3 ms·
There's another point here: The Falcon 9 rockets are much simpler than the Space Shuttle. It doesn't make sense to compare the most ridiculous hybrid of sailpla
by marvin 13y ago
There's another point here: The Falcon 9 rockets are much simpler than the Space Shuttle. It doesn't make sense to compare the most ridiculous hybrid of sailplane and rocket that's ever been created by a committée of politicians with a rocket design that's at its core an incremental development over tried-and-true rocket designs.
There is so much more margin of error with the Falcon 9, the industry veterans have no idea what they are talking about. Their experiences are built on a generation of excessive complexity.
- mikeash 13y agoI must object to your use of the word "sailplane". The Shuttle was a glider. A sailplane is a glider that can soar by climbing in rising air. Anyway, you are right. The amazing thing about Falcon 9R is just how little was added to the standard Falcon 9. Slap some legs on it and give it some fancy software and call it a day, pretty much. It's a completely different world from custom-designing a reusable spaceplane from scratch.
- marvin 13y agoPoint taken on the semantics I suppose, but I do actually have a glider pilot's license and have been flying gliders (the soaring kind) in mountainous terrain for six years. Never bothered with the distinction since most pilots over here call their aircraft gliders, but I suppose there is a textbook definition somewhere that disagrees.
- mikeash 13y agoWell, they are gliders. All sailplanes are gliders, but not all gliders are sailplanes. I don't know that too many people make that distinction, but it does seem to be the accepted definition of "sailplane". There's nothing wrong with calling, say, an ASW-20 a glider, but calling the Shuttle a sailplane isn't quite right.