Why can't SpaceX Starship perform the same landing procedure as the Falcon 9 does?
I know... Elon Musk calls the redesign of the BFR "unintuitive".
I'm just trying to get ahead of the Starship introduction and hop test presumably in March/April timeline.
But isn't it better to use proven retro-propulsive entry burn technique to get rid of excess speed and to keep the second stage from direct heat transfer with the atmosphere, rather than using the old idea of a heat shield and its horrendous track-record of causing catastrophes (I'm pointing out the space shuttle in particular)? Not to mention its awfully hard process of repairing and refurbishing the shuttle after each flight.
spacex space-shuttle bfr
edited 2 days ago
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
asked Dec 25 at 5:18
Taher
132
New contributor
Taher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I know... Elon Musk calls the redesign of the BFR "unintuitive".
I'm just trying to get ahead of the Starship introduction and hop test presumably in March/April timeline.
But isn't it better to use proven retro-propulsive entry burn technique to get rid of excess speed and to keep the second stage from direct heat transfer with the atmosphere, rather than using the old idea of a heat shield and its horrendous track-record of causing catastrophes (I'm pointing out the space shuttle in particular)? Not to mention its awfully hard process of repairing and refurbishing the shuttle after each flight.
spacex space-shuttle bfr
edited 2 days ago
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
asked Dec 25 at 5:18
Taher
132
New contributor
Taher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
In over 300 crewed orbital flights, a heat shield failure has caused catastrophe exactly once, and as @NathanTuggy points out, Starship’s heat shield will be very unlike shuttle’s.
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
add a comment |
I know... Elon Musk calls the redesign of the BFR "unintuitive".
I'm just trying to get ahead of the Starship introduction and hop test presumably in March/April timeline.
But isn't it better to use proven retro-propulsive entry burn technique to get rid of excess speed and to keep the second stage from direct heat transfer with the atmosphere, rather than using the old idea of a heat shield and its horrendous track-record of causing catastrophes (I'm pointing out the space shuttle in particular)? Not to mention its awfully hard process of repairing and refurbishing the shuttle after each flight.
spacex space-shuttle bfr
edited 2 days ago
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
asked Dec 25 at 5:18
Taher
132
New contributor
Taher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I know... Elon Musk calls the redesign of the BFR "unintuitive".
I'm just trying to get ahead of the Starship introduction and hop test presumably in March/April timeline.
But isn't it better to use proven retro-propulsive entry burn technique to get rid of excess speed and to keep the second stage from direct heat transfer with the atmosphere, rather than using the old idea of a heat shield and its horrendous track-record of causing catastrophes (I'm pointing out the space shuttle in particular)? Not to mention its awfully hard process of repairing and refurbishing the shuttle after each flight.
spacex space-shuttle bfr
spacex space-shuttle bfr
edited 2 days ago
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
asked Dec 25 at 5:18
Taher
132
New contributor
Taher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
asked Dec 25 at 5:18
Taher
132
New contributor
Taher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
edited 2 days ago
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
edited 2 days ago
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
3,66242536
asked Dec 25 at 5:18
Taher
132
New contributor
Taher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Dec 25 at 5:18
Taher
132
asked Dec 25 at 5:18
Taher
132
132
New contributor
Taher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Taher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Taher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
In over 300 crewed orbital flights, a heat shield failure has caused catastrophe exactly once, and as @NathanTuggy points out, Starship’s heat shield will be very unlike shuttle’s.
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
In over 300 crewed orbital flights, a heat shield failure has caused catastrophe exactly once, and as @NathanTuggy points out, Starship’s heat shield will be very unlike shuttle’s.
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
2
2
In over 300 crewed orbital flights, a heat shield failure has caused catastrophe exactly once, and as @NathanTuggy points out, Starship’s heat shield will be very unlike shuttle’s.
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
In over 300 crewed orbital flights, a heat shield failure has caused catastrophe exactly once, and as @NathanTuggy points out, Starship’s heat shield will be very unlike shuttle’s.
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Falcon 9 reentry is only designed for first stages, and the reentry burn is pretty minor, on the order of a few hundred meters/second. A second stage, reentering with far more velocity than a first stage, can't shed the extra with a cheap burn, because the total delta-v necessary for that would be about as much as the second stage had to begin with (4000-5000 m/s). Thanks to the rocket equation, that means the second stage is not merely twice as large, but much larger, probably at least five times the size. And that in turn means the first stage needs to be that much larger.
In short, while propulsive reentry for a low-velocity suborbital stage is proven, propulsive reentry from orbit is known to not be a good idea.
Materials science has advanced quite a bit since the Shuttle was designed, and in particular, SpaceX has been experimenting with better, more robust heat shield designs for years. What's more, the Starship will have a much more favorable ballistic coefficient than the Shuttle did (since it will be much closer to empty), as well as a less demanding aerodynamic shape, making it easier to reenter with lower heat loads. So making the heat shielding reliably reusable without significant maintenance is likely to be quite achievable.
answered Dec 25 at 5:40
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
In a recent video, Scott Manley noted that SpaceX appears to be switching to an entirely steel, regeneratively-cooled heatshield. He posits that the heatsink will be the (substantial) remaining onboard fuel.
– Alex Hajnal
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Taher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33078%2fwhy-cant-spacex-starship-perform-the-same-landing-procedure-as-the-falcon-9-doe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Falcon 9 reentry is only designed for first stages, and the reentry burn is pretty minor, on the order of a few hundred meters/second. A second stage, reentering with far more velocity than a first stage, can't shed the extra with a cheap burn, because the total delta-v necessary for that would be about as much as the second stage had to begin with (4000-5000 m/s). Thanks to the rocket equation, that means the second stage is not merely twice as large, but much larger, probably at least five times the size. And that in turn means the first stage needs to be that much larger.
