this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
242 points (85.4% liked)

Technology

60091 readers
2758 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
242
Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket explodes in second test flight | CNN (www.cnn.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/technology
110 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

SpaceX’s Starship rocket system reached several milestones in its second test flight before the rocket booster and spacecraft exploded over the Gulf of Mexico.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FauxPseudo 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The space shuttle was a bus on boosters we had to fish out of the ocean. It was expensive and had a very limited cargo capacity.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Okay?

I mean, I very much forget what the "marketing" was. But like I mentioned above, the real value is the crew and scope of missions. You have a lot more space to move around and do Science! and whatever else.

[–] Zron -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The dragon capsule and falcon nine is a bus on boosters. It can only deliver people OR cargo. Not both.

The space shuttle could deliver crew, cargo, and mission modules in one launch. It was a very versatile and 75% reusable too. Compared to falcon which is only about 50% reusable.

[–] Balex 8 points 1 year ago

The fastest turnaround time for a space shuttle was 54 days pre Challenger disaster and 88 days post Challenger disaster. It was very expensive and time consuming to reuse the space shuttle (they basically had to completely disassemble and reassemble the whole thing) which is one of the main reasons it has stopped flying. Falcon 9 on the other hand has a fastest turnaround time of 3 weeks. So not sure where you got your numbers from, but it seems to me that the Falcon 9 is a much better vehicle in terms of reuse.

[–] FauxPseudo 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You should look further into what that 25% difference is as far as cost and labor. Because that number is lying to you.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm pretty sure I remember reading that the cost to refurbish the shuttle boosters ended up costing as much or more than new ones.