3 ms·

Retro-propulsive landing of an orbital class booster has not been ever demonstrated. Falcon 9 First Stage is the only booster that ever existed able to do it.

Retro-propulsive landing of an orbital class booster has not been ever demonstrated. Falcon 9 First Stage is the only booster that ever existed able to do it. The full-flow staged combustion rocket engine is also a new technology that will fly for the first time in Super Heavy Starship. Rocket science is literally a synonym with "difficult". Here you have how SpaceX looked like in 2002: https://i.redd.it/00ikcxo2z0f01.jpg https://i.redd.it/00ikcxo2z0f01.jpg My guess is that in 20 years people will be also saying how he took an existing technology and sold it to a mass audience.

garmaine 6y ago
DC-X.
puranjay 6y ago
> Here you have how SpaceX looked like in 2002: https://i.redd.it/00ikcxo2z0f01.jpg https://i.redd.it/00ikcxo2z0f01.jpg I've seen that dancing Elon picture everywhere but now I finally know the source. Thanks for sharing!
mempko 6y ago
You should compare apples to apples right? SpaceX is a government contractor. The question is, in 18 years as a contractor, have they done more impressive work than other contractors. It took them 18 years to send people to space. Is that impressive for a military contractor? Just for context, project Mercury took 3 years to send someone to space. The sad thing about SpaceX is that because NASA was tasked to build a commercial space industry (funding SpaceX and others) they slowed the pace of development of the technology by limiting the funds. I'm sure if NASA made SpaceX and it's other contractors cooperate, the funds would have been spent more efficiently too.
- sitkack 6y ago
  > project Mercury took 3 years to send someone to space. On Nazi rockets. It wasn't from scratch.
zhoujianfu 6y ago
Ha, and the other literal synonym for “difficult”? Brain surgery!
- pilaf 6y ago
  Mitchell & Webb made a pretty clever comedy sketch about those two professions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I
kelnos 6y ago
I think you underestimate the complexity of the human brain, and overestimate how much we understand it. There is no even remotely existing technology that does what Musk wants to do. The stuff that does exist is in comparison a stone-age tool. While SpaceX's achievements are considerable, they are not in the league of the achievements necessary to do what Neuralink has set out to do. Again, I acknowledge that I could certainly be wrong about this in the long term, and Musk has put together an impressive team, but I think skepticism is warranted, and comparisons to Tesla or SpaceX are lacking in scale.

garmaine 6y ago

DC-X.

puranjay 6y ago

> Here you have how SpaceX looked like in 2002: https://i.redd.it/00ikcxo2z0f01.jpg https://i.redd.it/00ikcxo2z0f01.jpg I've seen that dancing Elon picture everywhere but now I finally know the source. Thanks for sharing!

mempko 6y ago

You should compare apples to apples right? SpaceX is a government contractor. The question is, in 18 years as a contractor, have they done more impressive work than other contractors. It took them 18 years to send people to space. Is that impressive for a military contractor? Just for context, project Mercury took 3 years to send someone to space. The sad thing about SpaceX is that because NASA was tasked to build a commercial space industry (funding SpaceX and others) they slowed the pace of development of the technology by limiting the funds. I'm sure if NASA made SpaceX and it's other contractors cooperate, the funds would have been spent more efficiently too.

sitkack 6y ago
> project Mercury took 3 years to send someone to space. On Nazi rockets. It wasn't from scratch.

zhoujianfu 6y ago

Ha, and the other literal synonym for “difficult”? Brain surgery!

pilaf 6y ago
Mitchell & Webb made a pretty clever comedy sketch about those two professions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

kelnos 6y ago

I think you underestimate the complexity of the human brain, and overestimate how much we understand it. There is no even remotely existing technology that does what Musk wants to do. The stuff that does exist is in comparison a stone-age tool. While SpaceX's achievements are considerable, they are not in the league of the achievements necessary to do what Neuralink has set out to do. Again, I acknowledge that I could certainly be wrong about this in the long term, and Musk has put together an impressive team, but I think skepticism is warranted, and comparisons to Tesla or SpaceX are lacking in scale.