9 ms·

Innovation is a gamble. If we knew that a Starship design would definitely work (i.e can it reach orbit? can it come back down? can all of the complexity be man

Innovation is a gamble. If we knew that a Starship design would definitely work (i.e can it reach orbit? can it come back down? can all of the complexity be managed well enough to make it economically feasible?) then someone would have done it already. The tantalising possibility that it might not work, that Starship might just be a dead end, is what makes the whole thing worth trying.

kiba 3y ago
It doesn't particularly seem risky to me. What's risky is stagnation and letting other competitors catch up. The only way SpaceX is going to move forward is becoming more ambitious with a new project. The risk isn't that if the Starship doesn't work, but that the R&D time takes too long or too much money to complete.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  One major risk is SpaceX running out of working capital and having to scale back the vision. It's honestly impressive how they manage to build out a huge satellite network of unprecedented scale and run an agile development program for a hugely innovative Saturn-V-sized rocket with new in-house developed engines at the same time. All off the back of their profits from Falcon-9, a bit of private investment, and probably a bit of cross-financing from NASA development contracts (like the lunar lander they are developing based on Starship).
  - foobarian 3y ago
    This is exactly what I find fascinating about the company as well. It's not like it's some secret technology nobody else has - why hasn't any other company done this before? How much of a part is played by the exceptional ambition flowing from the top?
    - chasd00 3y ago
      > It's not like it's some secret technology nobody else has Well to be fair, there’s a lot of technology at spacex no one else has. One example, the Raptor engine’s combination of size, efficiency, and thrust is just not available to anyone other than SpaceX. Even if exact schematics were stolen you’d still need to obtain the recipes for the alloys used and how to manufacture them. Companies gave up on full flow staged combustion as just not feasible but SpaceX figured it out and is on v3 of perfecting it.
      - foobarian 3y ago
        Yes but SpaceX is a relative newcomer, so why did they manage to do this when anyone could have? Seems like a combination of ambition, incentives, and just chance I guess as another comment pointed out.
        tekla 3y ago
        A brilliant and crazy chief engineer that hired the best, wasn't afraid to get dirty, and got shit done.
        kiba 3y ago
        The relative newcomer is becoming less and less relevant as years passed. The Falcon 9 reusability and cadence was years in the making. Same for their raptor engine and Starship. What's happening is that other companies are slow to wake up and adapt.
        martindbp 3y ago
        We all know why, but I guess we're not allowed to attribute any success to the tenacity of its founder because of his political views
        kiba 3y ago
        There's a lot of justifable hatred for Musk, which makes it easy to disparage his accomplishment.
    - nickpp 3y ago
      My guess is pure ambition. Tends to attract ambitious people who in turn have a higher chance of making those dreams a reality.
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      I think a large part of this lead comes from the way the engineering responsibility is distributed (at least for the R&D side), where the engineers responsible for certain parts are in the internal tracking system so that engineers responsible for other parts can just look them up and work with them directly about changes they could make to their parts to improve things for the other part. I think most other organizations have a lot more bureaucracy involved in making changes, which makes them slower and more expensive. Plus, SpaceX doesn't try to spread out its operations across the US to act like a jobs program, while the other big space contractors have advertised their presence in every state as a reason they should be picked, which obviously increases costs.
    - nordsieck 3y ago
      I think a big part of the problem is that a lot of companies are cost-plus government contractors first and sell rockets to the civilian market as an afterthought. Which means that their internal structure and processes are optimized for that use case - not really caring so much about costs, but putting a lot of effort into documenting. So when someone comes along that optimizes on cost and velocity and eschews cost plus contracts, that can be very difficult to deal with. Also, as other people have mentioned, they pretty clearly do have exceptional tech - they routinely land orbital class boosters which has only been done with prototype rockets (it's very different landing when you can hover vs when you can't). And Raptor and Merlin are among the best rocket engines that have ever been made. And even more impressive than specific components is their production and operational expertise. Being able to launch so many rockets flawlessly is a truly astounding feat. In a couple of years, Falcon 9 might even beat out the RD-108/107's total accumulated flight time record, which I thought wouldn't happen for a very long time. Edit: for context, the RD-108/107 are the engines used on the Soyuz, which (as a family) has a truly astounding number of flights. To be fair to SpaceX, though, Soyuz accumulated those over many decades.
  - kiba 3y ago
