4 ms·

Can anyone realistically challenge SpaceX's launch supremacy?

helsinkiandrew 2y ago
https://archive.ph/in65e https://archive.ph/in65e
schiffern 2y ago
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines Amazing how quick the general sentiment transformed from "Fully reusable rockets can never work (and/or won't be profitable), SpaceX is dumb and will fail" to "How can anyone possibly compete with SpaceX fully reusable rockets? Why didn't anyone warn us???"
- anovikov 2y ago
  Falcon 9 is still not fully reused - upper stage is disposable. SpaceX would have launch dominance more or less same as it has even without reusability: it's success is in technology optimised for cost and reliability vs maximum performance, and vertical integration whereas little or nothing from legacy aerospace suppliers, is used. SpaceX became an industry leader by about 2017 which was before reusability really worked for them. While sure, it is a must to go way past the previous state of the art in cost and volume. It's just that the state of the launch industry outside of SpaceX was so sad it didn't take much to thoroughly disrupt it.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    > Falcon 9 is still not fully reused Yes I'm well aware. Full reusability is their stated goal, not the current status. The fact that they revealed their ultimate goal to the entire industry and they still haven't been able to catch up makes SpaceX dominance even more embarrassing. Rather than keep everything close to the chest, SpaceX literally told everyone else "where the puck will be," but they still missed it. > SpaceX would have launch dominance more or less same as it has even without reusability [citation needed] Building 10x as many first stage rockets isn't cheap.
- Zigurd 2y ago
  You have put up a straw man. Really, several: 1. Falcon 9 wasn't designed to do a propulsive landing. That is works at all is fortunate. That it could be made practical and reliable is excellent engineering and operations. 2. SpaceX gets some cost advantage by having reusable boosters, but they notably don't say how much. How much is eaten up by refurbishing and engine replacement? nobody knows. 3. The real question is how can anyone compete with SpaceX's launch cadence. 4. Falcon 9 is not fully reusable. Nobody has a fully (sort of) reusable rocket since the Shuttle retired. Starship is vastly better than Shuttle, but that does not guarantee success.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    All these are unimportant distractions from my main thesis. Also you clearly don't know what "straw man" means. You fail to actually address my main point, which is that everyone was betting against reusability (this inconvenient fact is almost never brought up now, to the point where some people even revise history[1]), and now this same reusability quest is driving their world-beating launch cadence. SpaceX's stated goal has always been full reusability, and Falcon 9 is more than halfway along the path. They did warn the industry, from day 1! They told us their end goal and their iterative path to get there, and the rest of the industry ignored them or laughed at them. Now the chickens have come home to roost. And yes, I'm well aware that F9 isn't fully reusable.[2] The fact that people like yourself are still spreading FUD about reuse economics (simultaneous with mass industry panic over SpaceX's reuse-driven dominance) only proves my point. The doubters and haters have been proven wrong every time, but amazingly it persists. [1] https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59186.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59186.0 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42367626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42367626
    - Zigurd 2y ago
      Shuttle was "reusable" after inspecting every part and replacing half. Starship is obv going to be better. But that doesn't mean they won't still fall far short. And without transparency from SpaceX about Falcon 9 refurbishment, nobody knows how reuse affects operating profit. It's a nice story, like FSD, or that robot. Wen real? IDK.
hunglee2 2y ago
Musk has proven himself to be an incredible industry disruptor. Whilst many people will object to his politics - particularly his embrace of the cultural right - it is undeniable that he has moved the needle in terms of US national power. He's an asset. Maybe even a living embodiment of Great Man theory
theLegionWithin 2y ago
spacex has a nice lead, for sure - and they're a lot cheaper than most of the competition - but where there's profit there will always be competition. especially as the tech base matures and folks in the industry job hop and start their own companies (much like how silicon valley was, back in the day). nice little teaser there about gutting nasa, not sure where that came from. nasa has a hell of a legacy and they do a lot of good science but nasa needs to let go of the leo and earth/luna part of the space program because they cant compete with spacex (and neither can boeing) - they need to focus on telescopes, interplanetary probes, and the next upgrade to the deep space network. man in space is doable, it's been doable for 50+ years, but it's never been cost effective and it still isnt - we're close, but we arent there yet. hell, there's still pushback when a probe launches with an RTG - Mars will need fission reactors and so will anything past the Jovian system (until fusion becomes a thing and then gets miniaturized enough).

