upvote
I still remember watching Falcon 9 (Block V, iirc) successfully landing back on land (as opposed to droneships) after deploying Orbcomm OG2 satellites in December 2015 -- almost 11 years ago.

It blew my teen mind.

This day marks a fabulous advancement for the human species.

reply
We went outside in our Orlando office to see the flair up in the sky, and then were looking for the re-entry, by the time we could figure out where it was our coworker said it was already standing upright.
reply
I'm still not really convinced this is better than a space-shuttle style landing.

Seems like the same design principles that goes into Starship could create a version with more aerodynamic surface.

Is the idea that Starhship will be considered safe enough for human crews?

reply
Was Space Shuttle safe enough for human crews?

Space Shuttle was a compromised design from the beginning. They originally wanted the Space Shuttle booster to also have wings and return to launch site (with a crew!). But they couldn't afford to develop two new vehicles, so they compromised by making the external tank as cheap as possible and adding solid rockets (which led to the Challenger disaster).

But their biggest mistake was having the engines on the orbiter (so they could be recovered) but not the fuel tank. That meant the orbiter had to hang on the side of the external tank, which made it vulnerable to foam strikes (leading to the Columbia disaster).

Landing with wings is aesthetically pleasing (compared to tower catches) but consider the waste: You have to boost the weight of the wings, landing gear, etc. all the way to orbit and then bring it all the way back. It's much more efficient to just bring fuel and use that for landing. And if your guidance is accurate enough, a pinpoint landing means you can land on the launch tower and not worry about landing legs.

reply
For the shuttle there was also a lot of interference from the Airforce, which forced them to have a massive payload bay, so AF could launch and service their big Keyhole satellites (and possibly snatch Soviet ones in one orbit without warning).

Then there was pressure to make use of solid propellants to amortize their use with military uses, not to mention pushing for Shuttle carrying all payloads for the US.

This together created the dangerous and expensive design tHat was STS.

reply
The space shuttle was aerodynamic for a very specific reason - they had to do a mission (that never happened) where they would launch, deploy a spy satellite into a specific polar orbit, and return back to Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in a single orbit. The result was a requirement for a lot of cross range, which needed large wings that hurt its performance a spacecraft.

Starship doesn't have that - and so it can be much more optimized for it's purpose. It's basically tanks with a cargo bay and control surfaces, while the shuttle had to toss it's tanks away every flight.

reply
You don’t want it more aerodynamic
reply
Do you think Space Shuttle landing is equivalent because you like all the extra weight and complexity of a landing gear, or because you like having to build a giant runway?
reply
Unnecessarily snarky but 100% correct!

Of course, being able to land on runways gave the Space Shuttle more choices for emergency landings than needing a chopsticks catcher.

That said, the Space Shuttle holds records for the most humans killed in spaceflight, and the most expensive cost per kilogram to LEO.

reply
I'll be that guy: they still have to fly it again. That's the real question. Incredible achievement. We got used to landing and caught boosters real quick!
reply
This was a huge milestone, but you're right that there are a long list of future milestones: catch both on the same flight, reuse of both on a given flight, fly without significant refurbishment, fly N times in T time for many values of each, orbital refueling, crew, etc.
reply