Timeline for Why doesn't SpaceX use solid rocket fuel?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7 at 7:14 | answer | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 6 at 15:54 | comment | added | Elias Wahlquist | Solid rockets aren't actually more efficient, the shuttle only had them because of compromises. Buran, the Soviet spaceplane, used liquid fueled side boosters instead. Plus, since they can't be shut down, SRBs are rather dangerous for crewed spaceflight. Just look at Challenger. | |
| Dec 6 at 0:41 | comment | added | Kaia | certainly not the primary reason, but spaceX has gestured at making methane renewably or in-situ. the complicated mix of fuels, oxidizers, binding agents, etc that are used in e.g. the Space Shuttle SRB are a lot harder to do that with | |
| Dec 5 at 20:44 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Dec 5 at 7:18 | answer | added | Alan Birtles | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 4 at 10:51 | answer | added | Hobbes | timeline score: 22 | |
| S Dec 4 at 1:00 | vote | accept | Alex Abramov | ||
| S Dec 4 at 1:00 | vote | accept | Alex Abramov | ||
| S Dec 4 at 1:00 | |||||
| Dec 4 at 1:00 | vote | accept | Alex Abramov | ||
| S Dec 4 at 1:00 | |||||
| Dec 3 at 22:45 | answer | added | Woody | timeline score: 11 | |
| Dec 3 at 21:45 | comment | added | Erin Anne | Russell Borogove's already posted a fine answer, but space.stackexchange.com/a/18240/11262 might also be worth a look | |
| Dec 3 at 21:41 | answer | added | Russell Borogove | timeline score: 37 | |
| Dec 3 at 21:29 | comment | added | Erin Anne | "more efficient solid rocket boosters" - more efficient in what way? I suspect if you check the actual properties of solid vs liquid boosters you'll find an answer. | |
| Dec 3 at 21:21 | history | asked | Alex Abramov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |