[bsmitty5000]

> 5) Reusable launch technology. The world still doesn’t grok this. They will. It (long term) enables access to orbit comparable to really long distance airfare or air freight.

I worked at ULA for a year about five years ago. At that time they were arguing that it wasn't going to be cost effective. Back then though there may have been one or two SpaceX landings.

since I left I haven't kept up with this debate at all. Do you know if ULA changed their stance after all the successful launches?

[Robotbeat]

Not that I'm aware of. But I do know others in the industry have changed their minds, like for instance RocketLab. Peter Beck, who said that if they ever were going to make a reusable rocket he'd eat his hat, actually did announce a reusable rocket and later did actually eat (part of) his hat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agqxJw5ISdk&t=188s

(Love that he actually did it haha!)

[2rsf]

so did the ESA European Space Agency with their Themis project [1]

[1] https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2020/12/Themis

[Robotbeat]

Yup, I’m a fan although disappointed they have only announced the testbed instead of an orbital rocket.

[908B64B197]

> I worked at ULA for a year about five years ago. At that time they were arguing that it wasn't going to be cost effective.

When you sell the rocket and not the launch on cost plus contract, it's indeed not cost-effective.

[Robotbeat]

ULA did and has done mostly fixed price contracts. (This is different than, say, the SLS contract.)

But ULA was stuck with their approach for several reasons, only a couple of which were in their control.

[elkos]

It is cost effective if you charge the federal government 3-4 times more than you charge private interests.