So I’ve heard and seen the newest launch, and I thought for a private firm it seemed cool they were able to do it on their own, but I’m scratching my head that people are gushing about this as some hail mary.

I get the engineering required is staggering when it comes to these rocket tests, but NASA and other big space agencies have already done rocket tests and exploring bits of the moon which still astounds me to this day.

Is it because it’s not a multi billion government institution? When I tell colleagues about NASA doing stuff like this yeaaaars ago they’re like “Yea yea but this is different it’s crazy bro”

Can anyone help me understand? Any SpaceX or Tesla fans here?

  • Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    1 month ago

    Disclaimer: Fuck Elon Musk and all the shady shit he’s been pulling off.

    That said, this is one of the most impressive things I’ve ever seen in terms of the potential it holds to shape the future.

    Up until 5 short years ago we had:

    • No main booster recovery
    • No rocket nearly as powerful as this one
    • No successful flight of a full-flow stage engine
    • Nobody even considering the catch with chopsticks thing
    • No private company testing super heavy lift vehicles (BO is about to enter the chat as well)
    • No push for reusability at all

    This was all built on top of the incredible engineering of NASA, but this one launch today has all of the above ticked.

    This is like making the first aeroplane that’s able to land and be flown again. SpaceX uses this example as well, like, imagine how expensive any plane ticket would have to be if you had to build a brand new A380 every single time people wanted to fly and then crashing it into the sea.

    Going to space is EXPENSIVE. If this program succeeds it will both massively reduce the cost to space and spin off hundreds of companies looking to do the same in various ways.

    Look at any new rocket currently in development, they all include some level of reusability in the design and that’s all thanks to the incredible engineers of SpaceX paving the way, first with Falcon 9 and now with Starship.

    We’re talking industrial revolution levels of progress and new frontiers in our lifetimes, which is very, very exciting.

    • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 month ago

      I hate Musk and his personal everything, but Like SpaceX. However, when people gush about reusability, they seem to forget the 135 Space Shuttle missions (2 fatal failures , yes.). All done with 5 vehicles. Yes expensive etc, but truly amazing.

      Also, I really don’t find anything SpaceX is doing revolutionary. Impressive? Yes, but it’s essentially incremental engineering, made possible by ginormous funding, including NASA money, and a private company doing things that NASA can-t politically afford.

      Imagine NASA crashing 4 Shuttles before getting landing right. There’d be no NASA by now.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        The space shuttle wasn’t as reusable as it was claimed to be.

        Each airframe required massive refurbishment after every flight.

        And the “crashes” you’re talking about were part of the project process, articles that were never going to be any more than test objects to begin with.

        NASA crashed a lot of stuff, unintentionally. Three off of the top of my head, killed 15 astronauts, all which were preventable (not to mention the launch pad failures getting to Apollo).

        NASA/NACA/Air Force crashed a lot of stuff along the way.

        Ffs they knew Columbia had a tile problem, and said “it’ll be OK”. They knew it had been too cold for the booster seals on Discovery, and launched anyway.

        • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          The big ass rocket engines in the back fueled by the massive fuel tank may disagree with you

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            No, the shuttle ALONE is not a launch vehicle. It’s an orbiter. They are apples to oranges.

            It does not power itself off the pad, it uses boosters. So comparing the boosters to the SpaceX stuff is most relevant

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        The shuttle was reusable in the same way a soyuz capsule is. And NASA very much crashed shuttle prototypes on the way.

    • Ludrol@szmer.info
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 month ago

      A bit of a timeline correction. The falcon 9 started landing succesfully in 2016. So 8 years ago but your argument still stands.

      • Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        The Saturn V could lift 141t to LEO…once. Also it’ll be at least another 5 years before we reach a stable max power version of Starship.

        For example the Falcon 9 v1.0 first flew in 2010 and the current Block 5 version first flew in 2018 with more than double the LEO capacity when fully expendable.

        If they configure Starship as fully expendable it can lift 250t to LEO (per SpaceX, so grain of salt there to be fair).

        As for the shuttle, I love it to bits and I’m sad it had to be grounded. It was refurbishable but not really reusable and the massive liquid fuel tank was discarded in each flight.