this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
14 points (81.8% liked)
SpaceX
1989 readers
17 users here now
A community for discussing SpaceX.
Related space communities:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Memes:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The lack of vacuum relight is really interesting - I thought that was the biggest barrier to a "real" orbital flight with a payload that can start offsetting development costs.
But yes, everything else about this flight plan is exciting!
My guess would be that they figure the engineering to get that to work is simple enough that they skipped the risk of it messing up the much more challenging and interesting test of reentry. They already relight Merlin engines in a vacuum routinely so they're experienced with that, even though Raptor's a very different engine I bet there's plenty of similarities there.
I think I've come to a similar conclusion after IFT-4. Reusability is the top priority, not a stretch goal like with Falcon-9. As such, the expected value of testing reentry is a lot higher than that of orbital maneuvering.
What an insanely aggressive development approach!