11 ms·

I think reusable rocket was definitely "may or may not work".

yholio 6y ago
Reusable rockets were at "They most likely would work, but it's pointless since governments are willing to spend billions on rockets; in fact, lowering price to space would be very bad for our business". Compared to space tech, fusion science is at the stage of 1929 sci-fi drama "Woman in the moon".
- aidenn0 6y ago
  For context: 1926 was the first liquid fueled rocket. In 1929 it was not yet clear that this was the technology that would take us into space. That sounds about right for fusion. It is probable that we have built a primitive version of what will eventually sustain a net-positive fusion reaction, but it may only be obviously a milestone in hindsight.
- chasd00 6y ago
  spacex was laughed out of the room by industry and press when they announced trying to land the first stage. then they did it. reusable rockets were uniformly assumed to be a fool's errand.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    This is a complete fantasy, people were working on reusable vehicles for decades. SpaceShuttle was already partially reusable and operational, just like falcon 9 is, just was not economical. SpaceX doesn't have a fully reusable vehicle yet, and there was a program to develop a fully reusable replacement for Space Shuttle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar If Elon was laughed out of somewhere, thats to do with Elon's credibility at the time.
foolfoolz 6y ago
then space shuttle was designed to be reusable. spacex had 20-30 years of data to build off
- fastball 6y ago
  Which they shuttered after one disintegrated on re-entry, losing the entire crew. That was the second total loss of crew in its ~20 year history.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > the space shuttle was designed to be reusable. No, actually the PR was that it was reusable, but the design was not. Each shuttle had to be remanufactured after use, taking up to a year and costing $1 billion. But it gets better. They had "lost tiles" problems on the very first flight, and never bothered to do anything about it. What a piece of junk.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Not sure why we're getting downvoted. Space shuttle was absolutely a terrible design from a "true" reusability perspective (the most important part of reusability being cost reduction).
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      HN readers know so little that I have to provide a link for any statement that's said. I guess you could call it a "knowledge gap."

Reusable rockets were at "They most likely would work, but it's pointless since governments are willing to spend billions on rockets; in fact, lowering price to space would be very bad for our business". Compared to space tech, fusion science is at the stage of 1929 sci-fi drama "Woman in the moon".

aidenn0 6y ago
For context: 1926 was the first liquid fueled rocket. In 1929 it was not yet clear that this was the technology that would take us into space. That sounds about right for fusion. It is probable that we have built a primitive version of what will eventually sustain a net-positive fusion reaction, but it may only be obviously a milestone in hindsight.
chasd00 6y ago
spacex was laughed out of the room by industry and press when they announced trying to land the first stage. then they did it. reusable rockets were uniformly assumed to be a fool's errand.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  This is a complete fantasy, people were working on reusable vehicles for decades. SpaceShuttle was already partially reusable and operational, just like falcon 9 is, just was not economical. SpaceX doesn't have a fully reusable vehicle yet, and there was a program to develop a fully reusable replacement for Space Shuttle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar If Elon was laughed out of somewhere, thats to do with Elon's credibility at the time.

foolfoolz 6y ago

then space shuttle was designed to be reusable. spacex had 20-30 years of data to build off

fastball 6y ago
Which they shuttered after one disintegrated on re-entry, losing the entire crew. That was the second total loss of crew in its ~20 year history.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> the space shuttle was designed to be reusable. No, actually the PR was that it was reusable, but the design was not. Each shuttle had to be remanufactured after use, taking up to a year and costing $1 billion. But it gets better. They had "lost tiles" problems on the very first flight, and never bothered to do anything about it. What a piece of junk.
- fastball 6y ago
  Not sure why we're getting downvoted. Space shuttle was absolutely a terrible design from a "true" reusability perspective (the most important part of reusability being cost reduction).
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    HN readers know so little that I have to provide a link for any statement that's said. I guess you could call it a "knowledge gap."