[tensenki]

You think that recovering a rocket is bigger than landing on another planet? I've actually re-written this comment a couple times because I'm honestly not trying to say your opinion is stupid, but I cannot fathom how you have come to this conclusion.

[toufka]

They are very different in nature; first vs productive. In terms of literal impact on the future, this particular event is likely greater. In terms of name recognition, the Apollo missions certainly were greater.

You probably know of the Model T, but don't know the first combustion engined car. Choose the MPMan, or the iPod for history? Who had more direct impact on the American Continent, the Spaniard, Columbus or the British Mayflower?

Not saying I'd agree, but there's at least a reasonable rationale.

[avar]

Having cheap & sustainable launch capabilities is going to be a much bigger deal in the long term than brute forcing your way to the Moon as a one-off by spending 1/20th of the US GDP over the period of a few years.

After we have cheap & reusable rockets we'll have much larger leaps in space travel in the next 40 years than we have since the 40 years since Apollo.

[syncsynchalt]

(To put some words in the commenter's mouth) he's saying that a 90% cut in launch costs would be bigger than Apollo. In those terms, it's a defensible argument.

[saalweachter]

I think it might be defensible, but I'm not sure it's correct. The question isn't really "is it easier to put a man on the Moon today than it is build a reusable rocket which cuts cost by 90% today", it's "was it easier to put a man on the moon in 1960 than it is to build a reusable rocket which cuts costs by 90% today".

The Apollo program was conceived in 1960, before either the suborbital flight of John Glenn or the earlier orbital flight of Yuri Gagarin. Before we had successfully built and tested a rocket capable of putting a single man in space, we started a space program with the goal of putting a man on the Moon, which would in the end involve launching a three-man spacecraft, with sufficient fuel to carry it to the Moon, manually reconfiguring it in flight, flying it for three days through the void, entering orbit around the Moon, detaching a portion of the spacecraft to land upon the Moon under manual controls, bouncing around the Moon in space suits, goddamn driving around the Moon in little cars (later missions), flying the space craft back into lunar orbit, rendezvousing with the orbiting spacecraft and manually re-docking, flying the ship back three days to Earth, and re-entering the Earth's atmosphere and landing safely.

And they did it in under 10 years. SpaceX turns 12 this year.

[manicdee]

The engineering challenges of recovering a rocket are greater than landing a tin can on the moon and bringing it back.

As for landing on another planet, in order to get to Mars, SpaceX has to first get a reliable means of putting resources into orbit. Being able to recover rockets means there is less time spent building new rockets and more time spent building the thing that ends up going to Mars.

Being able to power-land a launch vehicle in an atmosphere means that it should be possible to power-launch a landing vehicle designed to land on another planet with an atmosphere as opposed to simply landing on the vacuum-exposed surface of the Moon.

So yes, from an engineering perspective this is bigger than the Apollo program, and from a human resources perspective this is bigger than the Moonshot. Doing more with less: this isn't about dollar economics, it's also about material and labour.

When SpaceX starts their Mars mission, they won't be using anything like the Saturn V. That rocket solved the problem of launching a mission to the Moon by throwing brute force at the problem. SpaceX is approaching the problem with more finesse and more advanced engineering.

[tensenki]

To anyone replying with a slightly different phrasing of "it saves money" I want you to understand that money being saved in no way defines us as a species. You are confusing potential with an actualized result. Cheaper space flights may only mean more profit to Musk, and not an increase in use or derived benefit.

[gress]

Which Apollo mission landed on another planet?