First, the SRB from the Shuttle were recovered, and reconditioned. The process was very involved. Basically they were "stripped for parts". An SRB is pretty much a 4th of July skyrocket, albeit an extremely technologically advanced one. (Almost), the entire machine is the combustion chamber, and the propellant is ignited from the top, and it burns from the inside out..he fuel charge itself is basically a (very, very) thick walled tube.
For your reading enjoyment:
en.wikipedia.org
And I think this is the NASA article where the Wiki page was ripped from:
A liquid fueled rocket is basically two tanks ABOVE an engine, in this case the Merlin in the Falcon 9. For comparison's sake, picture the Merlin as the engine in a top fuel dragster. It (the "hemi"),produces somewhere between 8,000 and 11,000 HP.
and it's only good for one run. So, between runs, the engine is replaced,
but you don't throw away the car.
The idea of landing the booster vertically, certainly isn't new. Hell, Buck Rogers did it back in the 50's. But, to recover the booster that way, you have to sacrifice payload for fuel capacity.. Which is fine if you want to grandstand, which is certainly within the realm of Musk's shtick.
Now, the F-16 "Falcon", (where have I seen that name before?), uses what is called "fly by wire" control, with absolutely NO direct connection between the pilot and the flight surfaces. The aircraft has been around and in service, for 40 years. So spare me as to what Musk has contributed, designed, or even imagined, to this technology. It's just "borrowed".more or less en toto from modern aviation reality.
Here is the Apollo guidance computer, check out the specs:
en.wikipedia.org
Given how computer processing power has increased, (like;ly at least 100 times) since then, I honestly don'r see how you could fail to be able to land a booster vertically.
Musk is not a scientist,an inventor, or anything of the sort. He's a carnival barker, a bullsh!t artist, but most importantly he's possibly the greatest fund raiser the world has ever seen. I think this is an old cliche but holds true to this day; "he could talk the pennies out of a dead man's eyes".
I despise the man, that doesn't mean that I won'y give credit where credit is due. In fact, I just did.
You to can hang on his every word, and buy into his timetable projections if you like. But please please, don't make me endure any more of your inane accolades as to "his scientific achievements".
To summarize, yes he made sh!t happen, but he himself hasn't "made sh!t". He's collected the money, that's about it.
