Haha, yeah, not really any big deal. I mean they're only the only company among all companies and/or nation states with launch capabilities who have ever done it in the history of space travel.
There are plenty of companies who are the only company that manage to do something ever in the history of something.
For example Boston Dynamics had an autonomous robotic mule that can travel pretty much through any terrain. How awesome is that? Yet, that doesn't make the evening news, does it?
In this case, SpaceX is a company that managed to reuse the same equipment to try to cut their operational costs. Well, that's neat and all, but do you understand why no one stays up late at night to watch this sort of stuff happen live? Or at all?
"no one" is a bit strong when Hacker News has multiple people who stay up late a night to watch this kind of stuff happen live -- see all of the complaints about Elon fanboys over the years?
They discarded the fuel tank, and the SRBs landing in the ocean required a dive team and significant refurbishment before they could be reused. Even the shuttle itself required significant refurbishment before it could be reused.
I mean yes it can be, but this isn't really an instance of that. What SpaceX has done is create a reusable booster which lands using retrograde rockets. This is a big deal because with retrograde rockets you can land the thing with precision and upright. Whereas with parachutes you'd end up having a high probability that the rocket would land in a precarious position because it's then at the mercy of the wind much more than the retrograde landing is.
It's kinda like well no Henry Ford didn't invent the car, but he made the car affordable. Heck he didn't even invent the assembly line but he sure did use it in a different way.
Elon is doing to the rocket industry what Ford did to the car industry. Making it more accessible.
What, exactly, do you think is a reusable rocket? You can't just land it, refuel, attach it to a second stage, and fire it up again. Everything has to be retested and tons of stuff replaced because the forces during launch, let alone reentry, are extreme. Until they have lots of data on failure modes in the reusable stage, they are probably ultraconservative with what parts they replace so I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of reuse is ~40-50% of the cost of a new one (on mobile so I'm too lazy to look up spaceX's official numbers).
SpaceX's stated goal is exactly that - turning spacecraft into something more like a commercial airliner. Quick inspection, refuel, send it up again within 24 hours.
The Shuttle threw away its fuel tank, dropped its SRBs into corrosive salt water, and needed all 35,000 tiles inspected every time. The SSMEs needed a full removal and rebuild.
SpaceX has deliberately gone with multiple, redundant, lower-performance engines that are easier to maintain and less sensitive to the forces of launch and re-entry. More like a Toyota Corolla versus the Space Shuttle's F1 racecar - and every generation of the Falcon (there've been five so far) incorporates lessons learned to make it more rapidly reusable.
> I mean they're only the only company among all companies and/or nation states with launch capabilities who have ever done it in the history of space travel.
That assumes all of them were trying to do it all this time, and were failing all the time, which is not true.
I mean, we had control systems in missiles that could track a jet that is doing evasive maneuverer while going as fast as a bullet..like what? half a century ago?
Seriously. i don't think landing a small rocket on a barge comes anywhere close to that...
Note the reusable part. That sort of tracking is much easier if you don't need to resuse the hardware afterwards.
Anyway, anyone else who wants to be able to compete with SpaceX on price is going to need to start doing this before too long, so we'll see how difficult it is.
> That sort of tracking is much easier if you don't need to resuse the hardware afterwards.
Says who?
Your tracking is either precise or it is not. What you are using the precision for is immaterial in this regard..
>anyone else who wants to be able to compete with SpaceX on price is going to need to start doing this before too long, so we'll see how difficult it is.
Wait a minute. Are you seriously calming that spacex is the only company that have landed a rocket successfully?
Imron said "compete with SpaceX". I don't follow developments real closely, so could easily have missed something. Can you point me to any other company which has landed a rocket after putting a payload in orbit? Because if they aren't deploying payloads, they aren't competing with SpaceX.
(Yes, NASA and Bezos have landed rockets, but only straight up & straight down. Nothing close to orbital velocity.)
Note that the Falcon 9 first stage is not travelling at orbital velocity, or even that near it really. At separation time -- when it starts to slow down to re-enter -- "[f]or a reusable Falcon 9, [speed] is around Mach 6, depending on the mission." (Quoting Elon Musk, the SpaceX CEO, on Twitter.)
>Can you point me to any other company which has landed a rocket after putting a payload in orbit? Because if they aren't deploying payloads, they aren't competing with SpaceX.
Alright then. It might be true no one else had done this. but take a look at this, which might explain why no one else is doing it..
