Science upside for Starship

Re:Science upside for Starship by codeulike on Monday November 22, 2021 @10:39AM (#29307523)

I am still utterly baffled by the way people are impressed by a reusable launch vehicle. This stuff is old hat. This person worked at NASA! They probably worked on systems that were launched on Shuttles!

I'm a bit baffled as to how you dont see how Falcon 9 and Starship are different to the shuttle. Much more re-usable, must faster turnaround. And hence much cheaper cost per kg to orbit. Granted that Starship might turn out to not work (Musk likes to gamble, thats what innovation _is_) but even Falcon 9 is reusable in a much more comprehensive way than the SLS ever was.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science upside for Starship by macintux on Monday November 22, 2021 @11:32AM (#29308253)

(For anyone else confused like me: codeulike is replying to a different, dead comment by the same person.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science upside for Starship by avmich on Monday November 22, 2021 @08:26PM (#29313619)

Let me continue here.

Henry Spencer at least helped to popularize the idea (if not invented the phrase himself), that Space Shuttle wasn't reusable, but rather refurbishable system. Both 1st stage boosters and 2nd stage engines had to go through detailed inspection and maintenance after each flight.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science upside for Starship by nsonha on Monday November 22, 2021 @04:50PM (#29311958)

> old hat

to be fair to them the idea is not new and shuttles could not have worked the way Space X rockets do, for that it requires sensors and computing power not available at the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]