4 ms·

It's worth mentioning that their "less conservative" VTVL rocket is currently hitting about 10% of the DC-X's ~3100m record. While the grasshopper is very cool

• berntb 13y ago
  I remember reading the arguments for reusability etc 1990 on usenet's sci.space (and later sci.space.tech). Henry Spencer et al made good points. You have to wonder how large a role is played by NASA not having a shuttle now -- and hence no motivation to use its political clout to stop competition? Let us just hope delaying the real space age capabilities a few decades won't result in the death of humanity... (But if we go extinct because of a bureaucracy's need for job security, we arguably deserve what we get.)
• pudquick 13y ago
  While you may be right about VTVL not being new, this is disingenuous at best: > Hell, the Apollo Lunar Module technically landed and took off afterwards, as well! It landed and launched in a relatively airless (windless) environment at 1/6th Earth's gravity ... and when it launched it left half of itself behind! "Technically" indeed.
  • maxerickson 13y ago
    It's a qualified (as you are clearly aware, the word technically) note about an earlier parallel. Calling it disingenuous is obnoxious.
  • podperson 13y ago
    In particular the rocket system that landed was discarded and a new rocket system took off, so I don't think it's even "technical". It's like calling a car that rolls off a ferry an "amphibious" vehicle.
    • jlgreco 13y ago
      Eh, if you could make a DUKW that, upon reaching land, could (or had to) shed its hull and become a proper vehicle of some sort, I'd still call it amphibious.