[chriskanan]

I'm guessing that Musk felt the need to do that because some of the early reports about Blue Origin's success were using it as a platform to trash SpaceX for failing to land on the barges. This Gizmodo article (before they changed it due to all the comments complaining) was a good example: http://gizmodo.com/jeff-bezos-new-rocket-just-made-a-control...

It was significantly longer earlier today, but it contained a factually inaccurate comparison.

Here are a couple more examples:

Wired: "Jeff Bezos just accomplished the near impossible: one-upping Elon Musk"

Link: http://www.wired.com/2015/11/jeff-bezos-brags-on-rocket-land...

Engadget: "Jeff Bezos beats Elon Musk's SpaceX in the reusable rocket race"

Link: http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/24/blue-origin-reusable-rock...

[Tloewald]

And of course SpaceX (and before them John Carmack's team) did vertical test landings on land years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxKWh7kLDzw

But expecting journalists to even google something during their fact-checking these days is hopelessly optimistic. (Reminds me of Jon Stewart's recent inverview of Fresh Air when he was asked how the Daily Show is able to do such a great job of fact-checking and digging up contradictory statements -- Google and Lexis Nexis.)

[cthalupa]

Neither SpaceX or Carmack's team were able to do that with a rocket that made it to space, however.

[mikeash]

With SpaceX it's really just because they didn't bother, though. Getting their test vehicle to space first probably would not have been too difficult, considering that it was adapted from something meant to go to space anyway. It's just that doing that wouldn't have been useful to their ultimate goal of recovering the first stage as part of an orbital launch.

I know this sounds like a typical "I could do that, I just don't want to" boast, but it's true. There's little point in merely going to space without also achieving orbit, unless you're selling people the opportunity to say "I've been to space." And getting to orbit is way, way, way harder. In terms of relative difficulty, Blue Origin's accomplishment is much closer to SpaceX's Grasshopper flights than to their (not yet successful) barge landings.

[ethbro]

"Journalists" not understanding basic physics? Shocking!

[jsprogrammer]

That still has nothing to do with orbit, making Elon's tweet(s) a non-sequitor.

Edit: I see the Musk posse has arrived at this comment.

[dtparr]

When stories with titles like "Your Move, SpaceX: Blue Origin Just Secretly Landed a Reusable Rocket"[0], "Blue Origin Beats SpaceX In Landing Reusable Rocket"[1], "Move over SpaceX! Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin successfully lands a reusable rocket in Texas beating Elon Musk's firm to it"[2], are the main articles about it for me on google news, I can understand how he might feel the need to make the point to the general public that they've not achieved the feat SpaceX is attempting.

[0] - http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/your-move-spacex-blue... [1] - http://www.popsci.com/blue-origin-beats-spacex-in-landing-re... [2] - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3331885/Move-...

[agumonkey]

The TV News re-served the 'first time ever' speech tonight. I sighed.

[jsprogrammer]

Through all the ads on those sites, I still saw nothing about orbit.

The reusable part of a Falcon (assuming it actually lands undamaged)[0] doesn't go into orbit either.

Edit: Stay classy HN.

[0] "I don't expect the Falcon 9 to have a reusable upper stage" http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/elon-musk-at-mits-aeroast...

[stingraycharles]

You're missing the point. The media is basically doing an apples/apples comparison with BO and SpaceX. The tweet was necessary to point out that they're not competing in the same space.

[ChrisClark]

You are focusing on the word 'orbit' and not the overall meaning. The forest for the trees. You are being downvoted for arguing about something completely pointless.

[jsprogrammer]

If my comments are pointless arguing, so are Elon's.

Worse, Elon's are just factually incorrect (e.g. "The energy needed is the square, i.e. 9 units for space and 900 for orbit.") [and, yet, it remains, uncontested, at the top of this thread].

>It is, however, important to clear up the difference between "space" and "orbit", as described well by https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/

is a non-sequitor because no one seems to have confused space and orbit. Additionally, the comparable part of SpaceX's machines (the first stage of the Falcon 9) doesn't go into orbit (it is supposed to land not far from the launch site and does not loop around the Earth to do it).

What is the import of "orbit"? Elon is the one that brought the word into the conversation, not me.

>You are focusing on the word 'orbit' and not the overall meaning.

Then, please, what is the overall meaning of those tweets?

[ChrisClark]

Everyone else has already told you, but I'll tell you again. The media is saying Elon was just beat at his own game. Elon tweeted to point out that it's a horrible comparison, what he's been trying to do is much harder.

End of story. If you can't see that, I don't care any more. I was just trying to help.

[dtparr]

Regarding the factually incorrect bit, could you elaborate? I was under the impression that the energy required was proportional to the square of the velocity, so a 10x increase in velocity (from ~Mach 3 to ~Mach 30) would result in a 100x increase in energy required, which seems to be what he's saying.

Is my understanding inaccurate?

[vectorjohn]

Here's the thing. SpaceX already landed a rocket. Lots of people have landed lots of things. So saying Blue Origin beat SpaceX to something, you have to be more specific about what that something was. SpaceX isn't even trying to land a tiny test rocket (which they already have), they're trying to land real full size rockets on real launches that go to orbit. It's a huge difference.

In other words, nobody said "orbit". But they did say Blue Origin beat SpaceX, which doesn't make any sense.

[jsprogrammer]

>Here's the thing. SpaceX already landed a rocket.

Right, which is why this entire thread is so confusing.

>In other words, nobody said "orbit".

Exactly. This makes the tweet a non-sequitor.

>But they did say Blue Origin beat SpaceX, which doesn't make any sense.

Yes, anyone who said that is incorrect. However, Elon did not directly address those people (at least not in these tweets).