Where were you when SpaceX got beaten at its own game?
you bureaucratic whores who leech of taxpayer money may not be aware of this, but in the industry there's a concept called competition, and I've heard it's very useful to the development of a market.
why the fuck would they go through the trouble of figuring out how to make a fucking rocket VTOL instead of just making a single stage to orbit aerospace plane?
>in the industry there's a concept called competition
... which industry seeks to stifle, because monopoly yields bigger profit, hence salary, bonus, and perks for the executurds.
Call again when they do it with a rocket that actually can deliver some payload. not a test rocket.
If SpaceX wanted to masturbate they would've done it back in 2014 with grasshopper.
lower than a plane which can already utilize an existing infrastructure of landing strips, control towers, and so forth? it just seems like a more sensible economy of scale mang.
The Reaction Engines project is in its infancy for sure but I have renewed confidence in SKYLON after the recent appointment of Chris Allam. He was the Engineering Director at BAE Systems so knows how to get shit done:
Yes, it's not a matter of infrastructure. Infrastructure is cheap and easy. the engineering challenges involved with space planes are much harder than VTOL rockets.
Space planes STILL requires 2 stages (booster & vacuum), they just don't separate. Which means it has more mass.
The way skylon (>>7803933) solves that problem is by not bringing oxygen for the first part and suck it out of the atmosphere.
But the oxygen needs to be super cooled for it to be usable. And making something that can cool down the oxygen fast enough is their biggest engineering hurdle.
Still not a significant world "first", just a milestone in this particular development program. The X-15 was a reusable suborbital rocket in the 1960s. They went to space, had controlled landings, were refueled, and went to space again.
There have been reused orbital boosters (the shuttle SRBs), but they were solid-fuel rockets recovered by splashdown, which meant costly recovery and refurbishing operations which rendered this mode of reuse uneconomical.
Blue Origin's suborbital rocket program is just a step toward their orbital rocket aspirations. They are taking the path of insisting on reliable usability from the beginning, even if that means working with low-performance rockets, while SpaceX went directly to orbital rockets and is incrementally making them reusable.
In terms of practical application, there's no comparison between Blue Origin's current rocket program and SpaceX's current rocket program. New Shepard is a glorified amusement park ride, while SpaceX is launching geosynchronous comsats and gearing up for manned orbital missions and Mars landings. But their next generation of rockets might be far more comparable.
Quote from google:
>Not all monopolies are illegal; for example, businesses that produce a superior product or are well managed may disadvantage their competitors while not violating antitrust law.
this gotta be the dumbest shit I've ever read.