    Starlink is already becoming profitable. So they already cleared that hurdle WRT funding.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Do we know this? It's privately held, and Musk's made almost certainly false claims about such things (especially Twitter revenues post-purchase) in the past. Hell, he got in trouble for false statements about Tesla, which is publicly held.
      - dotnet00 3y ago
        Well, the statement about profitability was made by Gwynne Shotwell rather than Elon, and she's much more of "speak only when necessary" type, with no public social media presence. So make of that what you will. Elon's stated position on an IPO is that they'll wait until they can predict cashflow reasonably well. Edit: Also, to be precise, she said they had made a profit in Q4 2022. So, it could just be referring to the costs vs income of that quarter specifically rather than a general statement that Starlink is in the green now. After all, since then they've upped their flight rate significantly.
        ta1243 3y ago
        I certainly interpreted it as operationally profitable, and not including the existing costs of developing, building, launching the satellites - or even just the cost of replacing them in future.
    - ianburrell 3y ago
      Starlink announced that they arev cash flow profitable. But that doesn't include capital expenditures and they require those to keep operating. The satellites fall out of the sky after five years. They also need to launch more satellites to increase capacity and add most customers. The big question is how many potential customers are out there, and if they will be enough to maintain the network.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    > ...a bit of private investment... I'd bet that SpaceX has some huge loans and/or bonds issues outstanding, based on future StarLink revenues. There isn't that much revenue from their other sources, and "build out the network, collect the monthly fees" is the sort of business model that banks and bond investors love.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      It is vc funded, do that is primarily their working capital
  - cma 3y ago
    > All off the back of their profits from Falcon-9, a bit of private investment, and probably a bit of cross-financing from NASA development contracts (like the lunar lander they are developing based on Starship They also had Tesla to bail out SolarCity after SpaceX basically used NASA to buy their bonds and prop them up, which wasn't enough and they were about to fail.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      What does Tesla and Solar City have to do with this at all?
      - cma 3y ago
        If Tesla didn't bail out SolarCity, it would have impacted Space X since Space X had bailed out SolarCity in a way that left them vulnerable to further failure of it (buying their bonds in a show of self-dealing).
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I see now, Thanks!
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  "What's risky is stagnation and letting other competitors catch up." It is a different category of risk, though, with a different perception bias. For an analogy: becoming obese is probably more risky than BASE jumping, as the diseases that come with being too fat are horrible. But people don't perceive those two risks in the same way.
HPsquared 3y ago
Also makes it worth watching.
somenameforme 3y ago
Knowing something can be done and doing it are pretty different. The Falcon 9 (let alone Falcon Heavy) are already leagues ahead of what's offered by other companies. Blue Origin was actually founded before SpaceX, some 23 years ago now, and they still haven't managed to make it to orbit yet. Other companies (let alone countries) obviously know what SpaceX has done can be done, but can't seem to copy it in spite of practically limitless resources, both material and human, and desire. That said, I don't disagree that the possibility that Starship might simply not be possible makes this all the more intriguing! On the other hand, it's difficult to think of any physical reason why it shouldn't be!
- danpalmer 3y ago
  Blue Origin: Putting the "gradatim" in "gradatim ferociter" since 2000.
  - cnlevy 3y ago
    Actually, they were making good progress until Bezos put Bob Smith as CEO, coming from an oldspace background, whose decisons stopped the company in its progress to reaching orbit. [1] Now that he is finally out, let's hope the new CEO will put back Blue Origin on the right track. So many years lost ! [1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/09/bob-smith-is-finally-gone-from-blue-origin-his-replacement-comes-from-amazon/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/09/bob-smith-is-finally-g...
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    "Gastropoda" is more like it. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastropoda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastropoda )
sebzim4500 3y ago
