4 ms·

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, whi

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.
  - bigfatkitten 2y ago
    > The fact that industry still hasn't gotten the message even after SpaceX ate their entire lunch is a continual source of astonishment. Industry incumbents were based around the premise of extracting as much money from of the government as possible, while delivering as little as they can get away with to keep the money flowing. They got the message, but they have no idea how to respond to it. They've never had to run an efficient, mission-focused business before.
anovikov 2y ago
SpaceX has dominance but it's not at all reuse-driven. Simple proof is that it got to dominate the market before reusability started to work for them. First reused launches (just 3 out of 18 they did in that year), happened in 2017, and they were already a market leader by then, with 18 out of 29 successful U.S. space launches and world's overall of 83. I'm not downplaying importance of reusability and surely the DEGREE of dominance they are having today (which effectively turned the rest of the world into also-ran), is due to reusability - but it didn't require reusability to crush then-existing market leaders. Just simply they were sloppy, corrupt suckers. And still are.

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.
- bigfatkitten 2y ago
  > The fact that industry still hasn't gotten the message even after SpaceX ate their entire lunch is a continual source of astonishment. Industry incumbents were based around the premise of extracting as much money from of the government as possible, while delivering as little as they can get away with to keep the money flowing. They got the message, but they have no idea how to respond to it. They've never had to run an efficient, mission-focused business before.

anovikov 2y ago

SpaceX has dominance but it's not at all reuse-driven. Simple proof is that it got to dominate the market before reusability started to work for them. First reused launches (just 3 out of 18 they did in that year), happened in 2017, and they were already a market leader by then, with 18 out of 29 successful U.S. space launches and world's overall of 83. I'm not downplaying importance of reusability and surely the DEGREE of dominance they are having today (which effectively turned the rest of the world into also-ran), is due to reusability - but it didn't require reusability to crush then-existing market leaders. Just simply they were sloppy, corrupt suckers. And still are.