Vae on 11/4/2016 at 09:06
As you may have heard, SpaceX's reusable rocket was used to help deliver an inflatable guest room to the International Space Station along with 7,000 pounds worth of food and cargo to resupply the astronauts.
But the real story is that reusable rockets make space exploration literally 100x cheaper over the long term.
This means we're that much more efficient at leveraging the resources we have out there, the resources we haven't touched yet, and eventually relocating civilization to save us from natural disaster or human-made disaster.
[video=youtube;7pUAydjne5M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pUAydjne5M[/video]
Vae on 11/4/2016 at 09:08
A quick closeup of the landing...
[video=youtube;sYmQQn_ZSys]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYmQQn_ZSys[/video]
Muzman on 11/4/2016 at 09:41
Even the one where they (it) screwed up and crashed was impressive. It's hard enough to make a rocket go up in our atmosphere without flipping out and exploding, never mind landing again.
Vae on 11/4/2016 at 09:44
I agree...although this was obviously even more impressive...If you have the time, watch the webcast...:)
Phatose on 11/4/2016 at 17:53
Didn't the space shuttle cover the re-usable spacecraft thing decades ago, and they retired it because disposable rockets were cheaper?
Renzatic on 11/4/2016 at 18:14
From what I gather, the Dragon's appeal is that it's cheaper than both the space shuttle and the disposable rocket model, while still being resuable.
R Soul on 11/4/2016 at 18:43
Plus the controlled landing means they don't have to go and get it out of the ocean.
Trance on 11/4/2016 at 18:48
The thing about the Space Shuttle is that it utterly failed to be cheaper than disposable launch systems. The Space Shuttles were mind-bogglingly complicated machines, each craft requiring tremendous numbers of man-hours spent on inspection and maintenance. The external fuel tank for the Shuttle's main engines was $50+ million a pop, none of them reusable. In the end it came out to an average of 25 grand per pound of payload put into space, which was well over 100 times more expensive than NASA was projecting it would cost in 1972.
Simplicity is one of the largest factors (if not THE largest factor) in keeping the cost of space launch systems down, and simplicity just isn't compatible with the concept of a manned cargo-hauling space glider.
Pyrian on 11/4/2016 at 18:49
I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to improve over simply putting parachutes on them a la the shuttle's boosters?
Anyway, it's not enough to reuse. You also have to get the costs of recovery and refurbishment below the cost of simply making a new one. Shuttle refurbishment was crazy expensive.
demagogue on 12/4/2016 at 03:59
I'm sure there's hard numbers somewhere that say how much of an improvement it is or isn't.
But just as a technical feat this is impressive to see. I've been reading about the early space program, which if you read about, you know how many factors they have to account for & how much can go wrong.
In the end, I'm putting my money on a few space elevators connected to in-orbit spaceports.
Then you just lift a vehicle and launch it directly into orbit.