• ramenshaman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I mean… They invented reusable rockets.

    Edit: they invented the first reusable liquid-fueled rockets and the first rockets that can autonomously land themselves. NASA used reusable solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle that would deploy parachutes and land in the ocean. Getting a solid rocket booster back into a reusable state seems like a lot of work to me.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        They created reusable rockets. Lots and lots of concepts on the drawing board, but theirs was unique and the first one to get made.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            We can argue about semantics, but they were moreso rebuilt from the same parts than reused as is. NASA found that it would have been much cheaper to build new SRBs after each launch than rebuild them.

            • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The SRBs used on the final shuttle mission were the same boosters used on the first mission. That set was used a total of 60 times. Only 2 sets of boosters were never recovered for re-use. The set from STS-4 had a parachute malfunction, and the set from the Challenger exploded.

          • Strykker@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            SRB boosters are quite close to literally just a big steel tube, and they reused them by dropping them into the ocean under a parachute.

            They still had to clean out and refurb every booster launched. And that was without the complex rocket engines that would get destroyed by being submerged in the ocean.

        • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          Creating isn’t inventing, and there’s wasn’t the first to be flown. Man, the SpaceX fans don’t really know the history of the industry they make these claims about.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            You referring to the DC-X subscale tech demonstrator?

            I think inventing is a less well defined term, since anyone with a napkin can claim to invent something to a very low fidelity. The details are the hard part, not the idea itself. So that’s why I specified created, since that is inventing to a very high level of fidelity.

            • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              11 months ago

              There’s several other examples. I also don’t think inventing is an ill-defined term. That’s an absurd thing to even say.

                  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    So it needs to be created in real life, rather than just a drawing or design? Or does creating it only as a design without building it count?

                    Also, all technology is built on previous work, especially rocketry. That would seem to eliminate the possibility of invention in rocketry due to the clause of your own ingenuity, etc. What’s the cutoff for invention vs refinement?

            • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’ve had experience with Musk Fans in the past. They all read from the same script, including the “I don’t even like Musk” lie.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      11 months ago

      Given that time and money I bet NASA could have that and made ones that don’t blow up every test.

      • ramenshaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        LOL… NASA has existed for many more decades than Spacex has. The Spacex Falcon rocket is possibly the most reliable rocket available today, launches payloads more often than any other rocket and it’s much cheaper than its competitors. You’re comparing a brand new rocket design to other, thoroughly tested rockets that have had many iterations. This was literally the second flight of this rocket, they were expecting it to fail.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Given time and money, I’m sure Bob Jones could make a reusable rocket in his back garage. It would just take a lot of both. SpaceX is good at making a lot of progress with little time and money.

      • weew@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        How much are you betting? Because I could use some free money, lol.