Why does space x waste time and money with landable boosters

Dec 6, 2020
3
0
10
These silly landable boosters reduce top speed and or payload and no matter what Musk says they are not less expensive as they cost 5 to 10 times more to build and need fuel to land that has weight which impacts the mission.

So why?
 
Dec 9, 2020
1
1
10
These silly landable boosters reduce top speed and or payload and no matter what Musk says they are not less expensive as they cost 5 to 10 times more to build and need fuel to land that has weight which impacts the mission.

So why?
I'd suspect your analysis is wrong, where do you get your numbers from?

The fuel used to land is kept to a minimum so the impact of extra fuel is minimal and minimized. Thurst to weight ratio isn't an issue as is demonstrated by the fact they throttle down before the stresses on the rocket are too great.

Reuse is key, it's why almost everyone is pursuing it
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoxCar
Dec 22, 2020
2
0
10
It will be great if rocket had some catalytic converter to create fuel, as it landed or possibly take off, from atmosphere (H2, O2, CO2, and H2O)
 
Feb 18, 2021
4
0
10
I'd suspect your analysis is wrong, where do you get your numbers from?

The fuel used to land is kept to a minimum so the impact of extra fuel is minimal and minimized. Thurst to weight ratio isn't an issue as is demonstrated by the fact they throttle down before the stresses on the rocket are too great.

Reuse is key, it's why almost everyone is pursuing it
They are cutting too many corners why havnt they got any counter measures in place for when malfunction occurs

I personally would have had all the raptor engines on detachable links or an interchangeable belt with a backup centre above the 3 so it doesn't effect balance and weight as much as its in the center of craft

And do the flip a bit higher to allows counter measures to take place

The method they use to centre craft out before flip could of worked to correct sn9 if it had 2 thrusters on adjacent sides and boost to correct balance on over swing

I dont know why it dont just land like a plane and use crane to stand it up again

Reusable and wings could be folding into body and come out on landing
 
Mar 29, 2021
14
5
15
These silly landable boosters reduce top speed and or payload and no matter what Musk says they are not less expensive as they cost 5 to 10 times more to build and need fuel to land that has weight which impacts the mission.

So why?
Silly is a Mack tractor-trailer rig being
used for one job, then being junked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoxCar

Wolfshadw

Moderator
Apr 1, 2020
406
349
1,060
Silly is a Mack tractor-trailer rig being
used for one job, then being junked.
While I agree, a Mack tractor-trailer rig doesn't require an expensive retrofit after each use. I agree that we need reuseability, but I don't think SpaceX is anywhere near the cost savings it wants.

-Wolf sends
 
Mar 29, 2021
14
5
15
While I agree, a Mack tractor-trailer rig doesn't require an expensive retrofit after each use. I agree that we need reuseability, but I don't think SpaceX is anywhere near the cost savings it wants.

-Wolf sends
The refit isn't as expensive as manufacturing an entire new item.
$5K US per kilo to a 500km (311 mile) orbit.
A Falcon 9 booster recently completed it's ninth mission
 
Last edited:
Nov 20, 2019
13
3
515
These silly landable boosters reduce top speed and or payload and no matter what Musk says they are not less expensive as they cost 5 to 10 times more to build and need fuel to land that has weight which impacts the mission.

So why?
Indeed, you are correct. Space X and what ever the Chinese and Indians use, are basically just larger fireworks . There is a project in the UK called the Skylon Project . The aim is to use ram jets to take off like an aeroplane from an airfield and turn on the rockets at the edge of space . On the way up it scoops up, and stores, oxygen from the atmosphere which it uses to combine with on board hydrogen for the rocket motor. The big problem has been, so far, is that the speed in atmosphere makes the engines too hot. To get round that it quenches one thousand degrees Celsius to minus Celsius in a fraction of a second. That has been tested and proved by firing an American fighter jet engine straight at the cooling system. What they haven't said so far is how much power the air cooling system will require, I would have thought that must be significant
 
Feb 11, 2021
66
36
60
Why did you decide that the money SpaceX spends goes to waste? Why tell it to you? And even if it's true, everything SpaceX does now is an investment in our future. Engineers spend millions of dollars now to save money in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: josefnspace
Aug 29, 2020
17
10
15
U'd think in an Earth's atmosphere landing somehow they'd employ parachutes as part of the "Stages" of descent, then release them at final touch down> Why not, it's worked for ocean "splash downs" but when near the surface deploy the rockets to set down w/minimum fuel use
 
Mar 21, 2021
30
13
35
These silly landable boosters reduce top speed and or payload and no matter what Musk says they are not less expensive as they cost 5 to 10 times more to build and need fuel to land that has weight which impacts the mission.

So why?
The SpaceX Falcon 9 v.1.2 is currently the most reliable rocket in use, with 82 successful launches out of 82 attempts, and ~70 of those with reused rockets. SpaceX share of new launch contracts was 30% for 2016, 45% for 2017, and 60% for 2018.

it looks like those “silly landable boosters” are working pretty well for SpaceX.
 
May 11, 2021
29
22
35
Using parachutes is no easy option on something weighing 25 tonnes. Pilot chutes, drogue chutes and main chutes all need to be deployed and inflated correctly and reliably, they have a significant mass themselves and retro-propulsion is still needed high up as parachutes don't work at very high speeds. By the time Falcon 9 is in the lower atmosphere it has already been slowed significantly by drag so there is little benefit to be had by adding parachutes
 
  • Like
Reactions: Epiphany
Oct 23, 2020
189
83
160
According to the unsuccessful landing part of the tests of Starship we can see that landing boosters are needed to be developed more to avoid such things we have seen during the tests of Starship
 
  • Like
Reactions: CCooper96
May 11, 2021
29
22
35
According to the unsuccessful landing part of the tests of Starship we can see that landing boosters are needed to be developed more to avoid such things we have seen during the tests of Starship
For sure Starship needs more development work as it is still an experimental vehicle. But each time Starship flies SpaceX will learn more and improve the design - as can be seen from the most recent successful landing. The Falcon 9 first stage booster went through a similar series of crash landings when SpaceX were developing the reuse capability. But Falcon 9 is now one of the most successful rockets in operation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CCooper96
Mar 21, 2021
30
13
35
For sure Starship needs more development work as it is still an experimental vehicle. But each time Starship flies SpaceX will learn more and improve the design - as can be seen from the most recent successful landing. The Falcon 9 first stage booster went through a similar series of crash landings when SpaceX were developing the reuse capability. But Falcon 9 is now one of the most successful rockets in operation.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

SpaceX put out this great video of their numerous landing failures for the Falcon rocket. They learned things from every failed landing, and now successful Falcon booster landings are the standard. Didn't they land a booster that's been to space 10 times recently?

Plus, you gotta like Elon's name for fiery rocket explosions. "RUD" Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CCooper96

ASK THE COMMUNITY