←back to thread

1355 points LorenDB | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.404s | source
Show context
3ds ◴[] No.44301389[source]
Here is the video which they should have put in the post:

https://global.honda/content/dam/site/global-en/topics-new/c...

replies(16): >>44301738 #>>44301908 #>>44301924 #>>44302100 #>>44302853 #>>44303040 #>>44303093 #>>44303167 #>>44303199 #>>44303407 #>>44304472 #>>44305319 #>>44305860 #>>44307172 #>>44307503 #>>44310261 #
ChuckMcM ◴[] No.44305319[source]
Agreed, it brings the story home. What I most like about this news is that Honda has joined Blue Origin and SpaceX in demonstrating a complete "hop" (all though my all time favorite is the "ring of fire" video SpaceX did.)

But it also illustrates that I've seen in the Bay Area time and time again, which is that once you demonstrate that something is doable (as SpaceX has) It opens the way for other capital to create competitive systems.

At Google, where I worked for a few years, it was interesting to see how Google's understanding of search (publicly disclosed), and the infrastructure to host it (kept secret) kept it comfortably ahead of competitors until the design space was exhausted. At which point Google stopped moving forward and everyone else asymptotically approached their level of understanding and mastery.

I see the same thing happening to SpaceX. As other firms master the art of the reusable booster, SpaceX's grasp on the launch services market weakens. Just as Google's grasp of the search market weakens. Or Sun's grasp of the server market weakened. When it becomes possible to buy launch services from another vendor which are comparable (not necessarily cheaper, just comparable) without the baggage of the damage Elon has done, SpaceX will be in a tougher spot.

It also helps me to understand just how much SpaceX needs Starship in order to stay on top of the market.

Some folks will no doubt see this as casting shade on SpaceX, I assure you it is not. What SpaceX's engineering teams have accomplished remains amazing and they deserve their success. It is just someone who has been through a number of technology curves noting how similar the they play out over their lifetimes.

Having witnessed first hand how DEC felt that Sun's "toy computers" would never eclipse DEC in the Server business, and watched as United Launch Alliance dismissed Falcon 9 as something that would never seriously challenge their capabilities, it feels almost prophetic to watch SpaceX's competitors emerge.

replies(10): >>44305593 #>>44305685 #>>44305870 #>>44306124 #>>44306625 #>>44306750 #>>44308231 #>>44308889 #>>44311425 #>>44349721 #
kortilla ◴[] No.44305870[source]
Is this meaningful without it being orbital?
replies(2): >>44306155 #>>44310070 #
1. iancmceachern ◴[] No.44306155[source]
We were sending stuff into orbit far before we could reliably, reusabley, land a rocket on its tail.
replies(2): >>44307392 #>>44307441 #
2. biscottigelato ◴[] No.44307392[source]
Recovering and reusing something that went up and down

And something that went orbital at supersonic speed

Is not even remotely the same universe

McDonell Douglas have done up and down since 1992

SpaceX is the only entity that have recovered and reused any rocket parts after sending payloads orbital

Wake me up when someone have done even a test that resembles orbital recovery

Until then all the EDS in here has zero power over reality

replies(1): >>44310292 #
3. kortilla ◴[] No.44307441[source]
It’s the combination of the two that’s challenging though. The force of a first stage boosting an upper stage to orbit is a lot different than a carnival ride style single stage apogee ride.
4. joelwilliamson ◴[] No.44310292[source]
> SpaceX is the only entity that have recovered and reused any rocket parts after sending payloads orbital

This is not true. Say what you will about the Shuttle, but they definitely recovered and reused rocket parts from both the boosters and the orbiter.