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?

  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 hours 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
      9
      ·
      2 hours 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.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 minutes ago

          Between the orbiter (reused), the boosters (reused), and the external fuel tank (not reused), which parts are not “just a small part” (in terms of technology/complexity/cost, not physical size)?

          • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            39 minutes ago

            I take the part about “a small part” back as that’s a misleading term for what I meant: The Super Heavy booster is much bigger in both technology/complexity and physical size and has many more parts than the old space shuttle rockets as it needs to carry the weight of two space shuttle orbiters. Plus, spaceplane is weird.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 minutes ago

              Remember, unless we’re talking about Enterprise, “space shuttle rockets” includes the orbiter itself. The orbiter’s main engines were where all that fuel from the external tank was going, after all! From that perspective, I would argue that the main “space shuttle rocket” was were definitely much more complex than the Super Heavy booster, because the crew stuff, cargo stuff, spaceplane stuff, etc. was integrated into it.