http://www.space.com/31202-blue-origin-historic-private-rocket-landing.html

The private spaceflight company Blue Origin just launched itself into the history books by successfully flying and landing a reusable rocket.

Powered by the company’s own BE-3 engine, the rocket kicked off the launchpad yesterday (Nov. 23) at 11:21 a.m. Central Time, carrying the New Shepard space vehicle. The stunning feat was captured in an amazing test flight video released by the company.

Thanks for that dv, history.

bob(from black rock) said:

Thanks for that dv, history.

And good news history, not death and destruction blood and guts type history.

Space X is also working on a reusable landing rocket.

here is an article about both companies
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/24/9793220/blue-origin-vs-spacex-rocket-landing-jeff-bezos-elon-musk

There are others

I read an article that said that the reusable boosters on shuttles were reusable for PR reasons. By the time they were recovered, cleaned and validated it would have been cheaper to build them from scratch and delete the parachutes, pyros and triggering mechanisms for an extra saving.

The shuttle was a complete arsefuck from start to finish.

dv said:

The shuttle was a complete arsefuck from start to finish.

The idea of reusable spacecraft seems sound but the reality is different, too much effort involved to check and/or replace every single component

Cymek said:

dv said:

The shuttle was a complete arsefuck from start to finish.

The idea of reusable spacecraft seems sound but the reality is different, too much effort involved to check and/or replace every single component

Yes it is a bit problematic. Construct a pump or pressure vessel from new about all you would need is to check torque settings and maybe X Ray welds. Pretty well everything is known and validated from previous experience.

Reusing a component involves its recovery and checking except now the checking has to be more exhaustive. Moreover if you build in redundancy to cope with repeated stresses and even the validation regime that will invariably add weight or at last logistic complexity which costs.

Not saying it cannot be done but it will take some clever thinking to make a reusable rocket mor cost effective than a one shot one.

I think reusable rocketry is a sound idea. The Shuttle was just ill conceived. A platform to deliver space hardware doesn’t need to be weighed down by all the gear required to keep seven humans alive for two weeks. It does not merely add up: it multiplies. All that extra mass and space adds to the shielding required which further adds to the total mass etc. Either do it without a human crew (probably doable fromt the 1980s onward) or have a pilot and a copilot with enough space and life support to do the delivery mission and then get the fuck home.

Similarly if you are going to have a manned space program you do not want to tie it to a huge delivery vehicle that will not usually be needed.

By combining the two they ended with a vehicle four times as massive as would be required to do either task separately.

the Russians are the only ones that do manned space flight anymore

wookiemeister said:

the Russians are the only ones that do manned space flight anymore

The Chinese?

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

the Russians are the only ones that do manned space flight anymore

The Chinese?

not for a while

the Russians are putting people into the space on a regular basis

the ISS gets supplied by the Russians

dv said:

I think reusable rocketry is a sound idea. The Shuttle was just ill conceived. A platform to deliver space hardware doesn’t need to be weighed down by all the gear required to keep seven humans alive for two weeks. It does not merely add up: it multiplies. All that extra mass and space adds to the shielding required which further adds to the total mass etc. Either do it without a human crew (probably doable fromt the 1980s onward) or have a pilot and a copilot with enough space and life support to do the delivery mission and then get the fuck home.

Similarly if you are going to have a manned space program you do not want to tie it to a huge delivery vehicle that will not usually be needed.

By combining the two they ended with a vehicle four times as massive as would be required to do either task separately.

The Shuttle was great but its ‘re-usability’ was based on a totally unrealistic flight rate. It was also a ‘bastard’ design that was different from what the designers originally planned.

Computers and drones programmed to look for metal fatigue would be of benefit to reusable rockets, ships, airplanes, mining equipment etc

the shuttle killed 2 entire crews

personally SKYLON is the better option

take off from a runway

but that’s a British invention so should be discarded

Never use a reusable rocket. They are a shocking waste of fuel and money.

Do reuse non-reusable rockets. Bash out the dents, grind off the burnt bits, collect all the scattered small bits, and use them again.