[samatman]

I would say that a brand-new rocket company making a rocket which can land itself would sound more implausible than what you're describing, if we didn't all know that it in fact has happened.

That doesn't mean Boom is that, however.

[hef19898]

Landing rocket boosters happened in the 70s already, and said rocket company benefited heavily from NASA, government and defence contracts and research. If Boom would have had access to supersonic jet research from the government, along with government contracts, development or production doesn't matter, RR wouldn't have stopped the cooperation.

Edit: Reusable or VTOL rocket were tested, successfully landing, in the early 90s by McDonnel Douglas under the DC-X program. No idea where the 70s thing came from...

[signatoremo]

Which rockets landed in the 70s?

Note that SpaceX didn’t get any meaningful defense contract until they’ve proved themselves with Falcon 9.

[MichaelCollins]

He must either be talking about the Apollo Lunar Module which first landed on the Moon in the 60s (but was not "landing a booster", much less on earth.), or more likely he's talking about the Delta Clipper which was in the 90s (and also not a rocket booster.)

Probably the latter, because there are some low-brow skeptics on reddit and youtube who inexplicably seem to think the Falcon 9 is a stolen Delta Clipper with a new paint job.

[hef19898]

I kind of take ofense with the low-brow reddit sceptic :-) Obviously, a Falcon 9 is not a reused DC-X. The technologyvto land a booster was already there before, it wasn't invented by SpaceX and was discussed as far back as the 60s. SpaceX made it possible, which in itself is quite an achievement. That nobody else tried so is due to the fact that there were not enough launches to make it economically viable (I found a ESA study on that topic a couple of years ago and subsequently lost it again, Google and DDG fail to dig it up again ever since). And whether or not reusable booster do make econommic sense or not, and just how many launches are needed to break even, is impossible to tell without SpaceX financials, they are the only ones doing it right now, which we don't have.

[panick21_]

But you are underestimating the challenge here. There is a difference between the landing and getting an orbital rocket first stage into a position to even attempt a landing.

The actual landing with propulsion is actually the easier challenge if you have an engine that can hover.

However SpaceX had to figure out how to get do supersonic retro-propulsion and basically making a heat-shield out of fire to protect the rocket on its way down, then navigate a terrible air-frame at high speeds and then do a never before tried hover-slam maneuver with an overpowered rocket engine.

That is very, very different from a DC-X that just goes up a bit comes straight down and then can do a slow landing.

I know some of the old space companies did some studies, you can also find a very long detailed post by Tori Bruno on the topic. The problem is, these studies and opinions are no necessary correct and in fact we know that they were very much incorrect. The assumptions both technical and economical these companies were making were simply not correct, at least not with the right engineering and investment behind it.

The study that you are talking about was from the 2010ish time right, not the 90s or something like that?

Arianespace/ESA totally fucked up with Ariane 5, instead of designing a booster that can dominate the launch market they designed a very niche booster and were forced to relay on Soyuz and couldn't beat Proton in many markets.

Partly this was because of Hermes and as they design Hermes it became bigger and bigger and so did Ariane 5. And then Hermes was canceled and Ariane 5 remained oversized.