/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>23707484
Conventional rockets are rockets. You fire them once and they fall into the ocean. Every rocket ever flown except Shuttle (which dropped a big orange tank and boosters every flight) and Falcon 9 (which drops the upper stage but lands the lower) has fallen into the ocean (China drops stages on villages, I shit you not). Starship is fully reusable, upper and lower stage. So you're not throwing away half a rocket. Imagine the cost of an airline ticket if you threw away all the engines every flight.

Starship can be reusable hundreds of times, all parts of it. The exception is this hilarious lunar lander, which can't return to Earth because it lacks the heat shield.

>>22551154
are you unaware of the fact NASA is in the middle of a new Moon landing program

WE'RE GOING TO THE FUCKING MOOOOOOON (if Biden doesnt win and shitcan it)

>>22543915
>yet

>>22515811
>most efficient
no but also yes
>impressive
absolutely yes
>largest
absolutely not

Raptor is the most efficient non-hydrogen engine to ever fly, which is important because hydrogen is very efficient but a BITCH to work with and you need MASSIVE tankage. It uses a full flow staged combustion cycle, which means the turbo machinery can work at much lower temperatures for the same chamber pressure; important for reusability. It also has one of the best thrust to weight ratios of any rocket ever flown. It's not actually a particularly large engine, it's much smaller than the F1 and smaller even than the Space Shuttle Main Engine used on Shuttle and SLS. That's why they're strapping 37 of them together.

reminder to sell into strength and buy into weakness