• 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.