I think there's an open question about whether the reentry process is going to work, but even if that fails Starship will still likely be the cheapest way of getting mass to orbit. It's not like competitors are about to make a reusable second stage, they are struggling to compete with Falcon 9.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > It's not like competitors are about to make a reusable second stage, they are struggling to compete with Falcon 9. The really disappointing thing about the latest crop of rockets (Vulcan, Ariane 6) is that they are not competitive with Falcon 9 for LEO missions and don't out perform it for GTO launches. The upcoming batch of partially reusable rockets (New Glenn, Neutron, and Terran R) have a better shot, but word on the street is that New Glenn took the Shuttle strategy of being an expensive rocket and relying on reuse to get the per-launch cost down to a reasonable level; I'm unconvinced that that's a good strategy - it certainly didn't work well for the Shuttle. Especially since landing rocket boosters was pretty unreliable for SpaceX for quite a while. And Neutron and Terran R are far enough out that it's very possible for Starship to come on line before they're ready.
leovailati 3y ago
Hopefully I'm not being over optimistic, and I only vaguely understand the many tradeoffs that go into rocket design. But, technology-wise, starship seems analogous to a falcon heavy propelling a space shuttle. Both of which are manageable, proven technologies.
nordsieck 3y ago
> If we knew that a Starship design would definitely work (i.e can it reach orbit? can it come back down? can all of the complexity be managed well enough to make it economically feasible?) then someone would have done it already. I think that's really underselling the technical difficulty of the project (Full Flow Staged Combustion has never worked before in a meaningful sense) and the innovation (The belly flop maneuver isn't an obvious thing to do with a rocket). It feels a lot more obvious after the first Starhopper flight was such a success, but all successful things do in retrospect.
edgyquant 3y ago
I think it’s more that we know it (or some equivalent) can definitely work but that we don’t know the exact design this there is an expensive and time consuming process of iteration which was not deemed worth it by those with the know how and capital to build such a thing. Mostly because those are the very people who were profiting off of the existing system.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
SLS flew around the moon and back on the first try.
- stetrain 3y ago
  Using a large number of existing flight tested components and construction techniques that have been in production since the 70's. And with a cost and construction time that limits it to around 1 launch per year going forward at $4b per launch, optimistically. SLS can theoretically launch 100T to LEO. Starship can theoretically launch 150T reusable, 250T expendable. Construction rate is already on the order of around one per month, although obviously they are working out issues with the launch infrastructure to actually be able to make that many launch attempts.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    Irrelevant. My point was that you can essentially prove the design is sound before you even build the thing. Rapid failure/iteration is not the only way to build rockets.
    - avmich 3y ago
      "Can" doesn't mean you "should", and for such a price it's a doubtful proposition.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      >My point was that you can essentially prove the design is sound before you even build the thing That depends on your design and if you need experimentally derived inputs
    - throwaway4aday 3y ago
      Not if you're using new engines, new fuel systems, new heat shielding, new materials for the body, and making both the booster and second stage fully reusable by landing them with the help of a never before tried system that catches them before they touch the ground.
    - 3y ago
inglor_cz 3y ago
"someone would have done it already" That sounds like a short version of an argument "nothing can happen for the first time, ever, because someone else would have done it". Which is obviously nonsense. Also, this is not about technology per se. Why would anyone else build Starship first? People and organizations have objectives, including space organizations, and most of these objectives are perfectly solved by existing rockets. Musk is obsessed with making life multiplanetary, and that is a goal that cannot be achieved without high-turnover, cheap, reliable rockets. Given that he has money for that, he can afford making a high-risk bet on developing such a rocket. But NASA or Roskosmos or any other organization don't share that goal; they are happy launching satellites and astronauts to the ISS, and that can well be done without a decade-long project whose potential failure would be hard to explain to the taxpayers. Starship is intended for use cases that no one before even seriously entertained, much less was willing to finance.
TMWNN 3y ago
> If we knew that a Starship design would definitely work (i.e can it reach orbit? can it come back down? can all of the complexity be managed well enough to make it economically feasible?) then someone would have done it already. This reminds me of the two economists out walking who find what looks like a dollar bill on the sidewalk. One is about to pick it up when the other says "If the dollar bill were really there, someone would have picked it up already". Joking aside, you can apply the same "someone would have done it already" logic to landing used boosters and reusing them repeatedly. Reusability has been thought about in rocketry/space travel since before orbital flight was possible; every pre-1957 science-fiction story about spaceships assumed that they could be used repeatedly. Von Braun's hugely influential 1950s articles about spaceflight assumed that reusable winged boosters would launch his reusable winged ferry rocket shuttles. And yet, no one tried to land a booster this way until SpaceX, 60 years after the first orbital launch.

