6 ms·
That is an interesting observation I never considered. If it were a SpaceX rocket, it would have been mentioned once per paragraph, minimum.
by tunap 5y ago
That is an interesting observation I never considered. If it were a SpaceX rocket, it would have been mentioned once per paragraph, minimum.
- arcticfox 5y agoIf it was a SpaceX rocket, it would be getting ready to fly again. Expendable rockets have been putting up payloads for 60 years at this point, SpaceX has been flying reusable rockets for less than a decade.
- raverbashing 5y agoNot necessarily. Larger payloads (and maybe some trajectories) forego the reusability of the rocket (even Falcon Heavy)
- arcticfox 5y agoGood point, but it's one major reason why SpaceX makes the news (also Crew Dragon) and Arianespace doesn't, even if it doesn't apply in every instance. If SpaceX was simply doing the same thing as everyone else has for 60 yrs, no one would care, I don't understand why people think they're the same thing
- wolverine876 5y agoYou don't think it has something to do with Elon Musk's self-promotion and large cult? Quick, who is the CEO of Arianespace? Who is heading up the SLS project?
- avmich 5y agoSomebody who'd lose if they try to get too much of a limelight? As both those organizations depend on governments way more than SpaceX.
- Dave3of5 5y agoActually Hubble was put into space by a (mostly) reusable system the space shuttle STS-31. That was about 30 years ago.
- nexuist 5y agoCalling the Space Shuttle "mostly reusable" is laughable. It cost 1.5 billion dollars per launch[1] whereas a reused Falcon 9 costs 50 million to launch. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9
- Steltek 5y agoI don't get the need to bag on the Shuttle program here. The Shuttle was designed nearly 50 years ago with drastically different requirements and stakeholders.
- pfdietz 5y agoIt's because people still defend it, or imply it was more worthy than it actually was. And because the same mistake is being repeated right now (SLS).
- mulmen 5y agoSLS isn’t the currently-in-development spacecraft that utilizes hundreds of ceramic tiles to aerobrake through the atmosphere. SLS is basically a modern Saturn V. A complete departure from the Shuttle, with the exception of-re-using the SRB design. On paper a very conservative choice. Starship looks a lot like Shuttle 2.0 to me. Except the landing is somehow even more terrifying. As far as I can tell the idea with Starship is to design a vehicle that can survive losing a few tiles because that’s inevitable.
- pfdietz 5y ago
- jvanderbot 5y agoThis is absolutely true but entirely uninformative in this context. It's also a bit hilarious as it reinforces GP's suggestion that you can't involve or invoke SpaceX without a breathless-sounding shower of accolades stealing the show from the main payload / mission.
- sumedh 5y agoBecause SpaceX made rocket launch interesting by having cameras on the rocket, did Ariane have cameras on their rockets?