https://archive.ph/in65e https://archive.ph/in65e

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines Amazing how quick the general sentiment transformed from "Fully reusable rockets can never work (and/or won't be profitable), SpaceX is dumb and will fail" to "How can anyone possibly compete with SpaceX fully reusable rockets? Why didn't anyone warn us???"

anovikov 2y ago
Falcon 9 is still not fully reused - upper stage is disposable. SpaceX would have launch dominance more or less same as it has even without reusability: it's success is in technology optimised for cost and reliability vs maximum performance, and vertical integration whereas little or nothing from legacy aerospace suppliers, is used. SpaceX became an industry leader by about 2017 which was before reusability really worked for them. While sure, it is a must to go way past the previous state of the art in cost and volume. It's just that the state of the launch industry outside of SpaceX was so sad it didn't take much to thoroughly disrupt it.
- schiffern 2y ago
  > Falcon 9 is still not fully reused Yes I'm well aware. Full reusability is their stated goal, not the current status. The fact that they revealed their ultimate goal to the entire industry and they still haven't been able to catch up makes SpaceX dominance even more embarrassing. Rather than keep everything close to the chest, SpaceX literally told everyone else "where the puck will be," but they still missed it. > SpaceX would have launch dominance more or less same as it has even without reusability [citation needed] Building 10x as many first stage rockets isn't cheap.
Zigurd 2y ago
You have put up a straw man. Really, several: 1. Falcon 9 wasn't designed to do a propulsive landing. That is works at all is fortunate. That it could be made practical and reliable is excellent engineering and operations. 2. SpaceX gets some cost advantage by having reusable boosters, but they notably don't say how much. How much is eaten up by refurbishing and engine replacement? nobody knows. 3. The real question is how can anyone compete with SpaceX's launch cadence. 4. Falcon 9 is not fully reusable. Nobody has a fully (sort of) reusable rocket since the Shuttle retired. Starship is vastly better than Shuttle, but that does not guarantee success.
- schiffern 2y ago
  All these are unimportant distractions from my main thesis. Also you clearly don't know what "straw man" means. You fail to actually address my main point, which is that everyone was betting against reusability (this inconvenient fact is almost never brought up now, to the point where some people even revise history[1]), and now this same reusability quest is driving their world-beating launch cadence. SpaceX's stated goal has always been full reusability, and Falcon 9 is more than halfway along the path. They did warn the industry, from day 1! They told us their end goal and their iterative path to get there, and the rest of the industry ignored them or laughed at them. Now the chickens have come home to roost. And yes, I'm well aware that F9 isn't fully reusable.[2] The fact that people like yourself are still spreading FUD about reuse economics (simultaneous with mass industry panic over SpaceX's reuse-driven dominance) only proves my point. The doubters and haters have been proven wrong every time, but amazingly it persists. [1] https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59186.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59186.0 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42367626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42367626
  - Zigurd 2y ago
    Shuttle was "reusable" after inspecting every part and replacing half. Starship is obv going to be better. But that doesn't mean they won't still fall far short. And without transparency from SpaceX about Falcon 9 refurbishment, nobody knows how reuse affects operating profit. It's a nice story, like FSD, or that robot. Wen real? IDK.

hunglee2 2y ago

Musk has proven himself to be an incredible industry disruptor. Whilst many people will object to his politics - particularly his embrace of the cultural right - it is undeniable that he has moved the needle in terms of US national power. He's an asset. Maybe even a living embodiment of Great Man theory

theLegionWithin 2y ago

spacex has a nice lead, for sure - and they're a lot cheaper than most of the competition - but where there's profit there will always be competition. especially as the tech base matures and folks in the industry job hop and start their own companies (much like how silicon valley was, back in the day). nice little teaser there about gutting nasa, not sure where that came from. nasa has a hell of a legacy and they do a lot of good science but nasa needs to let go of the leo and earth/luna part of the space program because they cant compete with spacex (and neither can boeing) - they need to focus on telescopes, interplanetary probes, and the next upgrade to the deep space network. man in space is doable, it's been doable for 50+ years, but it's never been cost effective and it still isnt - we're close, but we arent there yet. hell, there's still pushback when a probe launches with an RTG - Mars will need fission reactors and so will anything past the Jovian system (until fusion becomes a thing and then gets miniaturized enough).