4 ms·

I mean from a technological point of view sure, but that just shows how bad the design was(compared to what we know now). The falcon program shows that it’s obv

I mean from a technological point of view sure, but that just shows how bad the design was(compared to what we know now). The falcon program shows that it’s obviously way more economical to just ditch the 2nd stage and reuse the booster. F9 launches cost sub 20 million and a shuttle launch costs on the order of a billion. Squabble over whatever details you want about performance or who had to do what R&D but F9 is clearly in a different league.

dylan604 4y ago
> Squabble over whatever details you want about performance or who had to do what R&D but F9 is clearly in a different league. Falcon 9 First launch attempt 2007 [0] Shuttle First launch 1981 [1] I wonder if there's an advantage to having 26 years of watching someone else before designing yours? You also act like the rockets from the shuttle were not reused. They always (except for 2 instances) came back with the shuttle. The SRBs were also recovered, so it's not like these were wasted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_b... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle
- ktpecot 4y ago
  I’m not disputing SpaceX had the advantage of learning from peoples mistakes. And I’m not arguing that they didn’t physically get the engines and boosters back I’m just saying that calling the space shuttle and F9 both reusable may be semantically true but is really not giving an accurate representation.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    SpaceX is also contributing to the increasing amounts of space junk. How long is the second stage just floating around after delivering payloads? Once the shuttle delivered payloads, it just left nothing but space.
    - ktpecot 4y ago
      Lol are you just making stuff up now? The second stage re enters the atmosphere and burns up.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        No, it was a legit question. It depends on the payload though right? For StarLink deployments at LEO, I'm sure it re-enters soon-ish. But what about for higher altitude launches of other types of satellites? How long does the second stage float around?
        mlindner 4y ago
        If you have questions I'd suggest asking them as a question. Your post read as a statement of fact with a rhetorical question attached.
        dylan604 4y ago
        "How long is the second stage just floating around after delivering payloads?" How much more of a interrogative statement does it need to be made to be considered asking a non-rhetorical question?
        geocrasher 4y ago
        If you take it out of context of your post, yes, it looks like a well posed question. When read in context it looks rhetorical and that's how I took it, too. Perhaps you didn't intend that. But that is how it came out.
        mlindner 4y ago
        As a standalone question that's fine, but in context it's a rhetorical question as you already state your assumed answer.
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      Almost Immediately after the payload is deployed, the second stage does a deorbit burn. So maybe an hour? Each Shuttle launch ended with ditching the enormous external tank into like the Indian Ocean, far more dry mass in the atmosphere/ocean than a Falcon 9 upper stage. (Also, the ET was about $100-150 million apiece.)

dylan604 4y ago

> Squabble over whatever details you want about performance or who had to do what R&D but F9 is clearly in a different league. Falcon 9 First launch attempt 2007 [0] Shuttle First launch 1981 [1] I wonder if there's an advantage to having 26 years of watching someone else before designing yours? You also act like the rockets from the shuttle were not reused. They always (except for 2 instances) came back with the shuttle. The SRBs were also recovered, so it's not like these were wasted. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_b... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle

ktpecot 4y ago
I’m not disputing SpaceX had the advantage of learning from peoples mistakes. And I’m not arguing that they didn’t physically get the engines and boosters back I’m just saying that calling the space shuttle and F9 both reusable may be semantically true but is really not giving an accurate representation.
- dylan604 4y ago
  SpaceX is also contributing to the increasing amounts of space junk. How long is the second stage just floating around after delivering payloads? Once the shuttle delivered payloads, it just left nothing but space.
  - ktpecot 4y ago
    Lol are you just making stuff up now? The second stage re enters the atmosphere and burns up.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      No, it was a legit question. It depends on the payload though right? For StarLink deployments at LEO, I'm sure it re-enters soon-ish. But what about for higher altitude launches of other types of satellites? How long does the second stage float around?
      - mlindner 4y ago
        If you have questions I'd suggest asking them as a question. Your post read as a statement of fact with a rhetorical question attached.
        dylan604 4y ago
        "How long is the second stage just floating around after delivering payloads?" How much more of a interrogative statement does it need to be made to be considered asking a non-rhetorical question?
        geocrasher 4y ago
        If you take it out of context of your post, yes, it looks like a well posed question. When read in context it looks rhetorical and that's how I took it, too. Perhaps you didn't intend that. But that is how it came out.
        mlindner 4y ago
        As a standalone question that's fine, but in context it's a rhetorical question as you already state your assumed answer.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    Almost Immediately after the payload is deployed, the second stage does a deorbit burn. So maybe an hour? Each Shuttle launch ended with ditching the enormous external tank into like the Indian Ocean, far more dry mass in the atmosphere/ocean than a Falcon 9 upper stage. (Also, the ET was about $100-150 million apiece.)