4 ms·

This is like "guess and check" method, just on steroids for rocket scientists. 30-40% sounds like a good enough percentage to me. If I remember correctly, it

This is like "guess and check" method, just on steroids for rocket scientists. 30-40% sounds like a good enough percentage to me. If I remember correctly, it wasn't until the space shuttle solid rocket boosters that NASA managed to recover a 1st stage. SpaceX is a lot younger.

JshWright 13y ago
This is a _completely_ different sort of recovery though. The Shuttle SRBs just fell into the ocean under parachutes. The F9 first stage will be 'landing' under its own power (after decelerating itself to reduce aerodynamic stresses).
- wolf550e 13y ago
  Also, the SRBs were not "rapidly reusable", they were not simply refueled or merely refurbished. They went in sections back to Utah for essentially re-manufacturing. It was more expensive to reuse the SRBs than to buy new ones, but the decision was made to reuse because of prestige.
  - Retric 13y ago
    I suspect it had less to do with prestige than jobs. A large chunk of the initial SRB cost was raw materials, more of the refurbishing costs was manpower. Congress critters dislike direct welfare but but put a fig leaf on it an call it a middle class job and there practically in love.
troymc 13y ago
Yes, NASA did recover the shuttle's solid rocket boosters, but for a different definition of "recover." They fell into the ocean and required an expensive overhaul.
- coreymgilmore 13y ago
  Makes it that much more interesting that a private company is attempting to recover/reuse at a reasonable price. The cost saving should be substantial, but until the IPO we won't know! Also of note, the space shuttle missions were the first "reusable" systems. SpaceX is just starting out and they are already attempting it. Very cool!
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Launches with a reused first stage will probably be sold more cheaply, because component wear means they'll be less reliable (or at least perceived as such). Just how much cheaper they are ought to tell us something about how much SpaceX saves.
  - ericcumbee 13y ago
    The difference is just the Shuttle's External tank in 1995 cost 55 million each. not to mention the SRB reconditioning was almost as much as building new boosters. and those are only two costs of prepping a shuttle for each launch. not to mention the extensive processing workflow that takes place. so for the cost of 3 external tanks Nasa is getting a cargo resupply. Thats a bargain even with the current economics (which spacex is keen on shifting downward).

JshWright 13y ago

This is a _completely_ different sort of recovery though. The Shuttle SRBs just fell into the ocean under parachutes. The F9 first stage will be 'landing' under its own power (after decelerating itself to reduce aerodynamic stresses).

wolf550e 13y ago
Also, the SRBs were not "rapidly reusable", they were not simply refueled or merely refurbished. They went in sections back to Utah for essentially re-manufacturing. It was more expensive to reuse the SRBs than to buy new ones, but the decision was made to reuse because of prestige.
- Retric 13y ago
  I suspect it had less to do with prestige than jobs. A large chunk of the initial SRB cost was raw materials, more of the refurbishing costs was manpower. Congress critters dislike direct welfare but but put a fig leaf on it an call it a middle class job and there practically in love.

troymc 13y ago

Yes, NASA did recover the shuttle's solid rocket boosters, but for a different definition of "recover." They fell into the ocean and required an expensive overhaul.

coreymgilmore 13y ago
Makes it that much more interesting that a private company is attempting to recover/reuse at a reasonable price. The cost saving should be substantial, but until the IPO we won't know! Also of note, the space shuttle missions were the first "reusable" systems. SpaceX is just starting out and they are already attempting it. Very cool!
- mikeash 13y ago
  Launches with a reused first stage will probably be sold more cheaply, because component wear means they'll be less reliable (or at least perceived as such). Just how much cheaper they are ought to tell us something about how much SpaceX saves.
- ericcumbee 13y ago
  The difference is just the Shuttle's External tank in 1995 cost 55 million each. not to mention the SRB reconditioning was almost as much as building new boosters. and those are only two costs of prepping a shuttle for each launch. not to mention the extensive processing workflow that takes place. so for the cost of 3 external tanks Nasa is getting a cargo resupply. Thats a bargain even with the current economics (which spacex is keen on shifting downward).