Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, reusable is supposed to reduce the cost. But the space shuttle was reusable and it has been shutdown because it was too expensive. What is the differences between the two?
SRB and tank were not re-usable. That’s the equivalent of the first stage you just saw getting caught
Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]
101–110 of 1001 posts
Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]
#102Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]
#103Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]
#104Video of the catch > Mechazilla has caught the Super Heavy booster! https://x.com/spacex/status/1845442658397049011
I wonder what will happen when they get to 99% reliability? They clean up and rebuild the Mechazilla every once a hundred catches, on that occasion that one fails?
Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]
#105Nothing could have prepared me for how that catch looked. I was sure the rocket was careening into the tower at the last second before it straightened out. The control algorithms must be incredible for the landing system to work within those small tolerances.
Had flashbacks to playing Jupiter Landing on the C64!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Lander
Edit: SpaceX should create a simple 'catch' the rocket game. Play in browser style. Just for kicks and marketing.
Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that 150t of payload or total? What’s the cost in fuel alone (let’s ignore maintenance and operations costs for now)? I’m trying to get a feel for the relative scale compared to today’s commercial flight.
Methane is about 900-1500$ / ton. About 1000 tons is used for the launch in addition to 3600 tons of lox. That should be a bit cheaper than methane per ton. Ballpark, the propellant might cost around 2M$. A modern airliner on a long flight might burn around 80 tons of kerosene. It's slightly cheaper than methane. Call it 75-80K$.
Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]
#107[stub for offtopicness]
[flagged]
It assumes that decision makers elsewhere in the world can’t get forewarning.
But it’s impossible to hide any project development on that scale from spies, or even just plain corruption, so now that decision makers across the world know that at least the launch mechanisms are possible… the moment such program preparations are detected on a scale that can’t be explained away as noise will result in them activating every panic button they have.
Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]
#108Very inspiring, glad I woke up to watch it. Congratulations to the SpaceX team. This is what competition looks like. It’s funny how last decade SpaceX had to sue the government to get more launches.
The FAA needs more funding at this point. They're not staffed for the rate of launch requests which commercial space has grown too.
Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]
#109I'm just so happy to see this level of progress. This another big step for opening up space. To think that one day this will be considered normal. 150 Metric tons sent on a fully reusable rocket. Thats like a 747 to space.
So, reusable is supposed to reduce the cost. But the space shuttle was reusable and it has been shutdown because it was too expensive. What is the differences between the two?
But on a more technical level. I think the vertical landing is the main difference. Vertical landing was obviously known and done by NASA, this is how the lunar modules landed on the Moon. But doing it on Earth, with vehicles weighing hundreds of times more, I don't think the world had that technical readiness a few decades ago, when the space shuttle was designed.
And another major difference is the mass manufacturing idea. From the start SpaceX planned for getting to mass manufacture its rockets. The Falcon rockets are much cheaper than any other alternatives even if you remove the reusability.
Then it's the methane burning engines. This was pure old fashioned engineering progress. SpaceX's engines are miracles of rocket engineering. Aside from that, the fuel choice is extremely smart. Methane is better than all other fuels, except for hydrogen. Hydrogen was the fuel of the space shuttle, but it's very tricky to work with. It has very low volumetric density, so the tank of the space shuttle was absolutely humongous. Hydrogen needs to be stored at an absurdly low cryogenic temperature, so this adds to the complexity. And that tank was not reusable, so it adds to the cost.
Re: Starship Flight 5: Launch and booster catch [video]
#110Very inspiring, glad I woke up to watch it. Congratulations to the SpaceX team. This is what competition looks like. It’s funny how last decade SpaceX had to sue the government to get more launches.
The FAA needs more funding at this point. They're not staffed for the rate of launch requests which commercial space has grown too.