No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I hate Musk and his personal everything, but Like SpaceX. However, when people gush about reusability, they seem to forget the 135 Space Shuttle missions (2 fatal failures , yes.). All done with 5 vehicles. Yes expensive etc, but truly amazing.
Also, I really don’t find anything SpaceX is doing revolutionary. Impressive? Yes, but it’s essentially incremental engineering, made possible by ginormous funding, including NASA money, and a private company doing things that NASA can-t politically afford.
Imagine NASA crashing 4 Shuttles before getting landing right. There’d be no NASA by now.
NASA spent about 50 Billion today-dollars developing (not launching) the shuttle program and that went to private contractors (Boeing, Lockheed, United Space, etc.) Starship has a long way to go to hit those numbers.
Really? Nothing? Many people said what Falcon 9 now does on a regular basis could not be done. No one was even trying. The closest plans were still going to land horizontally and went nowhere. Now, you have to explain why you're not landing your booster, and what your plans are to fix that going forward: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/international/2024/09/11/china-wants-to-replace-jeff-bezos-as-musks-greatest-space-threat/
They quite literally revolutionized the space industry in terms of the cost to launch to orbit.
Yet another way they've revolutionized the industry. Almost everyone is doing expendable tests now so that they can move forward quickly. Columbia started construction in 1975, launched for the first time in 1981. When they launched it, it was a fully decked out space shuttle and they put the whole thing on the line - including two astronauts. Imagine NASA trying to do that now. They'd be grounded so hard they'd be jealous of Mankind having a table to land on.
I tried to explain to someone months ago that SpaceX testing things to failure was part of their success, and gave an example like purposely leaving heat shield tiles off starship to see what happened, or launching a version of starship that didn't have all the improvements that the next starship had, and they then came back saying that is exactly why they (and other people) hate SpaceX. They don't know everything up front and they should!
The Space Shuttle missions did not recycle the rockets, not to mention that the SpaceX missions were rated super-heavy: Only Apollo has done this before in America.
You think they didn’t?
The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) from shuttle launched were recycled. They parachuted into the ocean after being jettisoned and were recovered and refused. They just didn't land themselves. The external fuel tank was not reused.
There was an extensive amount of refurbishment required to re-use the SRBs. Not to mention they had to be physically recovered, and salt water certainly made the process more complicated.
The shuttle itself needed each of its heat shield tiles replaced, which due to the shape of the shuttle were all unique.
The fuel tank was not reused.
The shuttle was meant to be a leap forward in rocket reusability, but it didn’t really pan out that way. There’s good reason the program was scrapped and not replaced with another space plane.
The Starship booster has the potential to launch multiple times per day. The only refurbishment period is how long it takes to refuel it.
Agreed. As I mentioned elsewhere, Falcon 9 is still revolutionary, but I was just clarifying that the SRBs were recycled, as that is sometimes forgotten.
TIL, thanks. That’s just a small part of the rocket though
Between the orbiter (reused), the boosters (reused), and the external fuel tank (not reused), which parts are not "just a small part" (in terms of technology/complexity/cost, not physical size)?
I take the part about "a small part" back as that's a misleading term for what I meant: The Super Heavy booster is much bigger in both technology/complexity and physical size and has many more parts than the old space shuttle rockets as it needs to carry the weight of two space shuttle orbiters. Plus, spaceplane is weird.
Remember, unless we're talking about Enterprise, "space shuttle rockets" includes the orbiter itself. The orbiter's main engines were where all that fuel from the external tank was going, after all! From that perspective, I would argue that the main "space shuttle rocket" was definitely much more complex than the Super Heavy booster, because the crew stuff, cargo stuff, spaceplane stuff, etc. was integrated into it.
I feel like your criticism of the shuttle system being less reusable than advertised might have been more applicable if we were talking about the Soviet Buran (which indeed used expendable Energia rockets to reach orbit), not NASA's shuttles.
I was under the impression that a "rocket" does not include the payload. Now that I search it up, I am not sure what to call that part.
Sure, I think you're totally correct... if the part with the engine is separable from the part with the payload. But with the Space Shuttle, that isn't the case unless you're limiting yourself to talking about the SRBs. The orbiter is a spaceplane and that makes it weird, but its main engines are rocket engines (as opposed to a hybrid ramjet or something) and it launches vertically, so I think it's still fair to also call it a rocket.
Or as another example, consider the problem scaled aaaaaaaall the way down to something like this:
Is the whole thing a "rocket," or does that only describe the bottom half and it's called something else from the payload bay up?
In my impression, the payload includes the entire spacecraft, none of which is part of the rocket.
