| ▲ | motionlessveloc 3 hours ago |
| It's difficult to underline how huge this is. This marks the first time in the history of rocketry that the upper stage of a rocket has returned home from orbit to a safe, upright landing. (And to preempt the obvious objection: yes, maybe you can call the Space Shuttle an "upper stage of a rocket" if you squint hard enough, but it didn't do upright landings, its external tank was not reusable and even the Shuttle itself was effectively rebuilt from scratch at exorbitant cost each time.) It's sad to see a lot of media missing the point, eg as I type this BBC is reporting this as "SpaceX successfully catches part of Starship rocket on its return to Earth". Edit: corrected to note that the SRBs were reusable, but the ET was not. |
|
| ▲ | mmustapic 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > none of its boosters were reusable Notably, they were reusable! Sure, they had to refurbish them, same with the shuttle’s main engines. The only thing they threw away was the external tank which didn’t have any engines. |
| |
| ▲ | sfblah 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yeah this guy is smoking something. I actually think the shuttle landings were more impressive than this one. Not taking anything away from what they're doing here, but they're still only up to the mid-1970s technology-wise. |
|
|
| ▲ | echoangle 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > none of its boosters were reusable The SRBs of the shuttle landed by parachute and were recovered from the water and reused |
|
| ▲ | fedpost 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Don't forget the X37 |
|
| ▲ | wat10000 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Whatever you call it, the Shuttle Orbiter wasn’t a complete stage in any case. It needed the external tank, which was never recovered. SpaceX has now demonstrated all the pieces of a fully reusable launcher. Next comes putting them all together in the same flight, and hopefully demonstrating that the flights can become frequent and cheap. There’s no guarantee of that, but it’s looking good. |
| |
| ▲ | palata 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If they manage to launch one of these every day it’ll be like adding a few more daily transpacific airline flights. The scale is not particularly significant. | | | |
| ▲ | dabluecaboose 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can always tell the pearl-clutchers who have no idea what they're talking about when they complain about pollution from space travel. | | |
| ▲ | palata 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ask astronomers what they think about Starlink then. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Always the sign of a solid argument when the subject gets changed to a completely different one the moment there’s pushback. | | |
| ▲ | palata 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | How is it completely different? Satellites are polluting the sky... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | palata 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > yes, maybe you can call the Space Shuttle an "upper stage of a rocket" if you squint hard enough Why wouldn't it count? It is not the first time in the history of rocketry that the part that is not the boosters returns home intact. Sure, you can say "it's the first time in the history of rocketry that it lands upright", but you could also say "it's the first time in the history of rocketry that it is not white". If you want to say how huge this is, tell me how different it is from landing the boosters. Because from the outside it sure as hell looks very similar. |
| |
| ▲ | motionlessveloc 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Space Shuttle has four parts, namely the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the two SRBs. Only the Orbiter is reusable and actually lands, the rest are jettisoned in flight. (SRBs are recovered, the ET is not.) However, the Orbiter is completely incapable of flight without the other three, so it's not a rocket stage on its own, just part of one. As for why it's harder to catch Starship than Super Heavy, where do I begin: * Super Heavy is suborbital, its maximum velocity is far, far less than Starship. * Super Heavy returns upright. The Starship does the famous but aerodynamically very complex "belly flop" to reduce speed. * Super Heavy only has two static fins to guide it. Starship has four actively controlled fins that need to survive the extreme forces of launch and re-entry. | | |
| ▲ | dabluecaboose 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The Space Shuttle has four parts, namely the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the two SRBs. Only the Orbiter is reusable and actually lands, the rest are jettisoned in flight and burn up in the atmosphere. Nitpick- the SRBs were also recovered and reused | | | |
| ▲ | palata 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thanks, the insights about Super Heavy vs Starship are interesting. About how "huge" it is, I understand that it is economically huge: Musk will get even richer. I would be interested in knowing how "huge" it is in terms of engineering. Like, my understanding is that they needed to invent new maths to go to the moon in the 60s. Does SpaceX compare with that, or is it "just" what you can do with a lot of money and powerful computers? Genuinely interested, even though rocket fans will hate me for not knowing the answer and daring asking. Bring the downvotes! |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | origini 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You know what was huge? James Webb telescope. Look its cool to see a catch like this, it doesn't necessarly feels that difficult tbh? And I just don't get it? Is it cool to watch? yes, but whats the endgoal besides reducing costs for starlink and military stuff? |
| |
| ▲ | motionlessveloc 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you want more cool stuff like James Webb in orbit? Fully reusable huge rockets like Starship is how you get them there. Also, remember how JWST had to do that incredibly complex and fiddly in-orbit expansion and alignment to fit together the mirror after launch? If Starship had been available at the time, this would have been far easier, since Starship has twice the diameter (four times the area) of the Ariane rocket they used to launch it. | | |
