Timeline for Why has a rocket system like Starship never been proposed before? It does not seem to use any new science, materials or fuels
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2021 at 19:03 | comment | added | jamesqf | See for instance today's news articles about a SpaceX 2nd stage reentry over the western US/Canada: arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/… | |
| Mar 24, 2021 at 15:32 | comment | added | jamesqf | Landing really isn't the problem, it's reentry. SpaceX can land their 1st stages vertically because they don't get close to orbital velocity, and thus don't have to withstand the high temperatures of reentry. | |
| Mar 24, 2021 at 14:44 | comment | added | Lesto | Their engine is hi-tech, their material are hi-tech, their code is hi-tech (they use C++ and Javascript!), their sensors (MEMS) are high tech and did not exist like 20 years ago. But nothing is completely innovative, automated landing? done by CCCP in a time where computer where big as rooms. VTVL (vertical take off and landing)? explored and demonstrated in the 1960 (apollo landing!) and multiple other rocket later. Even blue origin had Goddard before spacex's grasshopper. What spacex did was to manage to concrete those idea in a product in a economical way, an incredible feat by itself | |
| Mar 24, 2021 at 7:42 | comment | added | Anixx | @LorenPechtel well, at least in the field of computer control of flight they are hi-tech. | |
| Mar 24, 2021 at 2:10 | comment | added | Christopher James Huff | @LorenPechtel or did so in a very constrained way. The Raptor is pushing the boundaries of the state of the art, and they're using some high-end robotic welding machines. However, those machines are welding stainless steel with pretty bog-standard techniques, and they didn't even start on that until they were sure that Raptor would do the job. | |
| Mar 24, 2021 at 1:45 | comment | added | Loren Pechtel | @RussellBorogove I would say the dramatic success of SpaceX is that they didn't try to go high tech. | |
| Mar 23, 2021 at 22:50 | comment | added | Russell Borogove | @ChristopherJamesHuff That's fair -- revolutionary market execution of evolutionary tech in both cases. IMO SpaceX's genius stroke thus far was in deciding to build a commercially viable expendable launcher and develop it into a partially reusable on their customers' dime. | |
| Mar 23, 2021 at 21:17 | comment | added | Christopher James Huff | As I see it, the most "revolutionary" aspects of Starship are 1: they're not relying on some super-advanced technology that will cost billions to develop, and 2: they're actually executing on it, in a field where the established players were comfortable with the status quo. Much the same goes for another business of Elon's: Tesla isn't taking advantage of some revolutionary advance that has just enabled electric cars, it's just executing on something the established car makers didn't care to do and in fact were actively resisting. | |
| Mar 23, 2021 at 21:05 | history | edited | Russell Borogove | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Mar 23, 2021 at 20:03 | history | edited | Russell Borogove | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Mar 23, 2021 at 19:58 | comment | added | Anixx | A lot of projects of the past indeed proposed full reusability via airstrip landing or parachutes. It seems though the vertical landing is the only option, compatible with travel to other planets. | |
| Mar 23, 2021 at 19:56 | history | edited | Russell Borogove | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 95 characters in body
|
| Mar 23, 2021 at 19:47 | history | edited | Russell Borogove | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 99 characters in body
|
| Mar 23, 2021 at 19:39 | history | answered | Russell Borogove | CC BY-SA 4.0 |