8 ms·
NASA 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!
by joe_91 6y ago
NASA 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