undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbumby3y ago0 comments

>Nobody else did it, including NASA.

This is just a misdirection. I could just as easily said, nobody did it by themselves, including Musk.

What is “it” in this case?

NASA (and the DoD) had vertically landing reusable rockets designed for orbital flights back in the early 1990s. They were being successfully tested but budget cuts killed the program. They weren’t doing “it” because it wasn’t the same priority in that era. NASA has been researching COPVs for decades, etc.

The SpaceAct agreement between NASA and SpaceX allows for sharing of this kind of information. If you think SpaceX has done all their great work alone, you are misinformed and likely making you data fit your conclusion instead of the other way around.

SpaceX has some competitive advantages, but I don’t think they are what you think they are.

0 comments

WalterBright3y ago

> What is “it” in this case?

Obviously, cheap launches into space.

> If you think SpaceX has done all their great work alone

What I'm saying is SpaceX got it done. No other organization in the world did. The fact that SpaceX had an obvious learning curve of failing and exploding rockets makes it obvious it wasn't just copy and install NASA technology.

NASA's reusable rockets were on the space shuttle, which turned out to be fantastically expensive and impractical.

> NASA has been researching COPVs for decades

Somehow not resulting in a practical, inexpensive reusable rocket.

It's undeniable that NASA has made many great achievements. But making space accessible in an economic manner isn't one of them.

bumbyOP3y ago

>NASA's reusable rockets were on the space shuttle

I wasn't referring to the shuttle. Note I said "vertically landing reuseable rockets".

Are you claiming SpaceX doesn't use COPV's, or that don't benefit from prior COPV research? I don't think either position is accurate. Of course no single technological advancement defines space exploration.

Can you elaborate on what you think SpaceX's key advantages are? I can use that to gauge if you really know what you're talking about. I don't want to sound rude, but it's starting to come across as a poorly informed discussion, but one where you have strongly held beliefs. That's not the relationship we should probably hope for.

WalterBright3y ago

> Note I said "vertically landing reuseable rockets".

Ok. So where are they? SpaceX obviously didn't copy a working system, as it took many failures for SpaceX's reusable rockets to work.

> Are you claiming SpaceX doesn't use COPV's, or that don't benefit from prior COPV research?

I was very clear on what SpaceX's success was. Has NASA ever re-used a booster?

> Can you elaborate on what you think SpaceX's key advantages are?

I was very clear on that, too. They provide a cheap way into space, something that NASA has utterly failed on (and every other government, too).

bumbyOP3y ago

I already said the NASA/DoD program was scrapped in the 90s. They had successful sub-orbital test flights, the original designs were for an orbital craft, but the project was canceled before that could be tested.

I meant what advantages do they have to facilitate that. You gave me the outcome but haven’t shown any understanding of the why. When somebody asks what makes Tom Brady special, saying “because he wins more” isn’t really saying much and doesn’t take show you know much about football.

I ask because I suspect you will just give some rote public vs. private answer but that’s only a superficial reason. There are underlying systemic reasons, but you need to remove yourself of that false dichotomy first to get there.

FWIW, I’m not a big fan of NASA. I think they are largely a broken culture and a shell of what they were in the 1960s.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

WalterBright3y ago

> What is “it” in this case?

Obviously, cheap launches into space.

> If you think SpaceX has done all their great work alone

NASA's reusable rockets were on the space shuttle, which turned out to be fantastically expensive and impractical.

> NASA has been researching COPVs for decades

Somehow not resulting in a practical, inexpensive reusable rocket.

It's undeniable that NASA has made many great achievements. But making space accessible in an economic manner isn't one of them.

bumbyOP3y ago

>NASA's reusable rockets were on the space shuttle

I wasn't referring to the shuttle. Note I said "vertically landing reuseable rockets".

WalterBright3y ago

> Note I said "vertically landing reuseable rockets".

Ok. So where are they? SpaceX obviously didn't copy a working system, as it took many failures for SpaceX's reusable rockets to work.

> Are you claiming SpaceX doesn't use COPV's, or that don't benefit from prior COPV research?

I was very clear on what SpaceX's success was. Has NASA ever re-used a booster?

> Can you elaborate on what you think SpaceX's key advantages are?

I was very clear on that, too. They provide a cheap way into space, something that NASA has utterly failed on (and every other government, too).

bumbyOP3y ago

FWIW, I’m not a big fan of NASA. I think they are largely a broken culture and a shell of what they were in the 1960s.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse