7 ms·
NASA's ability of succeeding at landing things successfully on the first try on foreign bodies since 1969 is mind-blowing. Meanwhile, SpaceX takes half a dozen
by raphaelj 6y ago
NASA's ability of succeeding at landing things successfully on the first try on foreign bodies since 1969 is mind-blowing.
Meanwhile, SpaceX takes half a dozen tries before managing to do the same on a fully known environment on Earth.
- user3939382 6y agoYeah, c’mon Elon. It’s not rocket science!
- joe_91 6y agoNASA also requires 10-100x more money & time to do so. Both just have very different ways of working. Both work and there are pro's and con's to either way!
- raphaelj 6y agoHow could you know? SpaceX never landed or sent a craft on a foreign body.
- joe_91 6y agoHaha, good point - we'll have to come back in 4-5 years time when SpaceX have touched down on the moon and mars and check the cost. Considering their low cost & speed at getting things into orbit these days and the plans they have for starship I hope that the data will prove me right in a few years
- m4rtink 6y agoWhile this timeline might be optimistic, this is what came to my mind when I heard about the current timeline for Mars sample return - samples returning back to Earth in 2031. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample-return_mission#NASA%E2%80%93ESA_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample-return_mission#NAS... Like it's nice to finally have a firmer timeline for that, but damn, 10 years from now. A SpaceX employee gathering the sample tubes into his backpack in a couple years time to be returned on the next milk-run flight back to Earth is just so much cooler! :)
- joe_91 6y agoYes, hopefully SpaceX can do it quicker than 10 years! Considering 15 years ago they started with their first rocket and how far they've come in that time I have high hopes. I think Elon was hoping for a manned mission to Mars in 2024 back in 2017 but his latest projection is 2026. He's certainly optimistic :)
- ALittleLight 6y agoSpaceX hasn't been around as long as NASA. Also, remind me, did NASA develop reusable rockets?
- thelean12 6y ago> Also, remind me, did NASA develop reusable rockets? I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not but... yes, of course NASA developed reusable rockets. The space shuttle missions reused the shuttles and the boosters.
- marcinzm 6y agoThe Space Shuttle was reusable (with massive refurbishing after each flight) but given that'd it cost significantly more than a non-reusable rocket per pound I think the point stands. SpaceX managed to make a financially viable reusable rocket.
- thelean12 6y ago> I think the point stands No it doesn't. The person was trying to say SpaceX > NASA. Many people here are trying to shit on the other side as if they have a real point. They're both doing cool and useful things and they're both really really good at what they do.
- ALittleLight 6y agoI'm not trying to say that SpaceX is better than NASA. I am responding to the point that NASA has done things that SpaceX hasn't (e.g. landing on other celestial bodies) by pointing out that SpaceX has done things NASA hasn't (e.g. SpaceX rockets land and can be reused). I don't think it makes sense to talk about which is better unless there is some specific metric that can be measured so a conclusion could be reached. I am encouraged though that SpaceX has a trajectory that will allow greater access to space. By bringing the cost of space travel down, I expect we will get a lot more of it. NASA (and other governmental space programs) started the initiative, but I think SpaceX is continuing it marvelously.
- notum 6y agoI'll just leave Thunderf00t's latest video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TxkE_oYrjU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TxkE_oYrjU Let's not diminish ether's breakthroughs, but financial isn't one of SpaceX's.
- shazmosushi 6y agoThat video was incorrect on so many levels that I have made a rebuttal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4
- redisman 6y agoLets just say both are doing very important work with very different incentives
- nitrogen 6y agoNASA's ability of succeeding at landing things successfully on the first try on foreign bodies since 1969 is mind-blowing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter > The spacecraft encountered Mars on a trajectory that brought it too close to the planet, and it was either destroyed in the atmosphere or escaped the planet's vicinity and entered an orbit around the sun. An investigation attributed the failure to a measurement mismatch between two software systems: metric units by NASA and non-metric ("English") units by spacecraft builder Lockheed Martin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Polar_Lander#Landing_attempt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Polar_Lander#Landing_atte... > Communication was expected to be reestablished with the spacecraft at 20:39:00 UTC after having landed. However, no communication was possible with the spacecraft, and the lander was declared lost.
- macintux 6y agoIn fairness to the parent comment: those weren’t the first try.
- m4rtink 6y agoMars Observer is mad that you forgot to mention it! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Observer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Observer Actually it is not mad - becase it exploded into millions of pieces due to the leaky fuel system...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dawnerd 6y agoYou had me until you started to bash SpaceX for no reason. NASA has had plenty of failures and you're framing it as if they haven't ever.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoThat snipe was really unnecessary. Not to mention weird, considering how successful SpaceX has been at dominating the commercial launch sector.
