threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.worksM to SpaceflightMemes@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 17 days agoSLS? That's right, it goes in the ocean!sh.itjust.worksimagemessage-square14linkfedilinkarrow-up1126arrow-down16
arrow-up1120arrow-down1imageSLS? That's right, it goes in the ocean!sh.itjust.worksthreelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.worksM to SpaceflightMemes@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 17 days agomessage-square14linkfedilink
minus-squarebacon_pdp@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9arrow-down2·17 days agoWell single use solid fuel rockets would be much cheaper per kg of mass sent into space.
minus-squarethreelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.worksOPMlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·17 days agoIf that were true, why does the tech pipeline seem to go from solid propellant, to liquid propellant, to cryogenic propellant? Almost every spacefaring country and company seems to go down this path.
minus-squareAsetru@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·17 days agoThey obviously don’t know what they’re doing, ffs. /s
minus-squarebacon_pdp@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·16 days agoBetter control when used in missiles.
minus-squarebrucethemoose@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·16 days agoThis was more-or-less the Soviet strategy, and it worked pretty well. And of course the shuttle used solid boosters too. I think computerization is changing the math though. Advanced fuels save weight, and being able to land and retrieve the motors is huge.
minus-squarebacon_pdp@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·16 days agoWell, what actual percentage of the cost of the rocket is the motor and what actual percentage is the fuel?
minus-squarethreelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.worksOPMlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·16 days agoIt depends on the rocket, but the propellant is almost always negligible compared to the cost of the rocket itself: Falcon 9: ~0.7% Space Shuttle: ~1% Ariane 5: ~2.5%
Well single use solid fuel rockets would be much cheaper per kg of mass sent into space.
If that were true, why does the tech pipeline seem to go from solid propellant, to liquid propellant, to cryogenic propellant? Almost every spacefaring country and company seems to go down this path.
They obviously don’t know what they’re doing, ffs.
/s
Better control when used in missiles.
This was more-or-less the Soviet strategy, and it worked pretty well. And of course the shuttle used solid boosters too.
I think computerization is changing the math though. Advanced fuels save weight, and being able to land and retrieve the motors is huge.
Well, what actual percentage of the cost of the rocket is the motor and what actual percentage is the fuel?
It depends on the rocket, but the propellant is almost always negligible compared to the cost of the rocket itself: