4 ms·
Also, SpaceX was exactly one failed launch (with every prior one being a failure) from bankruptcy. Had that one also been a failure, he wouldn't be running the
by vkou 2y ago
Also, SpaceX was exactly one failed launch (with every prior one being a failure) from bankruptcy.
Had that one also been a failure, he wouldn't be running the US government and we'd all be talking about how obviously stupid reusable rockets were.
- necovek 2y agoHad they received the same grant money as Boeing ($4.2b vs $2.6b), it wouldn't have been such a close call. I'd also note that they were also late by 3 years or so: this did not produce miracles, it was just much cheaper and better in the end than what Boeing is still trying to do.
- Manabu-eo 2y agoHe is talking about Falcon 1, not CCDev. There was no close call at CCDev, nor any grant money for Falcon 1.
- necovek 2y agoThanks for the correction/clarification. Still, I would be surprised if SpaceX did not greatly benefit from knowledge gained in Falcon 1 development when building their Falcon 9 rocket and then optimizing it for reusability — they started development of Falcon 9 while Falcon 1 was still operating.
- NateEag 2y agoThis illustrates beautifully how stupid labeling ideas stupid is. To know that that an idea or approach is fundamentally stupid and unsalvageable requires a grasp of the world that humans may simply not have access to. It seems unthinkably rare to me.