4 ms·
Booster re-usability is only the first half of the problem. It's the second stage re-usability that makes Starship viable despite its massive second stage. The
by foxyv 1y ago
Booster re-usability is only the first half of the problem. It's the second stage re-usability that makes Starship viable despite its massive second stage. The re-entry heating is trashing their second stages which would make the killer feature of Starship, fast turnaround, impractical.
Also, as far as I can tell from their last test video, they are still shredding their Flaperons at the joint.
- m4rtink 1y agoI don't think there were any visible burn throughs this way around at the flaps.
- terminalshort 1y agoWho cares? Even if they never solve the flap issue, the cost of bolting on new flaps every flight is minimal.
- foxyv 1y agoThat's like bolting new wings on a 777 after every flight. It's going to cost a LOT and you won't be able to just load up fuel/passengers and take off again. I'm sure SpaceX will eventually fix the problem. They are well funded, the materials exist, and they have amazing engineers. They just haven't reached that point yet.
- terminalshort 1y agoWhen the current industry standard is that the whole 777 is replaced every flight, that's one hell of an improvement.
- foxyv 1y agoThat isn't the industry standard anymore thanks to SpaceX. Starship isn't competing with Saturn 9 and the Space Shuttle, it is competing with Falcon Heavy. If the second stage cannot be re-used then you may as well launch a much cheaper second stage that isn't rated for re-entry like Dragon.
- postingawayonhn 1y ago'Cost a LOT' is relative though. Expensive compared to a 777 flight? Sure. Expensive compared to every other moon capable rocket? No.
- foxyv 1y agoBut is it going to be cheaper than Falcon Heavy?