kiba 3y ago

It doesn't particularly seem risky to me. What's risky is stagnation and letting other competitors catch up. The only way SpaceX is going to move forward is becoming more ambitious with a new project. The risk isn't that if the Starship doesn't work, but that the R&D time takes too long or too much money to complete.

wongarsu 3y ago
One major risk is SpaceX running out of working capital and having to scale back the vision. It's honestly impressive how they manage to build out a huge satellite network of unprecedented scale and run an agile development program for a hugely innovative Saturn-V-sized rocket with new in-house developed engines at the same time. All off the back of their profits from Falcon-9, a bit of private investment, and probably a bit of cross-financing from NASA development contracts (like the lunar lander they are developing based on Starship).
- foobarian 3y ago
  This is exactly what I find fascinating about the company as well. It's not like it's some secret technology nobody else has - why hasn't any other company done this before? How much of a part is played by the exceptional ambition flowing from the top?
  - chasd00 3y ago
    > It's not like it's some secret technology nobody else has Well to be fair, there’s a lot of technology at spacex no one else has. One example, the Raptor engine’s combination of size, efficiency, and thrust is just not available to anyone other than SpaceX. Even if exact schematics were stolen you’d still need to obtain the recipes for the alloys used and how to manufacture them. Companies gave up on full flow staged combustion as just not feasible but SpaceX figured it out and is on v3 of perfecting it.
    - foobarian 3y ago
      Yes but SpaceX is a relative newcomer, so why did they manage to do this when anyone could have? Seems like a combination of ambition, incentives, and just chance I guess as another comment pointed out.
      - tekla 3y ago
        A brilliant and crazy chief engineer that hired the best, wasn't afraid to get dirty, and got shit done.
      - kiba 3y ago
        The relative newcomer is becoming less and less relevant as years passed. The Falcon 9 reusability and cadence was years in the making. Same for their raptor engine and Starship. What's happening is that other companies are slow to wake up and adapt.
      - martindbp 3y ago
        We all know why, but I guess we're not allowed to attribute any success to the tenacity of its founder because of his political views
        kiba 3y ago
        There's a lot of justifable hatred for Musk, which makes it easy to disparage his accomplishment.
  - nickpp 3y ago
    My guess is pure ambition. Tends to attract ambitious people who in turn have a higher chance of making those dreams a reality.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    I think a large part of this lead comes from the way the engineering responsibility is distributed (at least for the R&D side), where the engineers responsible for certain parts are in the internal tracking system so that engineers responsible for other parts can just look them up and work with them directly about changes they could make to their parts to improve things for the other part. I think most other organizations have a lot more bureaucracy involved in making changes, which makes them slower and more expensive. Plus, SpaceX doesn't try to spread out its operations across the US to act like a jobs program, while the other big space contractors have advertised their presence in every state as a reason they should be picked, which obviously increases costs.
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    I think a big part of the problem is that a lot of companies are cost-plus government contractors first and sell rockets to the civilian market as an afterthought. Which means that their internal structure and processes are optimized for that use case - not really caring so much about costs, but putting a lot of effort into documenting. So when someone comes along that optimizes on cost and velocity and eschews cost plus contracts, that can be very difficult to deal with. Also, as other people have mentioned, they pretty clearly do have exceptional tech - they routinely land orbital class boosters which has only been done with prototype rockets (it's very different landing when you can hover vs when you can't). And Raptor and Merlin are among the best rocket engines that have ever been made. And even more impressive than specific components is their production and operational expertise. Being able to launch so many rockets flawlessly is a truly astounding feat. In a couple of years, Falcon 9 might even beat out the RD-108/107's total accumulated flight time record, which I thought wouldn't happen for a very long time. Edit: for context, the RD-108/107 are the engines used on the Soyuz, which (as a family) has a truly astounding number of flights. To be fair to SpaceX, though, Soyuz accumulated those over many decades.
- kiba 3y ago
  Starlink is already becoming profitable. So they already cleared that hurdle WRT funding.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Do we know this? It's privately held, and Musk's made almost certainly false claims about such things (especially Twitter revenues post-purchase) in the past. Hell, he got in trouble for false statements about Tesla, which is publicly held.
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      Well, the statement about profitability was made by Gwynne Shotwell rather than Elon, and she's much more of "speak only when necessary" type, with no public social media presence. So make of that what you will. Elon's stated position on an IPO is that they'll wait until they can predict cashflow reasonably well. Edit: Also, to be precise, she said they had made a profit in Q4 2022. So, it could just be referring to the costs vs income of that quarter specifically rather than a general statement that Starlink is in the green now. After all, since then they've upped their flight rate significantly.
      - ta1243 3y ago
        I certainly interpreted it as operationally profitable, and not including the existing costs of developing, building, launching the satellites - or even just the cost of replacing them in future.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    Starlink announced that they arev cash flow profitable. But that doesn't include capital expenditures and they require those to keep operating. The satellites fall out of the sky after five years. They also need to launch more satellites to increase capacity and add most customers. The big question is how many potential customers are out there, and if they will be enough to maintain the network.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  > ...a bit of private investment... I'd bet that SpaceX has some huge loans and/or bonds issues outstanding, based on future StarLink revenues. There isn't that much revenue from their other sources, and "build out the network, collect the monthly fees" is the sort of business model that banks and bond investors love.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    It is vc funded, do that is primarily their working capital
- cma 3y ago
  > All off the back of their profits from Falcon-9, a bit of private investment, and probably a bit of cross-financing from NASA development contracts (like the lunar lander they are developing based on Starship They also had Tesla to bail out SolarCity after SpaceX basically used NASA to buy their bonds and prop them up, which wasn't enough and they were about to fail.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    What does Tesla and Solar City have to do with this at all?
    - cma 3y ago
      If Tesla didn't bail out SolarCity, it would have impacted Space X since Space X had bailed out SolarCity in a way that left them vulnerable to further failure of it (buying their bonds in a show of self-dealing).
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I see now, Thanks!
inglor_cz 3y ago
"What's risky is stagnation and letting other competitors catch up." It is a different category of risk, though, with a different perception bias. For an analogy: becoming obese is probably more risky than BASE jumping, as the diseases that come with being too fat are horrible. But people don't perceive those two risks in the same way.

