The STS was reusable in name only.

They discarded the fuel tank, and the SRBs landing in the ocean required a dive team and significant refurbishment before they could be reused. Even the shuttle itself required significant refurbishment before it could be reused.

True but the claim that Space X was the first company to ever think about reusable space vectors is laughable at best.

No-one claimed that.

But everyone is acting like that.

I mean, isn't it the oldest trick in the pr/advertisement process. To create an impression without actually claiming anything.

Interesting.

I mean yes it can be, but this isn't really an instance of that. What SpaceX has done is create a reusable booster which lands using retrograde rockets. This is a big deal because with retrograde rockets you can land the thing with precision and upright. Whereas with parachutes you'd end up having a high probability that the rocket would land in a precarious position because it's then at the mercy of the wind much more than the retrograde landing is.

It's kinda like well no Henry Ford didn't invent the car, but he made the car affordable. Heck he didn't even invent the assembly line but he sure did use it in a different way.

Elon is doing to the rocket industry what Ford did to the car industry. Making it more accessible.

Not to mention that getting good at retrograde landings will be necessary for landing on other bodies in the solar system.

Please remind me of the time the space shuttle's boosters and fuel tank ever landed (as opposed to splashing down).

The Shuttle was a:

(X) reusable vector

(_) non reusable vector

Technicalities of the hows doesn't change that reusing stuff was already done extensively

If our cars threw away half of their parts and cost $10k to refurbish every time we drove to the grocery store, would we really call them reusable?

What, exactly, do you think is a reusable rocket? You can't just land it, refuel, attach it to a second stage, and fire it up again. Everything has to be retested and tons of stuff replaced because the forces during launch, let alone reentry, are extreme. Until they have lots of data on failure modes in the reusable stage, they are probably ultraconservative with what parts they replace so I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of reuse is ~40-50% of the cost of a new one (on mobile so I'm too lazy to look up spaceX's official numbers).

SpaceX's stated goal is exactly that - turning spacecraft into something more like a commercial airliner. Quick inspection, refuel, send it up again within 24 hours.

The Shuttle threw away its fuel tank, dropped its SRBs into corrosive salt water, and needed all 35,000 tiles inspected every time. The SSMEs needed a full removal and rebuild.

SpaceX has deliberately gone with multiple, redundant, lower-performance engines that are easier to maintain and less sensitive to the forces of launch and re-entry. More like a Toyota Corolla versus the Space Shuttle's F1 racecar - and every generation of the Falcon (there've been five so far) incorporates lessons learned to make it more rapidly reusable.

Interestingly enough, Elon Musk did set a goal of reusing a booster within 24 hours of landing.

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/84759420821933670...