like the Atlas which had what they called a “stage and a half” design where the center stage burned for a long time and there was an outer “ring” stage that dropped off after a shorter time while the center stage kept going. After going to the moon, the only part of the entire Apollo/Saturn rocket that came back was the command module capsule with the astronauts and moon rocks. These were completely torched and affected by salt water and were not designed to be reused. Reentry from the moon is significantly faster than reentry from low earth orbit. The shuttle orbiters were refurbished and reused. It was a very difficult, expensive, and time consuming process to get an orbiter ready for another flight. All of that is to say that the picture is blurry for the shuttle regarding first stage reusability. Yes the SRBs and orbiters were reused and were lit at launch. The ET was in use at launch but discarded. In my opinion it’s sort of not that interesting to argue what is and isn’t first stage on the shuttle because the elements just don’t map cleanly. The design of the system with the SRBs, tank, and orbiters being adjacent to each other is considered by many to have been too dangerous in retrospect. This design was a factor in both shuttle disasters - the SRB shooting fire at the ET causing it to explode on Challenger and cracked foam falling away from the ET during launch and hitting the leading edge of the orbiter wing for Columbia. If they were stacked vertically rather than adjacent, those specific failure modes would not have been possible.
- smarnach 2y ago
  It had a reusable orbiter, not a reusable first stage.
  - extraduder_ire 2y ago
    The external tank and both SRBs could be refurbished and reused. The orbiter also forms part of the first stage.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      Maybe at one point really early on the external tank was planned to be reused, but it was expended in every launch of the shuttle with no provisions for re-usability. They even stopped painting it within a few launches.
DoesntMatter22 2y ago
That's true but it also speaks to the fact that Space X is incredible. Not nearly as bureaucratic and innovating like crazy. The new Raptor engine alone is mind boggling in it's simplicity.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Can you teach me? When you say "The new Raptor engine", do you mean version 3? I needed to read Wiki to learn there are multiple versions. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Raptor#Raptor_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Raptor#Raptor_3
  - DoesntMatter22 2y ago
    Basically this picture says it all https://preview.redd.it/evolution-of-the-raptor-engine-by-v0-iq1xjc5h1dgd1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=50bccc5c85d0d2fd1fd7ce1d9aa81e1b003b7071 https://preview.redd.it/evolution-of-the-raptor-engine-by-v0...
- hoseja 2y ago
  I wouldn't call it "simplicity". Elegance, maybe. The 3D-printed manifolds are devilishly complicated.
bushbaba 2y ago
Or spaceX is the only firm that inspires engineers to work hard, and take (calculated) risk. To move quick. A lot of defense and aerospace is not used to the Silicon Valley mindset. Gotta give Elon credit in achieving what he did with spacex
- tweetle_beetle 2y ago
  Let's be realistic though, it's nothing to do with the 'Silicon Valley mindset'. It's just the classical route to dethroning a poor-performing incumbant - hire good talent, throw lots of money at reasearch and stay focused on the smallest targets where you can demonstrate the biggest progress. Despite his projected persona, Musk would love nothing more than to get to the position of being the bloated encumbant supplier with guaranteed government contracts regardless of results.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    >Despite his projected persona, Musk would love nothing more than to get to the position of being the bloated encumbant supplier with guaranteed government contracts regardless of results. I'm impressed you can keep saying this nonsense despite how SpaceX operates being pretty well documented.
    - danielheath 2y ago
      I mean, what wealthy person wouldn't like to be on the "free money" train?
      - _factor 2y ago
        One with an absurd amount of money that actually focuses on improving society and science. Instead we have Musk, and you’re probably right.
        hoseja 2y ago
        Oh so he doesn't focus on "improving society and science" by throwing money into jaws of NGOs but by trying to make us actually spacefaring.
HideousKojima 2y ago
And SpaceX was already beating the entire industry on price before they ever successfully reused a first stage.
throwawaymaths 2y ago
To be fair literally no one else is doing this, not Russia, not China, not Japan, not Europe.
- m4rtink 2y ago
  China has at least one Falcon 9 clone in testing stages (that one that accidentally launched during static fire a while ago) and many new-space rocket companies have reusable vehcles in pipeline (eq. Rocketlabs Neutron). Even Europe is going to do that - eventually. :P
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    > that one that accidentally launched during static fire a while ago Sounds like china currently has zero rockets that are reusable
- postingawayonhn 2y ago
  RocketLab (US/New Zealand) has been recovering stages for awhile. I think they're getting close to reflying one.
- philistine 2y ago
  That is exactly my point. It has been 10 years and aside from some small baby steps, no incumbent has declared clearly and vocally that reusability is the future. They're all in denial. The Russians, the Chinese, Europe.
  - piva00 2y ago
    > They're all in denial. The Russians, the Chinese, Europe. Not true, ArianeGroup has decided that reusability is the future with their Ariane Next program [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
me_me_me 2y ago
Because when you tally up the numbers the cost is the same - at the time of writing that is. Would it be possible to reduce the cost further? maybe... First stage needs to go through rigorous safety check in order to be re-certified for next flight thats what drives the cost up.

