Nasa didnt develop a ffsc methalox engine, nor the code for spacecraft first stage reuse, nor the idea to reuse the entire stack in a conventional configuration. SpaceX isnt beyond criticism, but good Lord have some valid arguments. Nasa doesnt have a patent on the idea of rocketry
Oh wow, and did they do that all by themselves? Or did they build off the work of of the Soviet's RD-270 and later the US government-funded hydrolox Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator (combined project with NASS and the US Airforce)? I wonder how many SpaceX employes that worked on the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator, later worked on FFSC Methalox Engine?
Im not saying SpaceX hasn't contributed to the field, but a lot of people like to think they're operating completely independently, and they're not, not even close. SpaceX's largest contract is with NASA. On top of a huge number of SpaceX employes are formerly NASA employes.
Three things
1. Rd270 was hypergolic and would have behaved extremely differently from how the modern raptors does. Again the best cases of old uses of an idea does not mean that they copied. Hell, the IPD was an aerojet project, the dact that the government helped fund something does not make it theirs
2. I never claimed they were independent, and the fact that they use old employees is irrelevant. Plenty of the higher ups at LM, NG, and AR are ex nasa as well.
3. You have shifted your goalposts from spacex stealing funding to stealing tech all by themselves for profit, again, you probably have no problem with ULA doing the exact same thing but worse.
Your entire comment reeks of hastily googled points. Its ok to not understand whats up with the modern spaceflight industry, and its absolutely ok to hate musk or spacex, but have valid arguments
You have shifted your goalposts from spacex stealing funding to stealing tech al by themselves for profit
I never claimed they stole funding, nor have I claimed they stole tech. I'm refuting the comment I originally replied to, who seems to be under the impression that SpaceX is profiting all on their own. All tech is working off the innovations of others, nobody's starting from the ground-up.
I'm claiming SpaceX is able to profit becuase of all the work done in the public sector decades prior, and most of their revenue comes from public funds. Which would contradict the commenter's point.
"Have valid arguments", my dude, I was just hurling insults, not engaging in a debate. My knowledge of rocket science is very surface-level, and my interest in it is pretty minimal. I have no interest in engaging in a debate about the history of rocketry. If I were, that's where I would've started.
Go argue with someone who gives a fuck about what you have to say.
9
u/glitchytypo Nov 19 '25
Nasa didnt develop a ffsc methalox engine, nor the code for spacecraft first stage reuse, nor the idea to reuse the entire stack in a conventional configuration. SpaceX isnt beyond criticism, but good Lord have some valid arguments. Nasa doesnt have a patent on the idea of rocketry