Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmm | Hacker News Reader

NASA reused every engine (not just the first stage) of an orbital payload delivery system, many times, 30 years ago. Runway rather than barge but that's not really an important difference.

(The exciting part will be much cheaper refurbishment than the STS. But SpaceX haven't actually delivered on that component yet)

View on HN

> Runway rather than barge but that's not really an important difference.

it is an important difference when you look beyond earth

the moon, mars, and any future site that has yet to send robots to pave a runaway that is: 4,500 meters long, 91 meters wide, and 40 centimeters thick(o); will necessarily be vertical take off and landing

(o) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Landing_Facility

Also kinda hard to glide in for a landing when there's little/no atmosphere...

If and when SpaceX land rockets beyond Earth, that will very much be something to get excited about.

This argument makes no sense.

The point is that SpaceX hasn't yet accomplished anything NASA didn't. That SpaceX's approach will be more suitable to future things is not a good counterargument.

They have: they're cheaper, they've developed new technologies, and they're doing it privately.

> That SpaceX's approach will be more suitable to future things is not a good counterargument.

No one is saying that, they're just being positive and looking forward to the future.

How is that bad?

Doing things cheaper is good, sure. All I'm saying is that zupreme's original point is fair (they haven't (yet) really done anything concrete that NASA haven't (just done it cheaper), and the current enthusiasm is perhaps disproportionate)

We can agree on that!

While that is true, by the time they rebuilt them, you might as well call them new engines.

SpaceX took their landed first stage directly over to the test pad to fire the engines multiple times. It's not really apples to apples.

If SpaceX can deliver what they're claiming in terms of refurb time/cost then that will be something to celebrate. But projects have a way of revealing unexpected challenges right at the last moment. I'm going to hold off the champagne until a refurbished booster actually flies.

That so negative. Of course they don't do this all in one go, it is incremental, step by step to get it to work. And each step is one closer to that goal and something to be happy about. If there are 'unexpected challenges right at the last moment' that's a real pity but those will be met just like all the unexpected challenges along the way. Yes, it's difficult, not it does not seem to be so impossibly difficult or different from what they've done to date that we should assume that it will not work. It will work, the bigger question is when.

Technically, the full SRBs were never (to my knowledge) re-used. Because of the salt water damage, they were parted out and some of those parts were used in new engines.

A shuttle launch cost over an order of magnitude more than a Falcon 9 launch does, though. This is hugely relevant because the biggest factor limiting space travel is cost more than it is anything else. The demand for space travel is absolutely there, and all that is required to satisfy that demand is simply lowering cost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com