Sort of... I knew I would get downvoted, mostly because of my failure at SpaceX cheerleading ;)<p>I actually agree that SpaceX did an awesome thing, and really do understand that its more complicated, and difficult, and challenging, and so on, than what Blue Origin managed to do; yes. My point was more of a &quot;HN loves SpaceX and cannot acknowledge that they might not be the best in the world at everything, ever&quot; thing, rather than any technical breakdown. 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>The important parts are that the flight is of a 1.) reusable, 2.) VTOL, 3.) rocket after a 4.) 100km altitude space flight. Since all four points are valid for SpaceX&#x27;s Falcon 9 first stage booster, I think it&#x27;s <i>technically</i> correct to place its landing in the same category as Blue Origin&#x27;s New Shepherd landing. SpaceX&#x27;s achievement is more technically interesting and useful, but that should not detract from what Blue Origin managed to do with a much smaller team and budget.