HPsquared 3y ago

Also makes it worth watching.

somenameforme 3y ago

Knowing something can be done and doing it are pretty different. The Falcon 9 (let alone Falcon Heavy) are already leagues ahead of what's offered by other companies. Blue Origin was actually founded before SpaceX, some 23 years ago now, and they still haven't managed to make it to orbit yet. Other companies (let alone countries) obviously know what SpaceX has done can be done, but can't seem to copy it in spite of practically limitless resources, both material and human, and desire. That said, I don't disagree that the possibility that Starship might simply not be possible makes this all the more intriguing! On the other hand, it's difficult to think of any physical reason why it shouldn't be!

danpalmer 3y ago
Blue Origin: Putting the "gradatim" in "gradatim ferociter" since 2000.
- cnlevy 3y ago
  Actually, they were making good progress until Bezos put Bob Smith as CEO, coming from an oldspace background, whose decisons stopped the company in its progress to reaching orbit. [1] Now that he is finally out, let's hope the new CEO will put back Blue Origin on the right track. So many years lost ! [1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/09/bob-smith-is-finally-gone-from-blue-origin-his-replacement-comes-from-amazon/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/09/bob-smith-is-finally-g...
- bell-cot 3y ago
  "Gastropoda" is more like it. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastropoda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastropoda )

sebzim4500 3y ago

I think there's an open question about whether the reentry process is going to work, but even if that fails Starship will still likely be the cheapest way of getting mass to orbit. It's not like competitors are about to make a reusable second stage, they are struggling to compete with Falcon 9.