| ▲ | Rebelgecko 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Can Starship get to L2? | | |
| ▲ | ZiiS an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes without a shadow of doubt it could deploy two JWST on a single launch. Add in the refuling they successfully demonstrated and the sky is no longer the limit. | |
| ▲ | squidmaster 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | origini 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Besides that I really really wished it wouldn't be Elon Musk, i'm looking forward to cheaper stuff so its easier to send science stuff up. Don't get me wrong at all. But it feels like hyperbole. Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it? Or do you see it more like a milestone seeing? And for me, it still feels like if Elon Musk tries his Dataenter 'idea' and really sneds up everyday a Starship, we will lose a lot of control as normal humans whats going on in space and what will happen to our atmosphere. | | |
| ▲ | 7952 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the main challenge is really the heat shielding. That is the part that is so different from the takeoff. And it actually remains to be seen if that is good enough for repeated rapid reuse. | |
| ▲ | ssl-3 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it? It only took the entire existence of humanity to reach this point. I'm not willing to hand-wave that away as some kind of technologically-obvious conclusion. | | |
| ▲ | origini 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | "It only took the entire existence of humanity to reach this point." as everything else. EUV required genuine new engineering for an example. | | |
| ▲ | motionlessveloc an hour ago | parent [-] | | To pick just one achievement among many, the Raptor engines on the Starship are literally revolutionary. First ever full-flow staged combustion engine, designed for both extreme reliability and cheap mass production, even the fuel they use (methalox) had never been tried at this scale. | | |
| ▲ | origini an hour ago | parent [-] | | I agree with the engineering of Raptor engines, fair and square but does that have anything to do with catching ar ocket? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | CrimsonRain 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Pure technically speaking, if you can fly a rocket up and control it properly, whats the crazy thing flying a rocket back down and controlling it? You are absolutely right. Same thing about just putting a battery and some motors to make a car like RC car! Same about 48v/replacing canbus. Same thing about putting some satellites on orbit for internet! Same for mobile service! Same about if humans can use eyes to drive, computers should be able to using cameras! All _simple_ things, obvious in retrospect. Yet one man is marching forward, poking his nose in industries he does not belong, and still almost always coming on top. Makes you wonder why existing incumbents can't do these "simple" things. | | |
| ▲ | origini an hour ago | parent [-] | | One man who got money, has money and a cult following. Of course he is flexible enough mentally and ignorant enough to disrupt markets, sure and for this he got rich. But why does every Musk follower ignore all the bad things he leaves in his march forward? All the humans around the Space-X 'city'? Kids and Humans affected by USAID and DOGE? His lying around everything he promised to people? | | |
| ▲ | motionlessveloc an hour ago | parent [-] | | This thread is about an achievement made by the thousands of people working at one of his companies. Elon is only a small part of the equation. Also, I don't understand what you're even trying to say by "ignorant enough to disrupt markets". There are plenty of rich people flinging money around, few have achieved anything near what Musk did. Look at Blue Origin, which is still playing catch-up despite SpaceX already proving everything and Bezos throwing basically infinite money at it. | | |
| ▲ | origini an hour ago | parent [-] | | Its a comment and comments reflect discussions. Every success of his companies, give Elon Musk power and deminishes everyone who is or was affected negativly by Elon Musk. What would you expect if HN had an article about Fat Boy launched successfully on Japan? Pure positive comments? |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | redox99 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > it doesn't necessarly feels that difficult tbh? Are you for real? | | |
| ▲ | squidmaster 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | origini 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ?! We know how to send rockets up, we know how to send them back to earth. We know how to stabilize a rocket. I mean we fly them for ages?! 'that difficult' Look at projects like James Webb telescope. | | |
| ▲ | redox99 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You don't understand the precision required to catch a 70m tall behemoth when you have Earths atmosphere. It's not even close to bringing a capsule to an approximate area, a small ship somewhere with almost no atmosphere, or even landing a rocket on a pad (which we've only had since Falcon 9) | | |
| ▲ | origini 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | But others are also working on it and showed they can do it too? | | |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | derektank an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | “The James Webb telescope is just a three mirror korsch telescope in space. We’ve known how to build those since the 30s and we’ve been putting telescopes in space since the 60s. Doesn’t seem that impressive” This is what you sound like to everyone else here | | |
| ▲ | origini an hour ago | parent [-] | | And i can easily explain to you why this is not the case. They put the most advanced telescope at L2 which is the most remote location 1.5 million km away which can't be serviced and can't be rebuild easily. It has nanometer optical precision in space which needs to be cooled through multiply layers of high tec foil. Its mirrors are precicse to nm level. Took 25 years of planning and 5 years of building. |
|
|
|
|
