3 ms·

True. But falcon 9 is far less complicated than shuttle so the chance of having more reusable equipment should be higher.

by dba7dba 13y ago

acqq 13y ago
I'm giving the example not of the whole Shuttle (complex) but just the booster engines for Shuttle (also simple). Designed to be very reusable, discovered not to be only after the real launches. That's how it works. Before you have the actual launch statistics, you can appear much smarter than you are actually. Everything is easy as long as it's just a theory. To compare, let's see what SpaceX is actually doing: The last, second attempt to recover a booster of Falcon 9 was: http://aviationweek.com/space/spacex-plans-multiple-reusable-booster-tests http://aviationweek.com/space/spacex-plans-multiple-reusable... "While SpaceX remains coy about the exact fate of the modified Falcon 9 first stage, the overall results appear to be encouraging despite the apparent breakup of the booster after it landed in heavy seas." Previous attempt: "The latest flight test follows an unsuccessful recovery attempt on Sept. 29, 2013, when the first upgraded Falcon 9 v1.1 was launched from Vandenberg AFB, Calif. Although three of its nine Merlin 1D engines fired to slow the initial descent ahead of a single engine firing for final braking, the vehicle’s spinning motion could not be controlled. As a result of aerodynamic torque, the fuel centrifuged inside the tank, flaming out the engine and sending the stage crashing into the sea."
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  You do realize that SpaceX is only running tests of the flight profile when they are "landing" the F9 first stage in the ocean, right? They aren't actually trying to recover the boosters so they can reuse them, they would just like to get more data. Actual reuse will involve returning the first stage to land, where it will make a controlled, powered landing.
  - acqq 13y ago
    Of course. All of which doesn't refute my point: until there are enough reuses in real launches these are just unsupported claims of being better in reuse than the NASA. SpaceX have the goals and that's OK but some people here behave like SpaceX already achieved them. In fact it's harder than most can comprehend. The political aspects of Space Shuttle can be ignored, the technical aspects are enough. Reuse is harder than it appears.

True. But falcon 9 is far less complicated than shuttle so the chance of having more reusable equipment should be higher.

by dba7dba 13y ago

True. But falcon 9 is far less complicated than shuttle so the chance of having more reusable equipment should be higher.

acqq 13y ago

I'm giving the example not of the whole Shuttle (complex) but just the booster engines for Shuttle (also simple). Designed to be very reusable, discovered not to be only after the real launches. That's how it works. Before you have the actual launch statistics, you can appear much smarter than you are actually. Everything is easy as long as it's just a theory. To compare, let's see what SpaceX is actually doing: The last, second attempt to recover a booster of Falcon 9 was: http://aviationweek.com/space/spacex-plans-multiple-reusable-booster-tests http://aviationweek.com/space/spacex-plans-multiple-reusable... "While SpaceX remains coy about the exact fate of the modified Falcon 9 first stage, the overall results appear to be encouraging despite the apparent breakup of the booster after it landed in heavy seas." Previous attempt: "The latest flight test follows an unsuccessful recovery attempt on Sept. 29, 2013, when the first upgraded Falcon 9 v1.1 was launched from Vandenberg AFB, Calif. Although three of its nine Merlin 1D engines fired to slow the initial descent ahead of a single engine firing for final braking, the vehicle’s spinning motion could not be controlled. As a result of aerodynamic torque, the fuel centrifuged inside the tank, flaming out the engine and sending the stage crashing into the sea."

InclinedPlane 13y ago
You do realize that SpaceX is only running tests of the flight profile when they are "landing" the F9 first stage in the ocean, right? They aren't actually trying to recover the boosters so they can reuse them, they would just like to get more data. Actual reuse will involve returning the first stage to land, where it will make a controlled, powered landing.
- acqq 13y ago
  Of course. All of which doesn't refute my point: until there are enough reuses in real launches these are just unsupported claims of being better in reuse than the NASA. SpaceX have the goals and that's OK but some people here behave like SpaceX already achieved them. In fact it's harder than most can comprehend. The political aspects of Space Shuttle can be ignored, the technical aspects are enough. Reuse is harder than it appears.