4 ms·

Not sure if you've noticed, but none of that SpaceX stuff is going to happen

marcusverus 3mo ago
L̶a̶u̶n̶c̶h̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶v̶a̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶f̶u̶n̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶F̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶o̶s̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶.̶ ̶ ̶F̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶n̶’̶t̶ ̶e̶c̶o̶n̶o̶m̶i̶c̶a̶l̶.̶ ̶ ̶M̶e̶g̶a̶c̶o̶n̶s̶t̶a̶l̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶L̶E̶O̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶i̶p̶e̶ ̶d̶r̶e̶a̶m̶.̶ ̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶r̶s̶h̶i̶p̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶f̶l̶y̶.̶ ̶ Starfall will never happen!
- shimman 3mo ago
  No serious really argued that; what they argued is that a Mars colony is impractical, interplanetary travel as a fantasy, and data centers in space as delusional.
  - Robotbeat 3mo ago
    Having followed SpaceX since the beginning, this is not true at all. People doubted every single step. Industry experts did.
    - noosphr 3mo ago
      People doubt the timelines, not the claims. The timelines are pure fantasy and have been since the start.
      - ceejayoz 3mo ago
        > People doubt the timelines, not the claims. People doubted the claims, too. Particularly landing and re-use. Concrete example: https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ula-plans-to-introduce-new-rocket-one-piece-at-a-time/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ula-plans-to-introduce...
        1shooner 3mo ago
        >“When you talk about conventional technologies on a booster like you see other people doing, and being able to recover and reuse that booster 15 times with relatively minimial refurbishmoent costs, that’s pretty darn challenging, and maybe not the right place, in our view, to start on that problem,” Bruno said. This doesn't really sound like doubting any claim; he's talking about how his organization was approaching it given their limited resources.
        ceejayoz 3mo ago
        ULA was openly skeptical about the viability of landing at all. Then reuse. Then the goalposts moved to this, repeated reuse.
        bumby 3mo ago
        I think that misremembers or misrepresents history. The DC-X was program developed in the early 1990s expressly to prove the feasibility of orbital rocket vertical landings and rapid turn-around/reuse. It never made it to the full orbital regime because it was scrapped early, but it was considered successful in proving the proof-of-concept. It was also managed by the predecessors of ULA (McDonnel Douglas, which later merged with Boeing).
        ceejayoz 3mo ago
        https://x.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1251155738421899273 https://x.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1251155738421899273 Tory Bruno saying "no one has come anywhere near close to demonstrating these economic sustainability goals". https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-critic-ula-ceo-reusable-rockets-economic-nonsense/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-critic-ula-ceo-reusable-roc... > “We have not really changed our assessment over the last couple of years because we have yet to see the other forms of reusability—flyback or propulsive return to Earth—demonstrate economic sustainability on a recurring basis. It’s pretty darn hard to make that actually save money… We’ve seen nothing yet that changes our analysis on that,” the ULA CEO said. > The ULA CEO’s points about the possible lack of savings on reusable rockets put him in stark contrast with other noteworthy leaders in the space industry. Apart from SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, fellow billionaire Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin is also intently focused on using reusable rockets. Even Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck, whose company designs and launches small rockets, has embraced the idea of reusing previously-flown boosters.
      - Robotbeat 3mo ago
        Nah, it was everything. Everyone expects aerospace timelines to slip. That wasn’t the issue. I had an aerospace greybeard (guidance and navigation expert… nice guy, btw) from a civilian space agency that you would recognize tell me that booster landing on a droneship was “impossible.”

L̶a̶u̶n̶c̶h̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶v̶a̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶f̶u̶n̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶F̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶o̶s̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶.̶ ̶ ̶F̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶n̶’̶t̶ ̶e̶c̶o̶n̶o̶m̶i̶c̶a̶l̶.̶ ̶ ̶M̶e̶g̶a̶c̶o̶n̶s̶t̶a̶l̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶L̶E̶O̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶i̶p̶e̶ ̶d̶r̶e̶a̶m̶.̶ ̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶r̶s̶h̶i̶p̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶f̶l̶y̶.̶ ̶ Starfall will never happen!

shimman 3mo ago
No serious really argued that; what they argued is that a Mars colony is impractical, interplanetary travel as a fantasy, and data centers in space as delusional.
- Robotbeat 3mo ago
  Having followed SpaceX since the beginning, this is not true at all. People doubted every single step. Industry experts did.
  - noosphr 3mo ago
    People doubt the timelines, not the claims. The timelines are pure fantasy and have been since the start.
    - ceejayoz 3mo ago
      > People doubt the timelines, not the claims. People doubted the claims, too. Particularly landing and re-use. Concrete example: https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ula-plans-to-introduce-new-rocket-one-piece-at-a-time/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ula-plans-to-introduce...
      - 1shooner 3mo ago
        >“When you talk about conventional technologies on a booster like you see other people doing, and being able to recover and reuse that booster 15 times with relatively minimial refurbishmoent costs, that’s pretty darn challenging, and maybe not the right place, in our view, to start on that problem,” Bruno said. This doesn't really sound like doubting any claim; he's talking about how his organization was approaching it given their limited resources.
        ceejayoz 3mo ago
        ULA was openly skeptical about the viability of landing at all. Then reuse. Then the goalposts moved to this, repeated reuse.
        bumby 3mo ago
        I think that misremembers or misrepresents history. The DC-X was program developed in the early 1990s expressly to prove the feasibility of orbital rocket vertical landings and rapid turn-around/reuse. It never made it to the full orbital regime because it was scrapped early, but it was considered successful in proving the proof-of-concept. It was also managed by the predecessors of ULA (McDonnel Douglas, which later merged with Boeing).
        ceejayoz 3mo ago
        https://x.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1251155738421899273 https://x.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1251155738421899273 Tory Bruno saying "no one has come anywhere near close to demonstrating these economic sustainability goals". https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-critic-ula-ceo-reusable-rockets-economic-nonsense/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-critic-ula-ceo-reusable-roc... > “We have not really changed our assessment over the last couple of years because we have yet to see the other forms of reusability—flyback or propulsive return to Earth—demonstrate economic sustainability on a recurring basis. It’s pretty darn hard to make that actually save money… We’ve seen nothing yet that changes our analysis on that,” the ULA CEO said. > The ULA CEO’s points about the possible lack of savings on reusable rockets put him in stark contrast with other noteworthy leaders in the space industry. Apart from SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, fellow billionaire Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin is also intently focused on using reusable rockets. Even Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck, whose company designs and launches small rockets, has embraced the idea of reusing previously-flown boosters.
    - Robotbeat 3mo ago
      Nah, it was everything. Everyone expects aerospace timelines to slip. That wasn’t the issue. I had an aerospace greybeard (guidance and navigation expert… nice guy, btw) from a civilian space agency that you would recognize tell me that booster landing on a droneship was “impossible.”