throwaway81523 2y ago

Erm the Space Shuttle had a reusable first stage 40+ years ago.

Rhinobird 2y ago
The space shuttle was refurbishable. It needed an army of 5000 engineers a few months to get it flight worthy after each launch. And ultimately that wasn't enough for safety.
- rockemsockem 2y ago
  To be fair, falcon 9 also gets refurbished between flights. But it's way less time/labor intensive than the shuttle.
throwaway2037 2y ago
I'm sorry this was downvoted. It is probably a bit too pithy for HN. I think you raise a good point even if there are some "technicalities" about it. Real question: I'm not an aerospace geek. The term "first stage" has probably changed at lot in rocket science in the last 50 years. From the NASA Space Shuttle to SpaceX Falcon 9, has the definition changed? From my elementary school memories, the Space Shuttle used a giant center rocket and two booster rockets that we expendable, but you are definitely right that the Space Shuttle "thing" (no idea how to call it) was used over and over again, (somewhat) safely. Something that I don't know: Where Apollo programme capsules reusued? I assume no.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  > From my elementary school memories, the Space Shuttle used a giant center rocket and two booster rockets that we expendable That's incorrect. The orange "giant center rocket" had no engines, it was an external tank which held the propellant burned by the orbiter's main engines. The SSMEs were on the "Shuttle thing" and were reused.
  - Thorrez 2y ago
    Also, the solid rocket boosters (the 2 things next to the big orange thing) were jettisoned into the ocean, then collected, refurbished, and reused.
- nycdotnet 2y ago
  The space shuttle had three main components - the orbiter (white and black space plane with the crew and cargo), the external tank (rust brown on all but the first few flights), and a pair of solid rocket boosters. The orbiter had three engines and received its propellant (oxygen and hydrogen) from the external tank. At launch, the solid rocket boosters (SRB) and the main engines were all running so technically they can all be considered part of a “first stage”. The SRBs would expend their propellant in around two minutes and separate. They dropped into the ocean, slowed via parachute, and were recovered by boat and refurbished. The three space shuttle main engines would continue to burn for several more minutes until the external tank was depleted. The ET would be discarded and burn up on reentry. Then the orbiter would use two small rockets with internally stored hypergolic propellants to boost up to its intended orbit. Apollo/Saturn had a much more traditional staging design where the first stage booster would run then drop off, then the second stage booster would run, then drop off, etc. There exist other rockets like the Atlas which had what they called a “stage and a half” design where the center stage burned for a long time and there was an outer “ring” stage that dropped off after a shorter time while the center stage kept going. After going to the moon, the only part of the entire Apollo/Saturn rocket that came back was the command module capsule with the astronauts and moon rocks. These were completely torched and affected by salt water and were not designed to be reused. Reentry from the moon is significantly faster than reentry from low earth orbit. The shuttle orbiters were refurbished and reused. It was a very difficult, expensive, and time consuming process to get an orbiter ready for another flight. All of that is to say that the picture is blurry for the shuttle regarding first stage reusability. Yes the SRBs and orbiters were reused and were lit at launch. The ET was in use at launch but discarded. In my opinion it’s sort of not that interesting to argue what is and isn’t first stage on the shuttle because the elements just don’t map cleanly. The design of the system with the SRBs, tank, and orbiters being adjacent to each other is considered by many to have been too dangerous in retrospect. This design was a factor in both shuttle disasters - the SRB shooting fire at the ET causing it to explode on Challenger and cracked foam falling away from the ET during launch and hitting the leading edge of the orbiter wing for Columbia. If they were stacked vertically rather than adjacent, those specific failure modes would not have been possible.
smarnach 2y ago
It had a reusable orbiter, not a reusable first stage.
- extraduder_ire 2y ago
  The external tank and both SRBs could be refurbished and reused. The orbiter also forms part of the first stage.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    Maybe at one point really early on the external tank was planned to be reused, but it was expended in every launch of the shuttle with no provisions for re-usability. They even stopped painting it within a few launches.

