Manu Joseph: The spectacle of SpaceX’s rocket catch is how science has failed

livemint.com:

Subscribe to enjoy similar stories. There is a way that people in Mumbai still gape at a new metro line—with rustic wonderment at automatic doors and air-conditioned coaches. A few days ago, the world appeared to have the same look when Elon Musk’s company SpaceX managed to grab a descending booster with giant pliers.

I don’t know why the world reacted the way it did to the event. We have seen more marvellous things. I just don’t get the greatness of the booster catch.

The hype was similar to the time when Musk launched his red car into space and his fans were blown, as though they had not heard of an object called a satellite that could be put to better uses than an orbiting Tesla. I do not say that capturing a rocket booster is no scientific achievement. I just say that in 2024, it is no marvel.

And that it is perceived as a marvel points to a problem. Rocket science has always had more allure than its technological substance deserved. Even in its glory days, there were sciences that required greater human brilliance than shooting off metal to space.

The phrase that actually captures the meaning of “it’s no rocket science" is probably, “it’s no malaria cure." But it just does not sound as cool. Even the word ‘ballistic’ carries disproportionate scientific sophistication, though it merely describes gravity. (A ‘ballistic missile’ has an unguided descent while a ‘cruise missile,’ which sounds more recreational, is guided till the very end.) The booster that Space X grabbed on its descent was about 70 metres long, or as large as a 20-storey building.

The booster slowed itself down from its initial supersonic speeds before it was clutched. Boosters usually just fall into the sea. But if they can be reused, it would