To say that "SpaceX hasn't been able to get full reusability, not for lack of trying" is a huge stretch when they've only just gotten around to the first orbital flight tests of the vehicle they designed for that purpose.
Similarly, the only other company that has even tried to make a proven launch vehicle reusable is Rocketlab. So suggesting that others are struggling, when they either haven't even tried yet or are still working on getting to orbit, is ridiculous.
On top of that, the argument that reusability doesn't work for others for any reasons other than policy also doesn't really fit. Launch prices for all other rockets are higher, even the ones developed to better compete with F9 are only in the ballpark of its launch price and completely uncompetitive on launch cost and cadence.
> To say that "SpaceX hasn't been able to get full reusability, not for lack of trying" is a huge stretch when they've only just gotten around to the first orbital flight tests of the vehicle they designed for that purpose.
I was referring to the original plan for the Falcon 9 to be fully reusable, which didn't work out for the second stage.
> others ... either haven't even tried yet or are still working on getting to orbit
That's exactly my point, though. They either didn't figure out how to make it work economically in their particular case, or spent too many years building a working system with a slow methodology. Sure, reusing the hardware provides clear benefits and everybody understands that, but only if you can pull it off and make the ends meet. Evidently not everybody can do that, even in the US where they have the same policy as others. So clearly the policy is not the only differentiator.
For non-US companies this is especially true - besides the good policy, you have to have the infra (supply chain closeness and quick turnarounds, quick transportation network which is a special pain point for Russian cosmodromes and the issue for French Guiana or any potential sea launch systems as well), good location (east-facing shore close to the equator with good trajectory options - Russia and Europe don't have that), access to the markets (Russia is cut off and China doesn't have the proper access to the global launch market). Russian launchers in particular also have different cost breakdown traditionally (expensive compact upper stages; that's why the IRDT mission was trying to return the upper stage in 2001-2004 to explore the reusability possibility; AFAIR the experiment partially succeeded, but they still weren't able to make the ends meet with that).
In fact, the only other country which has more or less everything in place for the SpaceX-style floating platform landing reusability (you can't compete in VTVL by only having the landing pad flyback) is Japan, but they're too heavily invested into "cheap" LH2 on the country level to make a mental switch to the reusable systems.
> I was referring to the original plan for the Falcon 9 to be fully reusable
They never really tried. Second stage re-usability was in some of the very, very early animation videos, long before they were developing anything.
Then very quickly they said it wasn't really worth it.
The thought about bringing development back and did some more work on it for a while but quickly dropped the idea again.
So they didn't really try, they investigated the idea and dropped. Saying they failed suggest they were seriously trying it spending lots of money and then not being able to do it.
> Evidently not everybody can do that, even in the US where they have the same policy as others. So clearly the policy is not the only differentiator.
SpaceX is just first, the US has 4-5 other major rocket company working seriously on largish rockets (and may smaller ones). Europe has a few tiny rocket companies that are very questionable. Japan, India have nothing. China has some interesting private companies but they are far behind the US, and their state technology is also not comparable to SpaceX.
> In fact, the only other country which has more or less everything in place for the SpaceX-style floating platform landing reusability
Europe has everything needed in terms of infrastructure and supply chain. And so does China.
Similarly, the only other company that has even tried to make a proven launch vehicle reusable is Rocketlab. So suggesting that others are struggling, when they either haven't even tried yet or are still working on getting to orbit, is ridiculous.
On top of that, the argument that reusability doesn't work for others for any reasons other than policy also doesn't really fit. Launch prices for all other rockets are higher, even the ones developed to better compete with F9 are only in the ballpark of its launch price and completely uncompetitive on launch cost and cadence.