Yeah, iirc the shuttle significantly overpromised on savings via reusability, from the beginning. Sure it has some, but the 'but' is significant enough that if its backers had been able to see the future they possibly/probably wouldn't have signed up.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla
- Status
Sufficient hatred.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,221
Boy, do you have that wrong.
I don't think you understand how space flight works. The first and second stages of the Saturn V didn't get beyond low earth orbit either. If your rocket can reach low earth orbit, then the payload of the rocket can do the rest. That's how it works. SpaceX routinely launches satellites into geostationary orbit. They've also launched payloads into heliocentric orbits and to the moon. If you can get a large enough payload into low earth orbit, you can go anywhere you want after that. And right now, Falcon Heavy and the SLS are the ONLY super heavy launch vehicles in operation, and SLS is dedicated exclusively to Artemis missions, making SpaceX the best choice if you want a deep space launch.
So the idea that they can't get beyond LEO is stupid on its face and already disproven.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Turnaround is also a lot cheaper. This goes hand in hand with it being a lot faster, of course. It also goes hand in hand with making access to orbit cheaper.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Plus, the "if they could do it sixty years ago why aren't they doing it now?" formulation is classic conspiracy theorist drivel. Our Gully Foyle is just about on par with Apollo Hoaxers.
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 12,680
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/04/12...m-driver-assistance-option-by-half-in-us.html
after a mandatory free trial fsd price is cut in half
after a mandatory free trial fsd price is cut in half
jeremyp
Philosopher
Space Shuttle was a reusable orbital vehicle capable of carrying people and payloads to orbit and bringing the people back again. The whole thing was reusable except for the fuel tank.
Falcon 9 is a partially reusable vehicle capable of carrying payloads to orbit, but the only reusable part is the first stage booster. Separately, there's also the Dragon capsule which is reusable.
The Space Shuttle was a much grander attempt to design a reusable space craft than anything that SpaceX has done (successfully) so far. If they get Starship working well enough to be human rated, that's the true comparison. Although even that is a bit unfair. Nobody says the DC3 was rubbish just because 40 years later there was the Boeing 747.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
When we get home from a trip we’re on - not in our Tesla - I will probably try a month @ $99 to see how good the current iteration is - or not. I doubt I’d pay for it on a regular basis, but might enroll periodically when we take road trips.
I can see folks who have paid $12k up front for FSD being a bit peeved right about now.
On the other hand, no one says the 747 was rubbish because the DC3 preceeded it.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
Fuel tank PLUS the two solid rocket boosters.
The faring is also reusable. Entire first stage + capsule + faring
The shuttle engines seemed to require vastly more refurbishment between launches compared to the Merlins used in the Falcon 9.
Bogative
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,131
While the MDS sufferers are living in an alternate reality, Space X launched and recovered the same booster for the 20th time last night.
That is the Falcon program's 332nd successful launch.
111th launch in a one year period.
38th launch this year.
7th launch in 8 days.
That is the Falcon program's 332nd successful launch.
111th launch in a one year period.
38th launch this year.
7th launch in 8 days.
miatasport99
Scholar
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2006
- Messages
- 86
I thought the shuttles reused their boosters too after ocean recovery. I've heard conflicting opinions about weather any of the reusability was cost effective though.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The shuttle was also a miserable pile of inefficient compromises, that pretty much guaranteed its reusability would be cost-ineffective.
The Falcon rockets, much like the Boeing 737 series, is a focused design that serves a real market demand in an efficient and profitable way.
The Falcon rockets, much like the Boeing 737 series, is a focused design that serves a real market demand in an efficient and profitable way.
If someone wants to argue that the shuttle was an important predecessor to the Falcon 9 in demonstrating at the least the technical possibility of reusability, if not the economic success of the strategy, and possibly in working through some of the design problems, that's at least a plausible argument to make. I don't know how much of the work done on the shuttle informed (even in the "don't do what they did" sense) work done in developing the falcon rockets.
If someone want to argue that the shuttle was a major technological achievement at the time, I'm happy to agree to that as well, and while it was probably not the right direction for the space program of the 80s, its still an impressive machine.
But to suggest that its someone a better attempt at reusability than the Falcon rockets is ridiculous. The point of reusability is the fact that it allows you not to waste resources: ie. making launch cheaper. The shuttle didn't achieve that because the savings they gained from reuse were more than made up for in the costs between launches. Just look at the costs of the two vehicles to compare their success on this metric.
Personally I hope both that SpaceX continues to have success innovating in launch, and that Starship is a success, and that new comers into the reusable rocket game will also be successful and bring more competition and innovation into this sector (Blue Origin for instance, but they aren't the only ones, there is a lot of innovation going on right now).
If someone want to argue that the shuttle was a major technological achievement at the time, I'm happy to agree to that as well, and while it was probably not the right direction for the space program of the 80s, its still an impressive machine.
But to suggest that its someone a better attempt at reusability than the Falcon rockets is ridiculous. The point of reusability is the fact that it allows you not to waste resources: ie. making launch cheaper. The shuttle didn't achieve that because the savings they gained from reuse were more than made up for in the costs between launches. Just look at the costs of the two vehicles to compare their success on this metric.
Personally I hope both that SpaceX continues to have success innovating in launch, and that Starship is a success, and that new comers into the reusable rocket game will also be successful and bring more competition and innovation into this sector (Blue Origin for instance, but they aren't the only ones, there is a lot of innovation going on right now).
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,673
The Space Shuttle could have been made to be much cheaper on subsequent missions, but by then the project was already so expensive that Congress only wanted the "no more money now, more money later" version.
Counterfactuals are hard. You'll have to supply pretty strong evidence to convince me that this claim is true. Weaker evidence could probably convince me that it's plausible, but a lot of things are plausible.
It's also sort of beside the point. We weren't discussing what the Space Shuttle could have been, but what it was. Jeremyp thinks that the Space Shuttle was better* at reusability than the Falcon 9. Not in some other branch of the multiverse, but here in this one.
*Or at least as good, the claim is slightly vague here.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,673
given the incredibly poor weight/carry capacity of the space shuttle, it was never going to be as economic as a Spaceship type delivery system.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I don't think payload as a percentage of mass is the determining factor, especially for a reusable or partly reusable system. If the launch vehicle has a small payload, but is cheap and fast to recondition after each launch, for example. There's probably a few sweet spots in the design envelope, depending on what tradeoffs you want to make, and what technologies are available to you.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The space shuttle was an important innovation and a lot was learned for the next generation of space vehicles.
One major difference between it and the Starship is that it had a sophisticated interior.
That is something that seems to be overlooked when comparisons are being made.
The Starship is currently an empty vessel. I have heard very little about the interior and what it will actually be. That alone would take a decade to develop to something of the complexity of the shuttle.
One major difference between it and the Starship is that it had a sophisticated interior.
That is something that seems to be overlooked when comparisons are being made.
The Starship is currently an empty vessel. I have heard very little about the interior and what it will actually be. That alone would take a decade to develop to something of the complexity of the shuttle.
- Status