Yeah, the Spaceshuttle was a cautionary tale and the Ship doesn’t seem to have a fundamentally different approach. But lets see how things will develop.
I don’t think the shuttle is a good example at all.
The reusability was just marketing shtick so a large enough vehicle could be built to launch multiple Hubble-chassis Keyhole satellites for the NSA. (It’s probably more accurate to say the Hubble is built on a Keyhole satellite chassis).
Shuttle was aluminium beneath the thermal tiles, so damage to the tiles was catastrophic. The expectation is Starship will be okay with a few tiles out, partly because steel is much more capable than aluminium, and partly because they have backup thermal protection
Sure, but there it a huge chasm between “catastrophic failure” and “looks good to go again next week”, and even minor structural damage will prevent rapid resuse.
Sure, but the rare catastrophic failure issue is not why the Spaceshuttle is widely considered an engineering failure. The real issue with it was that the re-usability of it turned out to be a huge money sink. Spaceship might face a similar fate with those heat-tiles.
Yeah, the Spaceshuttle was a cautionary tale and the Ship doesn’t seem to have a fundamentally different approach. But lets see how things will develop.
I don’t think the shuttle is a good example at all.
The reusability was just marketing shtick so a large enough vehicle could be built to launch multiple Hubble-chassis Keyhole satellites for the NSA. (It’s probably more accurate to say the Hubble is built on a Keyhole satellite chassis).
Yet the technology it used for the heat shield was very similar to what SpaceX is trying to do with the Ship.
I’ve heard whispers that they are trying a new transpirational heat shield design since the tiles aren’t working out so well.
That would be pretty cool indeed.
Shuttle was aluminium beneath the thermal tiles, so damage to the tiles was catastrophic. The expectation is Starship will be okay with a few tiles out, partly because steel is much more capable than aluminium, and partly because they have backup thermal protection
Sure, but there it a huge chasm between “catastrophic failure” and “looks good to go again next week”, and even minor structural damage will prevent rapid resuse.
I’d much rather be on a spacecraft that wore out too soon than one that catastrophically failed
Sure, but the rare catastrophic failure issue is not why the Spaceshuttle is widely considered an engineering failure. The real issue with it was that the re-usability of it turned out to be a huge money sink. Spaceship might face a similar fate with those heat-tiles.