SpaceX

parent

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yeah, the Spaceshuttle was a cautionary tale and the Ship doesn't seem to have a fundamentally different approach. But lets see how things will develop.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

I don't think the shuttle is a good example at all.

The reusability was just marketing shtick so a large enough vehicle could be built to launch multiple Hubble-chassis Keyhole satellites for the NSA. (It's probably more accurate to say the Hubble is built on a Keyhole satellite chassis).

parent

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Yet the technology it used for the heat shield was very similar to what SpaceX is trying to do with the Ship.

parent

[+] pennomi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago

That would be pretty cool indeed.

parent

[–] psud@aussie.zone 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Shuttle was aluminium beneath the thermal tiles, so damage to the tiles was catastrophic. The expectation is Starship will be okay with a few tiles out, partly because steel is much more capable than aluminium, and partly because they have backup thermal protection

parent

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Sure, but there it a huge chasm between "catastrophic failure" and "looks good to go again next week", and even minor structural damage will prevent rapid resuse.

parent

[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I'd much rather be on a spacecraft that wore out too soon than one that catastrophically failed

parent

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 years ago

Sure, but the rare catastrophic failure issue is not why the Spaceshuttle is widely considered an engineering failure. The real issue with it was that the re-usability of it turned out to be a huge money sink. Spaceship might face a similar fate with those heat-tiles.