No, they didn't. Enterprise conducted 5 approach and landing tests where she was carried aloft by a 747 and then detached to glide to a landing, three with that aerodynamic tailcone thing, two with mockup main engines to simulate a return from space. Though there were issues with PIO revealed during the last flight, all five of Enterprise's approach and landing test flights resulted in successful landings.
I would not describe any space shuttle as "crashed." Challenger exploded during launch and Colombia broke up during re-entry; destroyed in service yes, crashed no. Enterprise, Atlantis, Discovery and Endeavour all survived service and are on display at museums. No other airworthy space shuttles were built. Explorer/Independence and Inspiration are 1:1 scale models, and Pathfinder was basically a boilerplate meant for testing and incapable of flight.
NASA blew up a LOT of shit before the space shuttle program. Who can forget Ranger 1 aka Stayputnik that blew up on the pad? But I'm especially thinking of a Little Joe launch, which I think was intended to test the Apollo launch escape tower, which developed an uncontrolled roll and threw itself apart. It was actually considered by NASA to be a double success because the escape system functioned correctly when the rocket was legitimately out of control.
Also, the Space Shuttle was THE WORST idea. It was as safe as barb wire contact lenses; it's God's greatest miracle that it only killed 15 people.
Frankly I'm surprised that I couldn't find any disintegrated SLS flight tests with what happened to Colombia. There was something about Orbiter Integrated Tests but I couldn't find some sort of itemized record on it.
I refrained from bringing up ancient stuff like Ranger because that's a much higher R&D milestone to surpass.
The space shuttle never flew unmanned. Enterprise did all her glide tests manned, and STS-1 and STS-2 were flown by 2-man crews.
John Young, commander of STS-1, was informed by fellow astronaut Tony England that the House had included the space shuttle program in the budget on April 21, 1972. At the time, he was standing in the Descartes Highlands on the surface of the Moon in his capacity as Commander of Apollo 16.
The Space Shuttle was a marvel of engineering. But while it was reusable, it wasn't actually good at it. Reusability was supposed to bring down cost and turnaround time and it did neither. And not just that, it was actually much more expensive than competing expendable rockets. Plus, it had lots of other issues like being dangerous as fuck. You couldn't abort at all for major parts of the ascent and there was the whole issue with the fragile heat protection tiles, both of which caused fatalities.
I think part of the reason why people aren't impressed by the Shuttle anymore is because it flew 135 missions. It's 40 year old technology. And it's not like SpaceX are just doing the same thing again 40 years later, they're reusing their rockets in a completely different way, which no one else had done before. And in doing so they seem to be avoiding most of the disadvantages that came with the Shuttle's design.
Sure, I wouldn't say that no one else could do this with a similar amount of money (and the will to actually do it). Whether you want to call it revolutionary or not is subjective, but they're definitely innovating a lot more than any other large player in spaceflight. The Falcon 9 is a huge step forward for rocket reusability and SpaceX have also been the first to fly a full-flow staged combustion engine as well as the most powerful rocket ever. They're making spaceflight exciting again after like 40 years of stagnation and I think that's what resonates with people.
I think your last sentence answers the OP in a nutshell. There's nothing more to it than that, and there needn't be.
The space shuttle wasn't as reusable as it was claimed to be.
Each airframe required massive refurbishment after every flight.
And the "crashes" you're talking about were part of the project process, articles that were never going to be any more than test objects to begin with.
NASA crashed a lot of stuff, unintentionally. Three off of the top of my head, killed 15 astronauts, all which were preventable (not to mention the launch pad failures getting to Apollo).
NASA/NACA/Air Force crashed a lot of stuff along the way.
Ffs they knew Columbia had a tile problem, and said "it'll be OK". They knew it had been too cold for the booster seals on Discovery, and launched anyway.
The space shuttle was technically reusable, but not in a way that was beneficial to anyone. The time and cost of refurbishing the shuttle after every launch was so much they may as well have built a brand new disposable rocket for each mission.
SpaceX may have built the first reusable rocket that actually saves money
I thought it was the boosters that were in retrospect pointlessly refurbished and would have been cheaper to make new.
Are you sure it was also the shuttle itself being cheaper to make new? The shuttle also took something like 6 months to refurb. Reusable, but not rapid.
Not remake the entire shuttle, but to simply design a disposable rocket and build a hundred of those, instead of a space plane.
The shuttle was reusable in the same way a soyuz capsule is. And NASA very much crashed shuttle prototypes on the way.
Pedantic, but the shuttles were orbiters not rockets
The big ass rocket engines in the back fueled by the massive fuel tank may disagree with you
No, the shuttle ALONE is not a launch vehicle. It's an orbiter. They are apples to oranges.
It does not power itself off the pad, it uses boosters. So comparing the boosters to the SpaceX stuff is most relevant