[criley2]

It's worth mentioning that their "less conservative" VTVL rocket is currently hitting about 10% of the DC-X's ~3100m record.

While the grasshopper is very cool, the concept of a VTVL rocket is not new. Hell, the Apollo Lunar Module technically landed and took off afterwards, as well!

[pudquick]

While you may be right about VTVL not being new, this is disingenuous at best:

> Hell, the Apollo Lunar Module technically landed and took off afterwards, as well!

It landed and launched in a relatively airless (windless) environment at 1/6th Earth's gravity ... and when it launched it left half of itself behind!

"Technically" indeed.

[podperson]

In particular the rocket system that landed was discarded and a new rocket system took off, so I don't think it's even "technical". It's like calling a car that rolls off a ferry an "amphibious" vehicle.

[jlgreco]

Eh, if you could make a DUKW that, upon reaching land, could (or had to) shed its hull and become a proper vehicle of some sort, I'd still call it amphibious.

[maxerickson]

It's a qualified (as you are clearly aware, the word technically) note about an earlier parallel. Calling it disingenuous is obnoxious.

[berntb]

I remember reading the arguments for reusability etc 1990 on usenet's sci.space (and later sci.space.tech). Henry Spencer et al made good points.

You have to wonder how large a role is played by NASA not having a shuttle now -- and hence no motivation to use its political clout to stop competition?

Let us just hope delaying the real space age capabilities a few decades won't result in the death of humanity... (But if we go extinct because of a bureaucracy's need for job security, we arguably deserve what we get.)