2 ms·

Look how much will be recoverable in the Falcon Heavy reusable stages, the monetary savings there look massive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falcon_rocket_

by dm2 12y ago

Look how much will be recoverable in the Falcon Heavy reusable stages, the monetary savings there look massive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falcon_rocket_family.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falcon_rocket_family.svg It seems like such a simple solution to the cost problem (with the attachable reusable legs on existing flights) but I'm amazed that no other rocket company has done it until now, congratulations SpaceX. I guess it was mostly because of the rocket technology (relighting an engine), the new materials (probably carbon fiber legs), and the new/cheap/lightweight computer technologies available today. Hopefully there will be some great videos/pictures from the next test which will land closer to land: http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html http://www.orbcomm.com/networks/og2-launch http://www.orbcomm.com/networks/og2-launch

mikeash 12y ago
I think it comes down to how much refurbishment the rocket needs afterwards. The Shuttle reused a lot of expensive hardware, but needed so much work after each flight that it ended up not saving any money. I'd say the odds are good for SpaceX, as it's a much easier problem (no thermal protection system, the engines are a lot less fragile, nothing is being dunked in salt water), but we'll have to see how it really works out. As for why it hasn't been tried before, it seems like the space industry is afraid of doing anything that is somehow short of what's seen as optimal. Rockets are optimized for fuel use by pushing engines and weight to the limit, which is odd because the fuel isn't really expensive. If you're going to cut down on that in the service of another goal like reusability, it seems like they want some huge payoff in exchange. Thus the shuttle ended up as a fancy spaceplane that could bring entire satellites back from orbit, and Rotary Rocket, DC-X, and X-33 were all shooting for single-stage-to-orbit. I don't know how much technology SpaceX is bringing in versus just an attitude that it's OK to be suboptimal, that it's OK to lose payload to reusability, that it's OK to work incrementally and keep throwing away some of your hardware, etc.
- outworlder 12y ago
  Fuel is not expensive. Unless it has to go up the gravity well, then it is.

by dm2 12y ago

mikeash 12y ago

I think it comes down to how much refurbishment the rocket needs afterwards. The Shuttle reused a lot of expensive hardware, but needed so much work after each flight that it ended up not saving any money. I'd say the odds are good for SpaceX, as it's a much easier problem (no thermal protection system, the engines are a lot less fragile, nothing is being dunked in salt water), but we'll have to see how it really works out. As for why it hasn't been tried before, it seems like the space industry is afraid of doing anything that is somehow short of what's seen as optimal. Rockets are optimized for fuel use by pushing engines and weight to the limit, which is odd because the fuel isn't really expensive. If you're going to cut down on that in the service of another goal like reusability, it seems like they want some huge payoff in exchange. Thus the shuttle ended up as a fancy spaceplane that could bring entire satellites back from orbit, and Rotary Rocket, DC-X, and X-33 were all shooting for single-stage-to-orbit. I don't know how much technology SpaceX is bringing in versus just an attitude that it's OK to be suboptimal, that it's OK to lose payload to reusability, that it's OK to work incrementally and keep throwing away some of your hardware, etc.

outworlder 12y ago
Fuel is not expensive. Unless it has to go up the gravity well, then it is.