I know SpaceX is doing it all more cost effectively, because we have better technology, but have they actually accomplished anything tangible that NASA didn't a generation ago?
The shuttle was the first attempt at re-usability but was far too expensive to be viable. Only the space station is genuinely long term re-useable infrastructure. It's something you can actually use as a platform for further missions beyond it's initial purpose but it also has been excessively expensive. We can't go on like this. Nobody is talking about a replacement space station, the appetite just isn't there. Unless somebody does something, the space station might be the last long term repeatedly occupied human habitat in space.
SpaceX is doing something about that. If they really can reduce launch costs by a factor of 100:1, it will change the fundamental economics of everything we do in space. Suddenly going to the moon stops being a pointless gesture and becomes an economically viable long term proposition. Human habitats in space of the scale of the ISS or bigger become affordable. They're even talking about colonizing Mars and plan to do what's effectively a tech demo of that in 2018.
For the first time the rocket man dreams of the 1970s look like they could actually happen. For a lot of people, that's pretty exciting.
P.S. Downvotes for this question? Really? I'm as much a fan of SpaceX as anyone but it's a fair question, SpaceX haven't even launched one of their recovered rockets yet.
Skylab, not Spacelab.
As you can tell count me excited.
And well, can the "materials" really be recycled without loss of security/quality?
Is the metal more expensive than the carburant/comburant?
>And well, can the "materials" really be recycled without loss of security/quality?
They aren't going to recycle rockets, they're going to refly them. They are aiming for around 100 flights per airframe.
>Is the metal more expensive than the carburant/comburant?
The cost of the metal isn't the major concern, it's the cost of shaping the metal into a working rocket. But yes, fuel costs are a couple hundred thousand, rockets are tens of millions.
SpaceX is exciting because they're doing launches and landings right now, reliably and successfully.
SpaceX (and others) are accomplishing amazing engineering feats aiming at sustainable, repeatable use of their technology, and improving as they go.
Both are amazing accomplishments. But just because "landing a rocket on a barge" is not as sexy as "landing a ship with humans on the moon" doesn't mean it's that much less of an accomplishment. Remember vertical rocket landing is something NASA chose not to attempt because they thought it was going to be too hard. And that's just what SpaceX is doing.
(The exciting part will be much cheaper refurbishment than the STS. But SpaceX haven't actually delivered on that component yet)
it is an important difference when you look beyond earth
the moon, mars, and any future site that has yet to send robots to pave a runaway that is: 4,500 meters long, 91 meters wide, and 40 centimeters thick(o); will necessarily be vertical take off and landing
> That SpaceX's approach will be more suitable to future things is not a good counterargument.
No one is saying that, they're just being positive and looking forward to the future.
How is that bad?
SpaceX took their landed first stage directly over to the test pad to fire the engines multiple times. It's not really apples to apples.
Red Dragon (assuming goes ahead as planned) will be the heaviest payload ever landed on another planet - an incremental improvement to be sure, but a real one. Mars sample return will be a concrete new thing that NASA never managed. Watch this space.
Nailing down the remaining operational workflow and they'll be able to achieve reusable rocketry, and bring down the cost of spaceflight significantly. It truly is the dawn of a new space age.
That's the number of times we landed men on the moon.
Let's not try to downplay NASA's previous successes as "lucky" and "adventurous" in order to make SpaceX seem more advanced in an engineering sense.
Luck did play a pretty big role in Apollo. This is not to discount the huge amount of work and skill that went into making most of those missions a success, but there was sometimes not a whole lot separating them from failure. Apollo 11's landing site ended up being covered with boulders and they nearly had to abort before they found a suitable landing site. Apollo 12 got hit by lightning on the way up, knocking out computers and nearly causing an abort. Apollo 13 came within seconds of exploding on launch, and was saved by a false fuel alarm shutting down the misbehaving engine.
Of course, this is only to be expected when you're doing something so big and new. SpaceX has the benefit of all that experience.