&gt; I would also maintain that the 100km altitude flight is important - it&#x27;s the internationally recognised boundary of space - and that the &#x27;first&#x27; that Blue Shepherd claimed was valid, since the SpaceX Grasshopper did not cross the 100km Karman line.<p>Having a flight control mechanism that function outside the atmosphere is valuable&#x2F;important. Landing a rocket without relying on atmosphere is valuable&#x2F;important. Gluing those two things together is much less so - like being the first person to climb Everest <i>and</i> swim across the Channel.<p>Honestly the F9 landing isn&#x27;t much of a &quot;first&quot; - landing a rocket vertically has been done, and landing the main engines of an orbital launch vehicle so that they can be reused has also been done. What makes it exciting is a) the technical difficulty b) the potential for making things there&#x27;s actual commercial demand for (satellite launches) much cheaper - and in both those regards Blue Origin&#x27;s landing isn&#x27;t comparable.<p>I suspect the main region for the popularity is that SpaceX has done a lot of community engagement, webcasts and all the rest of it, while Blue Origin has done everything in secret. But I&#x27;m fine with that - if it encourages companies to be more open then that&#x27;s all for the good.