5 ms·
considering this is over 50 years after Saturn V, I don't feel this is such a huge feat.
by fnord77 6y ago
considering this is over 50 years after Saturn V, I don't feel this is such a huge feat.
- ramraj07 6y ago2001 predicted we'd be permanently living in the moon with orbital space hotels two decades ago, and no one ever thought they were being unreasonable if we kept the same momentum as the 60s, so yes it's sad. But we have to take things for what they are and what spacex is doing is definitely progress.
- WalterBright 6y agoWith the amount of money NASA was spending at the time, doing those things was not feasible.
- mcv 6y agoI grew up in the 1980s. Back then, the year 2000 was a magical year where we'd have flying cars and live on the moon. I've adjusted my expectations quite a bit due to the lack of mobility progress since then.
- noveltyaccount 6y agoYeah in some ways the Saturn program is the more amazing. Technology finally caught up to the amazing accomplishment of the Saturn rocket program, if that makes sense.
- electriclove 6y agoThe Apollo program was indeed amazing. Government bureaucracy and mediocrity is responsible for 50 years of regression. What SpaceX is doing with Starship is also amazing on so many levels (Raptor engine, reusable, goal of Mars, etc).
- mempko 6y agoIsn't the current government bureaucracy paying for starship development?
- mobilefriendly 6y agoNo, government funding to hit work milestones is totally different than government bureaucracy attempting to actually do the work.
- bodhiandphysics 6y agoAlmost not at all... something like 50 million so far for a program whose costs are probably in the low billions. Mostly spacex is paying for it with its capital raises
- maccam94 6y agoYeah, all I've heard is $53M for testing in-orbit refueling and $135M for developing the lunar lander version of Starship for the Artemis program.
- dingaling 6y agoSpaceX has received contracts worth over $10 billion from the DoD and NASA. Its estimated that they have over 60% of Government launch contracts. That of course is biased towards the contracted projects, but still provides cashflow and leverage for capital.
- Swenrekcah 6y agoGovernment bureaucracy also made the Apollo program. What got in the way was politics. What revived space tech was competition. Politics and bureaucracy can plague private enterprise and competition can be had between or at the behest of government institutions. It's not as simple as government bad, private good. In fact that simplification can be quite dangerous if it leads to the erosion of government as policy.
- electriclove 6y agoIt shouldn't be (given the 50 years) but NO ONE else has done anything close to it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mrmonkeyman 6y agoIt's always the last 5% of the work taking 90% of the time. Saturn was a big F rocket that just exploded in the general direction of the moon. Making it economic and safe is a whole different ballgame.
- astrowilliam 6y agoA MASSIVE 30 story building that can land vertically isn't a huge feat?
- fnord77 6y agovertical landing isn't new, either.
- andrewguenther 6y agoConsidering this can carry 100 people instead of 3, I'd say it's a pretty big deal.
- sudosysgen 6y agoThe Saturn V can carry those 3 people way further, though.
- adwn 6y ago> The Saturn V can carry those 3 people way further, though. Saturn V: 3 people to the Moon; Starship: 100 people to Mars (unproven, of course). Mars is a little further than the Moon. Granted, that's with in-orbit refueling.
- sudosysgen 6y agoThe Saturn V would be three people to the moon and back. Starship is 100 people more or less around GTO. Multiple starships are needed to go to Mars. It's a pretty ridiculous comparison.
- edoceo 6y agoThe Saturn V didn't come back with people did it? Just a small capsule splashing in the ocean
- TeMPOraL 6y agoGetting to LEO is already halfway to anywhere in the Solar System, though. And then Starship can go back and land.
- simonh 6y agoIsn’t excluding comparisons that include refuelling, when contrasting a refuel-able and a non refuel-able vehicle, somewhat ridiculous? Starship is refuel-able , that’s one of its capabilities. Nobody on these vehicles going to Mars will care about you sitting there complaining that is doesn’t count.
- simonh 6y agoAsk the engineers who built the N1 how hard it is.
- nickik 6y agoIt can actually land. The Saturn V cost absurd amounts of money and used gigantic amounts of army of people.The Starship program also wants to solve many problem that the Saturn V or even Apollo didn't.
- Koiwai 6y agoThis is not true technic wise but true politics wise, or politically incorrect, you should not be downvoted.