←back to thread

364 points metalman | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
chasd00 ◴[] No.45034091[source]
Just saw the splash down. I think this was 100% successful test.
replies(4): >>45034127 #>>45034176 #>>45034815 #>>45036590 #
kersplody ◴[] No.45034176[source]
Not quite, but it's a major milestone. Still quite a bit of work to go on the rapid reusability part (burnt flaps, oxidized body, missing tiles, tile waterproofing). Starship might actually deliver payload to orbit on flight 11.
replies(3): >>45034203 #>>45034247 #>>45034855 #
rlt ◴[] No.45034247[source]
They mentioned in the stream they were intentionally stressing the ship on reentry.

But yes, “rapid reusability” is a ways off. I expect they’ll be spending weeks inspecting and repairing ship and booster before reflight for a few years, but they’ll drive it down over time.

TBD how “rapid” the reusability ends up being in the end.

replies(2): >>45034363 #>>45034867 #
dotnet00 ◴[] No.45034363{3}[source]
The push for rapid reusability seems somewhat at odds with the push for large scale production of ships.

It seems like if they can get boosters to rapid reuse (a much easier goal), and churn out ships at sufficient scale, they can afford to take time inspecting/refurbing each ship as part of a pipelined approach.

replies(6): >>45034415 #>>45034419 #>>45034535 #>>45034590 #>>45035802 #>>45040115 #
1. avar ◴[] No.45034590{4}[source]
If "rapid reusability" was a proxy goal for maintaining a given launch pace we wouldn't need any of this.

We could just construct 200 Space Shuttles and spend months refurbishing them after every flight, and still send one up every week.

The goal is to drive down launch costs, time is money, and a system that requires time consuming refurbishments is more expensive.

replies(1): >>45039938 #
2. drawnwren ◴[] No.45039938[source]
Mars transit takes far longer than one week. And their plan is in orbit refueling so getting a single starship to Mars takes more than one ship.