Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an impressively ambitious goal. Has SpaceX mentioned any willingness to use returned first stage rockets to launch astronauts? That would be the ultimate expression of their confidence in this approach, though understandably it may be a long ways off.
It's funny, with most vehicles you want to avoid being on a completely new, untested one. Think about it: would you be comfortable flying on a brand new 787 that had never been flown before, not even once? I sure wouldn't. Before long, maybe rockets will be like that too.
SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
131–140 of 444 posts
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really, 'classless'? The achievement is landing a space-capable booster vertically, after an actual mission above 100km, which can then be reused. And, Blue Origin managed that first, no two ways about it. I think it's probably pretty classless to imply that what Blue Origin managed to do was 'trivial'. Just because SpaceX is the current hacker's favourite, doesn't mean you have to downplay everyone else. I think Mus…
What, exactly, did Blue Origin do that the X-15 didn't do 50 years ago? Other than the terrestrial launch, that's about all I can think of.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
He knows, but the public doesn't and he can say what he wants to twist the perception in his favor and give the impression that the feats were equally challenging. Not to remove any merit to Blue Origin's achievement, but it's nowhere near what SpaceX just pulled off.
The public that cares about this achievement (or Blue Origin's) likely understands the difference.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you underestimate the degree of difficulty between these two achievements. They are both very impressive but what SpaceX just did is many times more difficult than what Blue Origin did.
OK, explain how the landing of the SpaceX first stage was many times more difficult? They used different mechanisms, yes (suicide burn vs. hover-capable) and the purpose of the overall system was different, but they are both VTOL rockets. Blue Origin was first , and Bezos can quite rightly welcome SpaceX to 'the club' as the second company to achieve this, without being accused of being classless, surely?
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good enough for me. Even if it is only 25% in practice they'll own the market.
They're already insanely cheap compared to most competitors. This should take them to being ludicrously cheap.
Now for second stage re-use ;)
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely amazing! I'm sure I heard a "holy shit" or two there in the audience. :) EDIT: One question for the rocket scientists here: exactly how reusable do they expect these returned first stage rockets to be? What is the process of certifying that a returned rocket is fit to fly, and what components are most likely to need repairing/replacing with each launch?
A follow-up question to that would be - how much $$ do you save per launch by reusing the first stage?
There's really not a lot of costs that can add up for reuse of these stages. It'll require a bit of cleaning up, a few new bits and pieces replaced and added, and a lot of inspection work. But most of the cost of the stage is in manufacturing the engines and tanks, so it should add up to enormous savings, even if it's relatively costly to reuse each stage compared to the theoretical limits.
Edit: the flip-side is that the reliability and robustness improvements from reusability may be as big a win as cost. Currently it costs tens of millions of dollars to launch a rocket to orbit, which means it's almost never done except as part of a paid launch. Moreover, despite the seemingly high number of launches very few of those launches represent expanding the test-envelope much, every single launch is typically straight down the middle of the performance envelope, to maximize the chance of success. That results in learning very little about these vehicles despite how much they've been flown. By introducing reuse and dropping the cost of flight it may become possible to do real test programs, which would make it possible to determine the flight envelope characteristics of vehicles and help lead to improving designs over time.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it absolutely was firing continuously around 17,000 MPH. Doesn't take long at that speed to get some distance between sats.
The satellites are moving at that speed too....
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you underestimate the degree of difficulty between these two achievements. They are both very impressive but what SpaceX just did is many times more difficult than what Blue Origin did.
OK, explain how the landing of the SpaceX first stage was many times more difficult? They used different mechanisms, yes (suicide burn vs. hover-capable) and the purpose of the overall system was different, but they are both VTOL rockets. Blue Origin was first , and Bezos can quite rightly welcome SpaceX to 'the club' as the second company to achieve this, without being accused of being classless, surely?
If you want to say it's about VTOL rockets, SpaceX was first by a long way. If you want to say it's about reusing an orbital launcher, BO is nowhere close. You have to torture the categories into uselessness to say BO did anything first.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A hydrazine propulsion system is installed on the spacecraft for orbit adjustment maneuvers and orbit maintenance providing a delta-v budget of more than 100 meters per second for each satellite. >Because OG2 satellites are launched in groups of several spacecraft, they require propulsion systems to place the satellite into different nodal planes to begin operations. There's the answer, courtesy Orbcomm.
Neat :) So they do their own placement. Nasty stuff, hydrazine. F16's use it as emergency fuel.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
New Shepard is able to make several compromises that make landing _much_ easier. New Shepard doesn't have to get anywhere close to orbital velocity, so it can use a far less powerful engine. That means it can throttle down far enough to hover. That is a _huge_ advantage over Falcon 9, which must time the landing burn perfectly to hit 0 velocity at the exact moment it touches the ground. They're in the same club like…
But the F9 first stage doesn't get to orbital velocity, either, remember. The achievements are comparable, despite the fact it makes SpaceX come second. Blue Origin was first with a VTOL rocket stage, as part of a space system.
It gets a whole lot closer (and is _much_ larger).
I really can't emphasize enough how much of a difference the ability to hover makes for New Shepard. SpaceX has been doing "New Shepard" type flights for a long time now (they didn't bother going that high, but 'high' isn't really that interesting, it's 'fast' that matters). However, Grasshopper (like New Shepard) was able to throttle down to a TWR less than 1. That makes landing so much easier (the rocket can 'stop' and get settled before it proceeds to land).