- Daho0n 6y agoI'm not commenting on the rest of your post but the "dominating the commercial sector" just so you don't think I'm badmouthing SpaceX. Just wanted to add that if you sell X pounds of cargo to the commercial sector but sell the same capacity to the military for X times 3 then your are not dominating but are subsidized by the state and in a position to undercut the commercial competition. It's not just for PR that SpaceX competitors, both foreign and nationally, are saying SpaceX is propped up by the state.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoWas SpaceX uncompetitive in its bids for the government launches or something? My understanding is that they were much cheaper than other bidders, not more expensive.
- gfodor 6y agoConsider for a second that blowing up no prototypes or blowing up lots of prototypes are both well considered methodologies and what you state is by design and expected.
- emilecantin 6y agoPerseverance is one of the largest objects that NASA landed (along with the Apollo lander), and it's about the size of an SUV. SpaceX is trying to land things the size of buildings. Let's just say it's a very different problem.
- Daho0n 6y ago.
- m4rtink 6y agoActually, all the Starship flights are fully automated, possibly except a very nervous person somewhere with the self-destruct button and binoculars. If you though there is someone in Boca Chica flying Starship remotely with joystick and steady hand, I'm afraid I need to disappoint you.
- Daho0n 6y agoThat wasn't the point but this is Reddit level snarky commenting so I'll be on my way.
- PeterisP 6y agoNeither Perseverence or SpaceX landings involve latency for control commands, they are automated/preprogrammed in the vehicle and do not rely on real-time commands from the ground.
- Daho0n 6y agoNo one have said otherwise. The point still stands that landing on earth is not in the same universe as landing on Mars. Comparing is stupid.
- jaegerpicker 6y agoSpaceX has a very different set of risk tolerances and approaches. Nasa is a government funded entity and the tolerance for failure (rightly or wrongly) is very low according to every thing I've read. SpaceX being private has a much larger cushion for failure. Elon will keep funding it far longer than congress would Nasa is my guess. If SpaceX loses some rockets that's the cost of business, of course once those missions are manned it's a huge difference but until then I think it's not really comparable.
- mempko 6y agoYou have it exactly backwards. Risk tolerance is higher for the government. Fox example, SpaceX would never just send a rocket to mars just to do science which would bring it zero profits. It won't take risk funding something where the science may or may not bear any fruit. Also, SpaceX IS mostly funded by NASA anyway as a government contractor. SpaceX exists because the government wanted to create a private space market. Strangely thank George Bush for it. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/05/how-profitable-is-spacex-really.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/05/how-profitable-is-... As you can see, SpaceX was so cash strapped in 2017 it obviously didn't go to mars in 2018 as they wanted. Also notice Elon didn't fund that trip (otherwise it would have happened). There is no way he would risk HIS own money on that.
- m4rtink 6y agoMain reason for Red Dragon not happening was NASA requesting parachute landing into the ocean instead of the previously planned propulsive landing on land for Dragon 2. This would mean that SpaceX would need to develop and fund Dragon 2 propulsive landing on their own, with only real mission fully requiring it being Red Dragon. In the end it was much easier to just drop the whole thing, especially with the much more perspective Starship on the horizon.
- macintux 6y agoI'm sure this will be downvoted to oblivion shortly, but it's mind-boggling that the company who's turned rocket landings so routine that it's notable when they fail is being singled out as a failure. (Update: sorry, by "this" I mean the parent comment.)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- electriclove 6y agoWe really should take the SpaceX approach. There is too much at stake on a singular multi-billion dollar rover landing on Mars every now and then. We need more funding so that we can send these things to Mars much more frequently and get samples back before my kids have their own kids.
- FrojoS 6y agoRediciolous comparison. The size of the objects that SpaceX is landing is much larger. The approach that was used here for Perseverance (Skycrane) would not work for larger ships, like those required for a human mission. Just like the previous approaches, e.g. Lithobraking with Spirit and Opportunity, would not have worked for Perseverance. Larger objects are much more difficult to land. Simply put, while mass will increase by the power of three, surface area, which is used for aerobraking only scales by the power of two, relative to size. In order to land something large enough to carry and support humans (10-100t), you need hypersonic retropropulsion. Guess who was the first to achieve this? SpaceX. And they remain the only ones. When they light the three engines for the entry burn the earth atmosphere is very similar to the relevant section of the future Mars decent. By developing the first stage landing of Flacon 9, they solved one of the biggest development challenges for humans landing on Mars and it was not by accident. NASA was very happy to get that data and helped them collect it with their chase planes.
- m4rtink 6y agoThe Mars atmosphere is at a tricky spot where you can't ignore it like when landing on the Moon (also Mars gravity is higher than on the Moon) yet it's not thick enough for survivable landing with parachutes or wings (as envisioned in the earliest Mars mission plans) only. That's why you always see parachutes + something else for Mars EDL - parachutes + rockets, parachutes + airbags, parachutes + skycranes. And in Starship case, high speed glide and speed shedding with propulsive landing at the end.