[rayiner]

Note the key difference between Space X and Boom. Space X took well-understood rocket engine technology and made it cheaper. It didn’t try to fight fundamental physics. Boom is entering an area where the large incumbents have failed because the physics doesn’t work with the economics. And there hasn’t been fundamental changes in the physics since those prior efforts. It’s a different bet.

[hobofan]

> Space X took well-understood rocket engine technology and made it cheaper.

That was one part of their strategy, but the ultimate goal was always to make it cheaper through reuse and not through cheaper production.

> It didn’t try to fight fundamental physics.

Tell that to all the people who claimed that the way SpaceX does the landing of their rockets would never work out because of the "fuel economics", "the way the engine is designed", etc..

Before SpaceX actually achieved it, there were a lot of people out there who doubted that their approach is feasible.

[justapassenger]

Did SpaceX actually proved that their economics work? We do know that they sell them much cheaper than competition, but do we know when/if VC money stopped paying for the difference?

[sah2ed]

> Note the key difference between Space X and Boom. Space X took well-understood rocket engine technology and made it cheaper. It didn’t try to fight fundamental physics.

That's quite a revisionist characterization of SpaceX's 15-year toil, which many had described as impossible. Elon Musk said it best in March 2017 [0][1] when they achieved the revolutionary feat of successfully landing a reused rocket:

“It’s the difference between having airplanes that you threw away after every flight, verses reusing them multiple times."

“It’s been 15 years to get to this point, I’m sort of at a loss for words. This is a great day, not just for SpaceX but for the space industry as a whole, in proving that something could be done that many people said was impossible.”

I certainly wouldn't call something that had never been done before by anyone a well-understood technology.

> And there hasn’t been fundamental changes in the physics since those prior efforts. It’s a different bet.

You may be correct on the physics, but you are ignoring other dimensions that could make this endeavor feasible. The first Concorde flew 50 years ago. Our understanding of CFD, materials science, manufacturing techniques etc has progressed significantly from what they were 50 years ago.

[0]: https://www.recode.net/2017/3/30/15131514/spacex-space-histo...

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1800&v=xsZSXav4w...