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
    1
    ·
    14 days 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
      0
      ·
      14 days 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.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        The Space Shuttle missions did not recycle the rockets, not to mention that the SpaceX missions were rated super-heavy: Only Apollo has done this before in America.

        Imagine NASA crashing 4 Shuttles before getting landing right.

        You think they didn’t?

        • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) from shuttle launched were recycled. They parachuted into the ocean after being jettisoned and were recovered and refused. They just didn’t land themselves. The external fuel tank was not reused.

          • ch00f@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 days ago

            There was an extensive amount of refurbishment required to re-use the SRBs. Not to mention they had to be physically recovered, and salt water certainly made the process more complicated.

            The shuttle itself needed each of its heat shield tiles replaced, which due to the shape of the shuttle were all unique.

            The fuel tank was not reused.

            The shuttle was meant to be a leap forward in rocket reusability, but it didn’t really pan out that way. There’s good reason the program was scrapped and not replaced with another space plane.

            The Starship booster has the potential to launch multiple times per day. The only refurbishment period is how long it takes to refuel it.

      • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        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.

        NASA spent about 50 Billion today-dollars developing (not launching) the shuttle program and that went to private contractors (Boeing, Lockheed, United Space, etc.) Starship has a long way to go to hit those numbers.

        I really don’t find anything SpaceX is doing revolutionary

        Really? Nothing? Many people said what Falcon 9 now does on a regular basis could not be done. No one was even trying. The closest plans were still going to land horizontally and went nowhere. Now, you have to explain why you’re not landing your booster, and what your plans are to fix that going forward: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/international/2024/09/11/china-wants-to-replace-jeff-bezos-as-musks-greatest-space-threat/

        They quite literally revolutionized the space industry in terms of the cost to launch to orbit.

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

        Yet another way they’ve revolutionized the industry. Almost everyone is doing expendable tests now so that they can move forward quickly. Columbia started construction in 1975, launched for the first time in 1981. When they launched it, it was a fully decked out space shuttle and they put the whole thing on the line - including two astronauts. Imagine NASA trying to do that now. They’d be grounded so hard they’d be jealous of Mankind having a table to land on.

      • Sylveon@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        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.

        The Space Shuttle was a marvel of engineering. But while it was reusable, it wasn’t actually good at it. Reusability was supposed to bring down cost and turnaround time and it did neither. And not just that, it was actually much more expensive than competing expendable rockets. Plus, it had lots of other issues like being dangerous as fuck. You couldn’t abort at all for major parts of the ascent and there was the whole issue with the fragile heat protection tiles, both of which caused fatalities.

        I think part of the reason why people aren’t impressed by the Shuttle anymore is because it flew 135 missions. It’s 40 year old technology. And it’s not like SpaceX are just doing the same thing again 40 years later, they’re reusing their rockets in a completely different way, which no one else had done before. And in doing so they seem to be avoiding most of the disadvantages that came with the Shuttle’s design.

        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.

        Sure, I wouldn’t say that no one else could do this with a similar amount of money (and the will to actually do it). Whether you want to call it revolutionary or not is subjective, but they’re definitely innovating a lot more than any other large player in spaceflight. The Falcon 9 is a huge step forward for rocket reusability and SpaceX have also been the first to fly a full-flow staged combustion engine as well as the most powerful rocket ever. They’re making spaceflight exciting again after like 40 years of stagnation and I think that’s what resonates with people.