Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That is just pure nonsense.

When NASA tried to create the Ares-1 they spend many, many billions and were basically nowwhere and the architecture of their vehicle was absolutly terrible and not remotely competitive with commercial rockets. The got 'shut down by politicians' is because it was a black money pit for a suppar rocket. The reason SpaceX 'waltzed in' was that they actually executed on price, so you don't really have an argument for shutting them down.

SpaceX doesn't just sell NASA RnD back to them. First of all, non of that RnD was anywhere near production level, and specially not at the prices SpaceX wanted offered. A lot of the NASA archtecture were simply fundamentally unusable or unpractical, specially if you wanted to use it in a commercial market.

In fact, one could argue that going againt everything NASA was doing at the time is what made SpaceX successful. SpaceX made its own choices on every part of the rocket and the capsule, systematically innovated on each part of the rocket and architecture ending up far away from what NASA would have ever even considered doing.

That NASA did in no why what so ever build half their rockets for them, or design them. I don't know where you came up with this.

What SpaceX is did is fundamentally innovate and rethink the problems to achieve a better solution both from a design and a manufacturing perspective. This downplaying of SpaceX achivement by claiming its all just NASA tech that they are selling to the government is just petty and sad.



> SpaceX doesn't just sell NASA RnD back to them. First of all, non of that RnD was anywhere near production level, and specially not at the prices SpaceX wanted offered. A lot of the NASA archtecture were simply fundamentally unusable or unpractical, specially if you wanted to use it in a commercial market.

Saying that they "resold their own RnD to them" is not copy-paste Ares-1.

ULA, Nasa, defence contractors at large had decades of experience with kerolox rocketry starting with first American rockets, which they threw away, and Musk picked up at the cheap with their engineers. And it was a very safe, and sound decision.

The same for returnable capsules, and orbital vehicle expertise.


The engine that SpaceX started out-with was not very impressive, and it was also not just a simple copy of an existing engine.

And the Merlin now is a engine far beyond what any other US engine ever managed in a number of metrics.

Was it a bit easier to develop a kerlox engine for SpaceX in the US as compared to doing it in Bangladesh and starting fresh with every bit of technical knowlabe about Kerlox, of course it was but SpaceX went from a pretty simple starting point to an incredibly advanced rocket engine that they are flying now.

Putting the empasis on well somebody else has done a Kerlox engine before, rather then SpaceX designing and mass producing and incredibly advanced Kerlox engine is just downplaying what they achieved.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: