4 ms·

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

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.
    - schiffern 2y ago
      Again, well aware. "Full and rapid reusability" has been the SpaceX mantra since the beginning. They literally told us the playbook. The fact that industry still hasn't gotten the message even after SpaceX ate their entire lunch is a continual source of astonishment. Please continue to spread your FUD about how reuse might not be profitable. If anyone actually believes you, it will only serve to keep the other nations / players further behind. ;-D >like FSD, or that robot Since Elon is an ambitious entrepreneur, this is an endless FUD treadmill. Since there's always something in progress, you can always just point to those and drop (or move the goalposts about) finished projects. The criticism used to be that Falcon Heavy and Tesla Semi were never going to happen, so those entries have been quietly deleted from your list. Haters gonna hate. Doers gonna do.

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.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    Again, well aware. "Full and rapid reusability" has been the SpaceX mantra since the beginning. They literally told us the playbook. The fact that industry still hasn't gotten the message even after SpaceX ate their entire lunch is a continual source of astonishment. Please continue to spread your FUD about how reuse might not be profitable. If anyone actually believes you, it will only serve to keep the other nations / players further behind. ;-D >like FSD, or that robot Since Elon is an ambitious entrepreneur, this is an endless FUD treadmill. Since there's always something in progress, you can always just point to those and drop (or move the goalposts about) finished projects. The criticism used to be that Falcon Heavy and Tesla Semi were never going to happen, so those entries have been quietly deleted from your list. Haters gonna hate. Doers gonna do.