In short, while propulsive reentry for a low-velocity suborbital stage is proven, propulsive reentry from orbit is known to not be a good idea.
Materials science has advanced quite a bit since the Shuttle was designed, and in particular, SpaceX has been experimenting with better, more robust heat shield designs for years. What's more, the Starship will have a much more favorable ballistic coefficient than the Shuttle did (since it will be much closer to empty), as well as a less demanding aerodynamic shape, making it easier to reenter with lower heat loads. So making the heat shielding reliably reusable without significant maintenance is likely to be quite achievable.
answered Dec 25 at 5:40
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
In a recent video, Scott Manley noted that SpaceX appears to be switching to an entirely steel, regeneratively-cooled heatshield. He posits that the heatsink will be the (substantial) remaining onboard fuel.
– Alex Hajnal
yesterday
add a comment |
Falcon 9 reentry is only designed for first stages, and the reentry burn is pretty minor, on the order of a few hundred meters/second. A second stage, reentering with far more velocity than a first stage, can't shed the extra with a cheap burn, because the total delta-v necessary for that would be about as much as the second stage had to begin with (4000-5000 m/s). Thanks to the rocket equation, that means the second stage is not merely twice as large, but much larger, probably at least five times the size. And that in turn means the first stage needs to be that much larger.
In short, while propulsive reentry for a low-velocity suborbital stage is proven, propulsive reentry from orbit is known to not be a good idea.
Materials science has advanced quite a bit since the Shuttle was designed, and in particular, SpaceX has been experimenting with better, more robust heat shield designs for years. What's more, the Starship will have a much more favorable ballistic coefficient than the Shuttle did (since it will be much closer to empty), as well as a less demanding aerodynamic shape, making it easier to reenter with lower heat loads. So making the heat shielding reliably reusable without significant maintenance is likely to be quite achievable.
answered Dec 25 at 5:40
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
In a recent video, Scott Manley noted that SpaceX appears to be switching to an entirely steel, regeneratively-cooled heatshield. He posits that the heatsink will be the (substantial) remaining onboard fuel.
– Alex Hajnal
yesterday
add a comment |
Falcon 9 reentry is only designed for first stages, and the reentry burn is pretty minor, on the order of a few hundred meters/second. A second stage, reentering with far more velocity than a first stage, can't shed the extra with a cheap burn, because the total delta-v necessary for that would be about as much as the second stage had to begin with (4000-5000 m/s). Thanks to the rocket equation, that means the second stage is not merely twice as large, but much larger, probably at least five times the size. And that in turn means the first stage needs to be that much larger.
In short, while propulsive reentry for a low-velocity suborbital stage is proven, propulsive reentry from orbit is known to not be a good idea.
Materials science has advanced quite a bit since the Shuttle was designed, and in particular, SpaceX has been experimenting with better, more robust heat shield designs for years. What's more, the Starship will have a much more favorable ballistic coefficient than the Shuttle did (since it will be much closer to empty), as well as a less demanding aerodynamic shape, making it easier to reenter with lower heat loads. So making the heat shielding reliably reusable without significant maintenance is likely to be quite achievable.
answered Dec 25 at 5:40
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
Falcon 9 reentry is only designed for first stages, and the reentry burn is pretty minor, on the order of a few hundred meters/second. A second stage, reentering with far more velocity than a first stage, can't shed the extra with a cheap burn, because the total delta-v necessary for that would be about as much as the second stage had to begin with (4000-5000 m/s). Thanks to the rocket equation, that means the second stage is not merely twice as large, but much larger, probably at least five times the size. And that in turn means the first stage needs to be that much larger.
In short, while propulsive reentry for a low-velocity suborbital stage is proven, propulsive reentry from orbit is known to not be a good idea.
Materials science has advanced quite a bit since the Shuttle was designed, and in particular, SpaceX has been experimenting with better, more robust heat shield designs for years. What's more, the Starship will have a much more favorable ballistic coefficient than the Shuttle did (since it will be much closer to empty), as well as a less demanding aerodynamic shape, making it easier to reenter with lower heat loads. So making the heat shielding reliably reusable without significant maintenance is likely to be quite achievable.
answered Dec 25 at 5:40
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
answered Dec 25 at 5:40
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
answered Dec 25 at 5:40
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
answered Dec 25 at 5:40
Nathan Tuggy
3,66242536
3,66242536
In a recent video, Scott Manley noted that SpaceX appears to be switching to an entirely steel, regeneratively-cooled heatshield. He posits that the heatsink will be the (substantial) remaining onboard fuel.
– Alex Hajnal
yesterday
add a comment |
In a recent video, Scott Manley noted that SpaceX appears to be switching to an entirely steel, regeneratively-cooled heatshield. He posits that the heatsink will be the (substantial) remaining onboard fuel.
– Alex Hajnal
yesterday
In a recent video, Scott Manley noted that SpaceX appears to be switching to an entirely steel, regeneratively-cooled heatshield. He posits that the heatsink will be the (substantial) remaining onboard fuel.
– Alex Hajnal
yesterday
In a recent video, Scott Manley noted that SpaceX appears to be switching to an entirely steel, regeneratively-cooled heatshield. He posits that the heatsink will be the (substantial) remaining onboard fuel.
– Alex Hajnal
yesterday
add a comment |
Taher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Taher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Taher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Taher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33078%2fwhy-cant-spacex-starship-perform-the-same-landing-procedure-as-the-falcon-9-doe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
In over 300 crewed orbital flights, a heat shield failure has caused catastrophe exactly once, and as @NathanTuggy points out, Starship’s heat shield will be very unlike shuttle’s.
– Russell Borogove
2 days ago