27
Falcon 9 reaches a flight rate 30 times higher than shuttle at 1/100th the cost (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 week ago by llamacoffee@lemmy.world to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago

Yeah, but like, the shuttle was cool man.

In retrospect, it wasn't the best idea, but it's probably the most complicated flying brick anyone has ever conceived and it somehow worked, most of the time.

But imagine you could go back and redesign it. Payload bay doesn't have to fit keyhole satellites. Don't have to use SRBs as a jobs program for ICBM contractors. They use a fuel that isn't as nasty to handle as hydrogen. It gets stacked vertically. Oh wait -- I just designed Starship, minus the reusable booster.

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

The asymmetric design terrifies me. Fuel tank on the side? Absolutely bonkers. And yet it totally worked.

[-] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

Fuel tank on the side? Absolutely bonkers.

And not just on the side, but the heatshield side. In retrospect, it's possible that designing it so the heat shield faced outward (further from any falling insulation) might have been safer.

And yet it totally worked.

Well, it mostly worked. 133/135 ain't bad, but statistics hit different for crewed vehicles.

[-] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

My understanding is that the payload bay had to be accessible while stacking, so tank on the other side wouldn't work.

[-] davoloid@mastodon.me.uk 3 points 1 week ago

@troyunrau @llamacoffee It was cool, but that was it's downfall. Apollo took every bit of technical resource, which might have otherwise gone into a more natural growth of activity in space. (Which is what we're seeing now).
So when someone showed a cool space plane, regardless of the costs, practicality and viability, that pattern of political expediency was already set.

[-] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago

15 million per rocket launch is actually really not bad at all. If it can fit 40 satellites, then that's $375,000 per satellite. And if it can fit 60 satellites, then that's $250,000 per satellite.

[-] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Source: https://x.com/dpoddolphinpro/status/1861817679713063084

"Falcon 9 go brrr", indeed.

this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
27 points (90.9% liked)

SpaceX

1975 readers
4 users here now

A community for discussing SpaceX.

Related space communities:

Memes:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
few@sh.itjust.works