> SpaceX gets credit and rightly so because they have achieved things which no national space agency nor private company has ever done before

Such as?

▲

jve a year ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe this will help you see it: https://x.com/dpoddolphinpro/status/1874191808751972447

The whole world combined VS SpaceX has less mass to orbit.

Either whole nations are not interested in that much mass to orbit or they don't have the capability. Or financial means/incentive to compete against that commercial entity.

But they do and at least in China they start to work on reusable rockets and ULA is for sale because they don't have one.

▲

me_me_me a year ago | parent [-]

I guess that's an 'achievement'?

▲

Albatross9237 a year ago | parent [-]

What would you consider an achievement then? The point of a rocket is to deliver mass to space.

	▲	me_me_me a year ago \| parent [-]
		Nobody credits boeing with a achievement of caring most people in planes. We credit Wright brother with creating first airplane. Cargo rockets is to elo is an old tech, a participation award for you and your convincing arguments (you and you ilk - producing numerous 'achievements' called 'etc. etc.').

▲

jbgt a year ago | parent | prev [-]

Landing boosters, reducing costs etc etc

▲

me_me_me a year ago | parent [-]

Is that it? Landing boosters is not saving money as of now. Because a rocket engine is not a rental bike.

Hmmm I wonder if there was a tech that recovered a spacecraft and tried to reuse it to cut costs... hmmm... no, nothing comes to mind

Also SpaceX is charging Nasa more than russians did when they had monopoly over space flights.

	▲	inemesitaffia a year ago \| parent [-]
		Landing boosters saves money and helps with cadence. SpaceX is charging NASA less. Even Boeing is charging NASA less than Russia.