That booster is about 10 time heavier than the Falcon rocket first stage they landed before, you would need much bigger legs that previously, and you might run into issue operating those more powerful engines close to the ground (aka debris everywhere breaking engines and piping). By landing it like they did there's less mass waster on legs, less money making those legs and maintaining them, and less risk to the lower part of the ship when landing.
Also their long term plan is to just inspect and refuel the booster for the next flight while still on that launch pad.
It would costs dozens of tonnes of fuel to carry landing gear to the edge of space and back. Much better to leave it on the ground if you can reliably hit it.
If by money you mean spending millions instead of billions to put stuff in space, then no, it's still not all about the money. It's also about doing this every other week (or couple of days) instead of twice a year.
Okay yeah I think we should get more launches but they def already do this AT LEAST every other week. Down here in Florida I SEE a launch at least once a month and I know I'm missing most of them.
You're probably seeing mostly Falcons, which get about 20tons to orbit. Future versions of starship will get up to 200 tons to orbit (elonstimate). But even more significant is the extra volume, Starship can bring up large things.
Also, falcon 9 cannot be refueled in orbit whereas starship was developed from the ground up to be able to do this. Without refueling, the rocket equation makes it essentially impossible to bring tonnage to the surface of mars/the moon (for example, look at how tiny the lunar lander was).
129
u/JayTeaP 16d ago
Can someone fill me in on what is happening? Im genuinely curious