I realize that in certain social circles, the idea that Elon has ever done anything useful is met with scorn and laughter, but that’s kind of precisely what happened. NASA and the aerospace primes (including in Europe) had abandoned reuse as impractical due to the lessons learned from Shuttle (and several abortive attempts at reusable launch, like X-33 and others). It took the non-status quo companies like SpaceX (and Masten Space, etc) to prove out reuse.
> the idea that Elon has ever done anything useful is met with scorn and laughter
Could you provide an example of someone saying that here? Elsewhere?
> in certain social circles
Is it possible that people have rational ideas that disagree with yours, which should not be dismissed as outcomes of social effects? At best, Musk's personal following seems like by far the strongest social phenomenon involved.
> It took the non-status quo companies like SpaceX (and Masten Space, etc) to prove out reuse.
That wasn't the prior point and therefore wasn't what I responded to. The prior point, as I understood it, was that government is unable to innovate and only business is. Also, SpaceX is now part of the status quo.
You said, and I quote:
“GPS, moon landings, space stations, space shuttles, and most of the rest of the history of space are hardly status quo solutions! It's not like space has been stuck, waiting for Elon Musk to save the day.”
But again, that’s precisely what happened. There was a decades-long, post-Cold-War stagnation in the government-led space industry (to the extent that NASA used a higher inflation rate to calculate aerospace project costs… ie aerospace technology was becoming MORE expensive over time for the same capability), particularly for launch technology (commercial launch was fleeing the US and going to cheaper foreign launchers like Russia), and it was SpaceX who ultimately broke the impasse and proved reusable launch was feasible. It is a huge impact, too. Consider SLS or, more to the point, the reference HLS lander versus Starship, which was selected for NASA’s commercial HLS bid. Starship is approximately 10 times larger in capability than the reference design or Apollo. NASA literally couldn’t afford any other option for Artemis to meet the 2024 landing goal.
SLS vs Starship is a very illustrative comparison of what a single, monolithic, government-led solution vs a more competitive, commercial led solution is.
(And government vs commercial ISN’T a good framing, here. NASA has been super important in commercialization of this stuff by fostering competition, serving as an anchor customer for new entrants, and providing valuable insight and consultation. And even in the Soviet era, there was competition between firms in the Soviet launch sector… single, monolithic solutions are just not a very efficient approach…).
