阅读图片上的文字---**Article Content Extraction**
**Title:** HOW REUSABLE ROCKETS WORK
**Subtitle:** New launch vehicles that can fly multiple missions are transforming space travel
**Author:** WORDS ANDREW MAY
**Main Text:**
Imagine if an airliner only lasted a single journey and a new one had to be built for every single flight. It may sound crazy, but in the world of spaceflight, this 'single-use' approach is a well-established practice. The first rockets to launch humans into orbit back in the 1960s were converted military missiles, so it's no surprise they were designed for just one flight each. For space operators like NASA, however, the result was painfully expensive. Adjusted to modern prices, the cost of putting a payload into orbit using one of those early rockets was around $30,000 (£23,700) per kilogram. The obvious solution was to make space launchers reusable, and NASA came up with just such an approach that it believed would drastically reduce launch costs. This was the Space Shuttle, which first flew in 1981.
Unfortunately, the Space Shuttle pushed costs in the wrong direction. Despite its reusable design, it still managed to soak up $65,000 (£51,400) for every kilogram it delivered to orbit. The problem was that in order to achieve reusability with 20th-century technology, the Space Shuttle had to be very complicated. To bring it back in one piece, it had to be flown down through the atmosphere by human pilots, who then landed it on a runway like an aeroplane. The need for wings, landing gear and a crew is what made costs soar. A simpler solution would have been to use something resembling those first-generation rockets, bringing them back down to a precision landing under computer control without the need for a crew. To the Space Shuttle's designers, this would have seemed unthinkably far-fetched - yet it's exactly what SpaceX does today, on a routine basis, with its Falcon 9 rockets. These have ushered in a new age of 'cheap' space travel, at least in relative terms, with the cost of launch now down to just $2,000 (£1,580) per kilogram. While SpaceX is the current leader in reusable rocketry, other companies such as Blue Origin and Rocket Lab are developing similar systems of their own.
**Tech Specs Box:**
TECH SPECS
FALCON 9
Launches in 2024: 134
SPACE SHUTTLE
Total launches: 135
SPACEX STARSHIP
Height: 121 metres
BLUE ORIGIN NEW GLENN
Payload to orbit:
45 tonnes
ROCKET LAB ELECTRON
Cost per launch:
$7.5 million
(£5.9 million)
**Pros and Cons Box:**
PROS AND CONS
OF REUSABILITY
Aside from economic considerations, reusable rockets have environmental benefits, as they create less space junk. But they have disadvantages too. They're more complex systems due to the need for retractable control fins and landing legs, and they have to go through a meticulous refurbishment process after each launch. This means the real benefits of reusability are only seen when large numbers of launches are required. This is true of SpaceX, which needs to launch thousands of small satellites every year.
Significantly, other companies focusing on launcher reuse are also in the satellite launch business. At the other extreme, organisations like the European Space Agency (ESA), which specialises in small numbers of sophisticated science missions, may only need a handful of launches per year. For them, single-use rockets remain the most sensible choice.
**Diagram Description: Falcon 9 Launch and Recovery**
Type: Illustrated diagram showing the stages of a rocket launch and recovery process.
Main Elements:
- Background: Depicts the ground (possibly desert) and the sky with stars and Earth's curvature visible higher up.
- Rocket Stages: A multi-stage rocket is shown in various positions indicating ascent and stage separation.
- Labels and Annotations:
- Label 1 (bottom): Points to the base stage of the rocket on the launch pad. Text: "FIRST STAGE This is the reusable part of the launch rocket, also referred to as the 'booster'."
- Label 2 (above 1): Points to the section above the first stage. Text: "UPPER STAGE This is a smaller rocket stage that carries the payload into orbit, but isn't recoverable."
- Label 3 (mid-ascent): Points to the entire rocket structure during ascent. Text: "ASCENT PHASE The booster engines fire at full thrust to carry the rocket most of the way to orbit."
- Label 4 (higher up, separation point): Points to the rocket structure just after the lower stage has detached. Text: "STAGE SEPARATION Once above the atmosphere, the booster separates. The second stage and payload continue into orbit."
- Title below diagram: "FALCON 9 LAUNCH AND RECOVERY Here's how SpaceX retrieves its booster rockets so they can be reused".
**Other Image Caption:**
An image of the Ariane 6 rocket in space with a caption: "Despite being a modern rocket that first flew in 2024, the Ariane 6 isn't reusable".
**Page Number:**
38
视频信息
答案文本
视频字幕
Imagine if airlines had to build a new plane for every single flight. This sounds crazy, but it's exactly how space rockets worked for decades. Early rockets from the 1960s were converted military missiles, costing around thirty thousand dollars per kilogram to orbit. The Space Shuttle was designed to be reusable, but its complexity actually increased costs to sixty-five thousand dollars per kilogram. Today's reusable rockets like Falcon 9 have revolutionized space access, reducing costs to just two thousand dollars per kilogram.
The Space Shuttle represented NASA's first serious attempt at reusable spaceflight. However, despite its reusable design, it actually pushed costs in the wrong direction. The shuttle's complexity was its downfall. To achieve reusability with nineteen-eighties technology, it needed wings for atmospheric flight, landing gear for runway landings, and human pilots to control the descent. These requirements made the system incredibly complex and expensive to operate, resulting in costs of sixty-five thousand dollars per kilogram, more than double the cost of single-use rockets.
Modern reusable rockets like SpaceX's Falcon 9 have solved the complexity problem that plagued the Space Shuttle. Instead of wings and human pilots, they use computer-controlled precision landing with retractable grid fins and landing legs. The process is elegant in its simplicity: the first stage fires at full thrust during ascent, separates once above the atmosphere, then performs a controlled descent and landing while the upper stage continues to orbit. This approach has achieved what seemed impossible - routine reusability with dramatically lower costs of just two thousand dollars per kilogram.
Reusable rockets aren't always the best choice. They offer significant advantages including reduced launch costs and environmental benefits through less space debris. However, they also have drawbacks. The systems are more complex due to landing equipment like retractable fins and legs, and they require meticulous refurbishment after each flight. The real benefits only emerge with high launch volumes. SpaceX launches thousands of satellites annually, making reusability profitable. But organizations like the European Space Agency, which conducts only a few sophisticated science missions per year, find single-use rockets more economical.
The future of space access looks incredibly promising thanks to reusable rocket technology. Next-generation systems like SpaceX's Starship, standing 121 meters tall, and Blue Origin's New Glenn with 45-tonne payload capacity, are pushing the boundaries even further. Launch costs continue to plummet from thirty thousand dollars per kilogram in the 1960s to two thousand today, with projections of under five hundred dollars in the near future. This transformation is enabling entirely new possibilities: space tourism, Mars missions, orbital manufacturing, and deep space exploration are becoming economically viable. Reusable rockets haven't just reduced costs - they've opened the door to a new era of space accessibility.