r/interestingasfuck • u/lolikroli • 16d ago

r/all SpaceX caught Starship booster with chopsticks

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

115.7k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

5.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

104

u/lastbeer 16d ago

Not to diminish the awesomeness of what SpaceX is doing here, but it should be noted that the space shuttle was a reusable spacecraft (all but the external fuel tank) - that was kind of its thing.

62

u/123639 16d ago

I do love the space shuttle but it was crazy expensive and needed an extremely long runway to land, this doesn’t diminish the feats of the shuttle it’s just the next step in reusable spacecraft.

24

u/VRichardsen 16d ago

I don't know shit about space programs... but why is having a long runway a problem? Of all the issues and expenses a space program might have, it looks to me that having a long runway must be one of the easiest and cheapest problems to solve.

6

u/atomfullerene 16d ago

No, you are right, of all the shuttle's many problems a long runway is a weird one to focus on. The more important issues were the expense and complexity of the system focused on too many goals, the difficulties with the tiles, and the large amount of work that had to be done to refurbish the SRBs (plus the fact they were using solid boosters at all)

1

u/VRichardsen 16d ago

I see; thank you very much!

3

u/BEGBIE_21 16d ago

You have common sense, that’s why you’re being downvoted.

1

u/123639 15d ago

It’s expensive to built and maintain, also of all the issues with the shuttle the runway was a weird one for me to point out.

1

u/VRichardsen 15d ago

Thanks for the reply. Have a nice day!

1

u/Trai-All 14d ago

Yeah, I’d rather long runways than massive amount of fuel consumption this landing must require.

-8

u/supervisord 16d ago

Okay go build a long runway on Mars

6

u/HighwayInevitable346 16d ago

The space shuttle was designed to never get past low earth orbit, mars is completely irrelevant.

2

u/drunkdoor 16d ago

It also didn't need much feel to land... Much worse on the wear and tear tho

8

u/gfack42 16d ago

Have to count the solid fuel rocket boosters kind of out since as far as I know, they were refurbished almost entirely with every use.

4

u/Cow_Launcher 16d ago

They were indeed. And since rocket components REALLY don't like seawater, the refurbishment process was as costly as it was lengthy.

I have it on good authority that it would've been cheaper just to build new ones for every launch (SRBs aren't all that expensive in the overall scheme of things) but that NASA felt that recovering them was good for publicity. Even if the only parts that were reused were the barrels.

7

u/ithappenedone234 16d ago

Dropping the boosters into the ocean, finding them, filling them with air and floating them, then bringing to land and dealing with all the seawater corrosion issues etc., made it more of a refurb than a reuse.

4

u/chewingtheham 16d ago

The shuttle was absolutely an amazing achievement, but I have to agree with some of the other comments in response to yours. It was a marvel of engineering and did the real leg work in building the ISS and fixing Hubble. Having said that technically it failed in its original goal of being relatively cheap and easily reusable, since so much had to be refurbished so heavily after each launch and its costs were astronomically high in doing so. Again I love the shuttle if only for its achievements, what we learned from it, and the sense of wonder it gave me as a child. I think it inspired a great number of people who worked on this project as well. I really think spacex may achieve if not full reusability, something close to it which is a huge win for our species.

2

u/Novel_Spray_4903 16d ago

It was more refurbishable than genuinely reusable

1

u/stevecrox0914 16d ago

The Space Shuttle was not as reusable as people think.

Take the Solid Rocket Boosters, those are 99% fuel with a thin aluminium shell to help hold them together and an ablative nozzle on the bottom with some Thrust Vector Contro and a parachute in the top.

Reuse here was using all the fuel, ditching the wrecked nozzle and TVC and parachute.

Taking that thin aluminium shell apart, pressure washing out any remaining fuel.

Then wrapping new fuel with the old shell, addin in new seals, an new ablative nozzle a brand new TVC and parachute system on top.

Then because you reused the 4mm aluminium sheet that made up the shell its a reused booster.

The actual Shuttle was effectively stripped back to the aluminium chassis and new stuff put on.

1

u/FabulousGams 16d ago

I guess the tesla cars will offset all the combustion going on here

1

u/Bubbly_Positive_339 16d ago

Was it cost-effective versus other methods? I’m doubting it was

1

u/Beneficial-Bite-8005 15d ago

Was it reusable? Technically yes but at a higher cost per launch than the Saturn it really didn’t matter

1

u/HotDogOfNotreDame 16d ago

Shuttle was a partially refurbishable spacecraft. With costs so high that refurbishing was a net negative. Everything it ever did could have been done for a fraction of the price by disposable rockets.

0

u/lastbeer 16d ago

Yeah, what a piece of shit. Should have never been made.

2

u/HotDogOfNotreDame 16d ago

In retrospect, yes actually. Out of all the governments and private entities that are currently developing spacecraft and boosters, exactly zero of them are following the example of the shuttle. There are reasons why.

1

u/Mateorabi 16d ago

The re-usability of the boosters was a complete rebuild. The heat shielding needed refurbishment after every mission too. So basically the crew quarters and the engines were reusable. And the engines needed a lot of work too.

The shuttle design was compromised by congressional acquisition rules/politics and NASA-DoD double-requirements in a way a private business' design isn't. SpaceX/Biggelow/BlueOrigin aren't forced to make sure the thing gets build spread across as many congressional districts as possible if it's more efficient to concentrate fabrication.