4 ms·
> Noone Name another company that even landed orbital class booster on whatever try. 10 years ago it was an impossible feat many were laughing at.
by jve 2y ago
> Noone
Name another company that even landed orbital class booster on whatever try.
10 years ago it was an impossible feat many were laughing at.
- cma 2y agoThe space shuttle achieved reusable booster landing in the 80s with parachutes and water. Delta clipper controlled burn relanding in the 90s but not scaled to orbital class.
- inglor_cz 2y agoSolid engine booster isn't in the same category of complexity as liquid engine booster, though.
- cma 2y agoSure, just saying it wasn't an impossible feat.
- lupusreal 2y agoNobody with any sense for how rockets work should be impressed with parachuting and refurbing SRB tubes. Landing a proper rocket stage the real way is an impressive feat of robotics and engine engineering. The shuttle SRB thing was a wasteful farce meant to pay lip service to the loftier goals set by earlier Shuttle proposals (such as real flyback boosters.) A far better example, although still not exactly the same sort of thing, would be landing the SSMEs with every orbiter landing. They obviously required refurbishment (as all Falcon 9 Merlin engines do too) and the propellant tanks were expended, but the engineering that went into the SSMEs is a much better example of precedent to Falcon 9 than dropping spent SRBs on parachutes. SLS/Artemis is actually using some of the specific SSMEs that have flown before on Shuttles. Veteran engines, but they will be discarded this time, no more refurbing. What a damn shame.
- baq 2y agoShame for nostalgia reasons perhaps, these engines were made out of unicorn tears and the price tag reflected that. The new gen methalox engines are much saner economically.