18 ms·

How could you know? SpaceX never landed or sent a craft on a foreign body.

joe_91 6y ago
Haha, 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 ago
  While 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 ago
    Yes, 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 ago
SpaceX 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 ago
    The 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 ago
        I'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.
        Daho0n 6y ago
        I'm not saying SpaceX isn't doing good but the price has gone up per (re)launch, not down as projected, so at the moment of it were possible to buy a trip to space for a few tourists it would be cheaper on a shuttle.
- smilespray 6y ago
  Didn't they reuse the solid rocket boosters for the shuttle? (Granted, they were delivered by Morton Thiokol and didn't function well in cold weather...)
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  NASA doesn't really build rockets in-house, all of their reusable rockets were built by contractors under NASA's supervision. Sometimes NASA collaborated with other organizations (e.g. DARPA/military funding paid for a lot of the DC-X reusable rocket)
- m4rtink 6y ago
  Well, nssa worked on Delta Clipper and DC-X. Also Venture Star. And the integrated powered demonstrator/FastTrack & pointless injectors that formed the basis of the Merlin engine IIRC.

Haha, 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 ago
While 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 ago
  Yes, 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 ago

SpaceX 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 ago
  The 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 ago
      I'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.
      - Daho0n 6y ago
        I'm not saying SpaceX isn't doing good but the price has gone up per (re)launch, not down as projected, so at the moment of it were possible to buy a trip to space for a few tourists it would be cheaper on a shuttle.
smilespray 6y ago
Didn't they reuse the solid rocket boosters for the shuttle? (Granted, they were delivered by Morton Thiokol and didn't function well in cold weather...)
Rebelgecko 6y ago
NASA doesn't really build rockets in-house, all of their reusable rockets were built by contractors under NASA's supervision. Sometimes NASA collaborated with other organizations (e.g. DARPA/military funding paid for a lot of the DC-X reusable rocket)
m4rtink 6y ago
Well, nssa worked on Delta Clipper and DC-X. Also Venture Star. And the integrated powered demonstrator/FastTrack & pointless injectors that formed the basis of the Merlin engine IIRC.