3 ms·
You can make a reusable launch vehicle that's economical. You can also make one that is incredibly expensive, if its poorly designed. The two are not mutually e
by adastra 14y ago
You can make a reusable launch vehicle that's economical. You can also make one that is incredibly expensive, if its poorly designed. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Kind of like how most cars are cheap on a per-use basis, but it would be insane to use a formula-1 racecar as your daily driver.
That's basically the shuttle. In fact, it's worse. More like putting that F-1 engine in an 18-wheeler sized truck, only doing 2 trips to the grocery store per year, and having the ferrari racing team's engineers and mechanics rebuild the engine and replace the tires after every trip.
- WalterBright 14y ago>You can make a reusable launch vehicle that's economical. I find that difficult to believe, given the enormous extra weight that will be necessary. Look at the Apollo rocket, with that teeny tiny capsule on top of that massive thing. The capsule was the only thing that came back, and that whole massive rocket was needed to push that little capsule to the moon. Now add wings, landing gear, etc., to the capsule, and imagine how much bigger the Saturn V would have to be.
- adastra 14y agoWings aren't the only way. Both Elon Musk (SpaceX) and Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin) are pursuing reusable launch vehicles that land vertically by gimbaling and throttling the rocket engines. This isn't wishful thinking either -- both have already done some initial low altitude VTVL tests. Videos here: http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/22/spacexs-grasshopper-vertical-takeoff-vertical-landing-rocke/ http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/22/spacexs-grasshopper-verti... http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2011-11-17-video-of-the-short-hop-flight.html http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2011-11-17-video-o...