I think I might have overstated things, or not given credit where due. The contractors played a big role. They have not, however, been pushing things forward. Space exploration was stagnant, imo. I also consider NASA and the Soviet program to be the primary "mover," though of course that could be argued.

On cars, no that's not what I thunk. I don't think this divides into 2018 sales volume and bullshitting hype. There is also impact on the industry, consumer perception and the active effect on the price performance of batteries. There's important proofs (to the public) of concept, that electric cars can stand on their own in every respect.

Nissan... they fulfilled a demand for low spec cars with short ranges, a relatively nonscalable source of demand too. I don't think that Nissan's sales are as relevant as Tesla's in the overall scheme of changing most cars from ice's to electric. That's not to hate on nissan. I have a nissan.

I think we understand eachother, but disagree. You think of Tesla and spacex as similar to their competition, but with lots of underserved hype. I see them as different, mostly because of risk tolerance.

I guess this is also a matter of worldview. I think we have a serious problem of too little risk & failure, and the ability (of very large companies) to avoid risk almost entirely.

SpaceX set a goal of reusable rocket or bust, fairly literally and explicitly. I don't think other contractors would have. I don't think we get to mars unless someone does.

If mars is just hype and bullshit to you, then meaningfully reduced cost per orbital kg.. I dunno thoug. I *do" believe the claim that he's after a mars service. Why else risk the house?

> So what matters is the wishful thinking, not the pioneering work SpaceX’s competitors actually accomplished?

Another way to look at it is that what matters is the pioneering work that SpaceX has actually accomplished (and stands to accomplish) that none of their competitors has (primarily, drastically lowering the cost of reaching space while achieving high and increasing launch rates).

> What matters is that Tesla plans to bring EVs to every household in the future, not that it’s shipped about the same number of EVs as Nissan to date?

Without any intended sarcasm, I would answer this question with 'yes'.

So...you're comparing reducing the costs of getting into space with the achievement of developing the technology that actually made it possible to get into space?

The latter is a revolution. The former is just an incremental evolution. Laudable, but nowhere close to the same level of accomplishment.

> So...you're comparing reducing the costs of getting into space with the achievement of developing the technology that actually made it possible to get into space?

Not at all. I am just pointing out that the popularity of SpaceX stems from much more than just ‘wishful thinking’. In a short time and against all odds, they’ve established themselves as the leading space launch provider, and they have a realistic chance to vastly increase that lead in the years to come. Speaking of pioneering technology, they are the first and so far only entity to launch, land, and reuse production orbital rockets on a regular basis. This may well prove to be a revolution, especially considering how many experts said it was impossible.

Handwaving their accomplishments away because too many people cheer them too loudly strikes me as unfair and disingenuous.

Not a problem, though, give it another 5-10 years and it will be extremely clear what SpaceX has achieved.

For example, here's the CNES (French space agency) Director of Launchers discussing SpaceX's achievements, and his desire to design Ariane NEXT to be similar to Falcon 9:

https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/06/02/cnes-director-of...

> For Falcon 9 for instance, they use a toss-back trajectory. An engine is relit while going against the aerodynamic flow, which is actually quite complicated to achieve. We worked on that with ONERA, the French national aerospace lab, and realized it’s pretty complicated.

and, right after talking about how SpaceX's design stages lower, has a common engine between stages, and allows experimentation in landings:

> Prometheus can be used in a new architecture which we call Ariane Next. It will have 7 such engines on the first stage and 1 on the second stage, and can be used in expendable or reusable mode, allowing to experiment reuse easily. The objective is to learn by testing, which is not a European speciality.

There's no greater endorsement than by a competitor.

Sounds like that argument could just as easily apply to Henry Ford and whoever that guy is who actually invented the car.