nordsieck 3y ago
> It's not like competitors are about to make a reusable second stage, they are struggling to compete with Falcon 9. The really disappointing thing about the latest crop of rockets (Vulcan, Ariane 6) is that they are not competitive with Falcon 9 for LEO missions and don't out perform it for GTO launches. The upcoming batch of partially reusable rockets (New Glenn, Neutron, and Terran R) have a better shot, but word on the street is that New Glenn took the Shuttle strategy of being an expensive rocket and relying on reuse to get the per-launch cost down to a reasonable level; I'm unconvinced that that's a good strategy - it certainly didn't work well for the Shuttle. Especially since landing rocket boosters was pretty unreliable for SpaceX for quite a while. And Neutron and Terran R are far enough out that it's very possible for Starship to come on line before they're ready.

leovailati 3y ago

Hopefully I'm not being over optimistic, and I only vaguely understand the many tradeoffs that go into rocket design. But, technology-wise, starship seems analogous to a falcon heavy propelling a space shuttle. Both of which are manageable, proven technologies.

nordsieck 3y ago

> If we knew that a Starship design would definitely work (i.e can it reach orbit? can it come back down? can all of the complexity be managed well enough to make it economically feasible?) then someone would have done it already. I think that's really underselling the technical difficulty of the project (Full Flow Staged Combustion has never worked before in a meaningful sense) and the innovation (The belly flop maneuver isn't an obvious thing to do with a rocket). It feels a lot more obvious after the first Starhopper flight was such a success, but all successful things do in retrospect.

edgyquant 3y ago

I think it’s more that we know it (or some equivalent) can definitely work but that we don’t know the exact design this there is an expensive and time consuming process of iteration which was not deemed worth it by those with the know how and capital to build such a thing. Mostly because those are the very people who were profiting off of the existing system.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

SLS flew around the moon and back on the first try.

stetrain 3y ago
Using a large number of existing flight tested components and construction techniques that have been in production since the 70's. And with a cost and construction time that limits it to around 1 launch per year going forward at $4b per launch, optimistically. SLS can theoretically launch 100T to LEO. Starship can theoretically launch 150T reusable, 250T expendable. Construction rate is already on the order of around one per month, although obviously they are working out issues with the launch infrastructure to actually be able to make that many launch attempts.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Irrelevant. My point was that you can essentially prove the design is sound before you even build the thing. Rapid failure/iteration is not the only way to build rockets.
  - avmich 3y ago
    "Can" doesn't mean you "should", and for such a price it's a doubtful proposition.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    >My point was that you can essentially prove the design is sound before you even build the thing That depends on your design and if you need experimentally derived inputs
  - throwaway4aday 3y ago
    Not if you're using new engines, new fuel systems, new heat shielding, new materials for the body, and making both the booster and second stage fully reusable by landing them with the help of a never before tried system that catches them before they touch the ground.
  - 3y ago

inglor_cz 3y ago

"someone would have done it already" That sounds like a short version of an argument "nothing can happen for the first time, ever, because someone else would have done it". Which is obviously nonsense. Also, this is not about technology per se. Why would anyone else build Starship first? People and organizations have objectives, including space organizations, and most of these objectives are perfectly solved by existing rockets. Musk is obsessed with making life multiplanetary, and that is a goal that cannot be achieved without high-turnover, cheap, reliable rockets. Given that he has money for that, he can afford making a high-risk bet on developing such a rocket. But NASA or Roskosmos or any other organization don't share that goal; they are happy launching satellites and astronauts to the ISS, and that can well be done without a decade-long project whose potential failure would be hard to explain to the taxpayers. Starship is intended for use cases that no one before even seriously entertained, much less was willing to finance.

TMWNN 3y ago

> If we knew that a Starship design would definitely work (i.e can it reach orbit? can it come back down? can all of the complexity be managed well enough to make it economically feasible?) then someone would have done it already. This reminds me of the two economists out walking who find what looks like a dollar bill on the sidewalk. One is about to pick it up when the other says "If the dollar bill were really there, someone would have picked it up already". Joking aside, you can apply the same "someone would have done it already" logic to landing used boosters and reusing them repeatedly. Reusability has been thought about in rocketry/space travel since before orbital flight was possible; every pre-1957 science-fiction story about spaceships assumed that they could be used repeatedly. Von Braun's hugely influential 1950s articles about spaceflight assumed that reusable winged boosters would launch his reusable winged ferry rocket shuttles. And yet, no one tried to land a booster this way until SpaceX, 60 years after the first orbital launch.