DoesntMatter22 2y ago

That's true but it also speaks to the fact that Space X is incredible. Not nearly as bureaucratic and innovating like crazy. The new Raptor engine alone is mind boggling in it's simplicity.

throwaway2037 2y ago
Can you teach me? When you say "The new Raptor engine", do you mean version 3? I needed to read Wiki to learn there are multiple versions. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Raptor#Raptor_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Raptor#Raptor_3
- DoesntMatter22 2y ago
  Basically this picture says it all https://preview.redd.it/evolution-of-the-raptor-engine-by-v0-iq1xjc5h1dgd1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=50bccc5c85d0d2fd1fd7ce1d9aa81e1b003b7071 https://preview.redd.it/evolution-of-the-raptor-engine-by-v0...
hoseja 2y ago
I wouldn't call it "simplicity". Elegance, maybe. The 3D-printed manifolds are devilishly complicated.

bushbaba 2y ago

Or spaceX is the only firm that inspires engineers to work hard, and take (calculated) risk. To move quick. A lot of defense and aerospace is not used to the Silicon Valley mindset. Gotta give Elon credit in achieving what he did with spacex

tweetle_beetle 2y ago
Let's be realistic though, it's nothing to do with the 'Silicon Valley mindset'. It's just the classical route to dethroning a poor-performing incumbant - hire good talent, throw lots of money at reasearch and stay focused on the smallest targets where you can demonstrate the biggest progress. Despite his projected persona, Musk would love nothing more than to get to the position of being the bloated encumbant supplier with guaranteed government contracts regardless of results.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  >Despite his projected persona, Musk would love nothing more than to get to the position of being the bloated encumbant supplier with guaranteed government contracts regardless of results. I'm impressed you can keep saying this nonsense despite how SpaceX operates being pretty well documented.
  - danielheath 2y ago
    I mean, what wealthy person wouldn't like to be on the "free money" train?
    - _factor 2y ago
      One with an absurd amount of money that actually focuses on improving society and science. Instead we have Musk, and you’re probably right.
      - hoseja 2y ago
        Oh so he doesn't focus on "improving society and science" by throwing money into jaws of NGOs but by trying to make us actually spacefaring.

HideousKojima 2y ago

And SpaceX was already beating the entire industry on price before they ever successfully reused a first stage.

throwawaymaths 2y ago

To be fair literally no one else is doing this, not Russia, not China, not Japan, not Europe.

m4rtink 2y ago
China has at least one Falcon 9 clone in testing stages (that one that accidentally launched during static fire a while ago) and many new-space rocket companies have reusable vehcles in pipeline (eq. Rocketlabs Neutron). Even Europe is going to do that - eventually. :P
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  > that one that accidentally launched during static fire a while ago Sounds like china currently has zero rockets that are reusable
postingawayonhn 2y ago
RocketLab (US/New Zealand) has been recovering stages for awhile. I think they're getting close to reflying one.
philistine 2y ago
That is exactly my point. It has been 10 years and aside from some small baby steps, no incumbent has declared clearly and vocally that reusability is the future. They're all in denial. The Russians, the Chinese, Europe.
- piva00 2y ago
  > They're all in denial. The Russians, the Chinese, Europe. Not true, ArianeGroup has decided that reusability is the future with their Ariane Next program [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago

me_me_me 2y ago

Because when you tally up the numbers the cost is the same - at the time of writing that is. Would it be possible to reduce the cost further? maybe... First stage needs to go through rigorous safety check in order to be re-certified for next flight thats what drives the cost up.