SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 11:08 AM UTC

RonaldRaygun wrote: post #252

extrapickles wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would make the rocket too heavy. To add another engine, they would have to make the rocket larger in diameter, increasing the weight by a fair amount (they currently have the 9th engine in the middle, so it would have to get moved to the ring with the rest). Reducing the power of the center engine would also reduce the amount of payload to orbit. Rockets that can reach orbit have very bad weight to payload ratios…

It's actually more about complexity. They could simply replace the center engine with a lower power design and still get plenty of mass to orbit. The issue then is that you have to design a completely new engine and have 2 different engines in your first stage. More complexity generally equals more risk, and historically SpaceX has sought to maximize simplicity for the sake of reliability and rapid iteration.

Post by simonh » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 11:12 AM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #305

mikeash wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is arguably the greatest achievement in space flight since 1969 and you're going to tell the people who made it happen how they should celebrate?

Especially because of that. This nationalism is so weird. I mean, to me it’s mostly incredibly weird, nothing else much. I just cannot picture myself ever ever ever doing something like that, it’s just so incredibly alien. But a good demonstration of the toxic virality of nationalism, I guess. It manages to wriggle itself into anything.

Post by golergka » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 11:38 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #178

jerf wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not mine, but irresistible. Presumably the sting of the term is now entirely gone. Nothing succeeds like success.

Personally, the biggest laugh I had on /r/spacex was when the CRS-7 failure study came up and they had to remove the word "strut" from the list of terms that caused comments to be automatically put to moderation - it was banned because of all the KSP jokes, but suddenly the rocket really found itself in need of moar struts.

Post by ZoFreX » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 11:44 AM UTC

hackuser wrote: post #211

dbh937 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"New-space" aerospace companies are operating on a different funding framework from the old aerospace juggernauts. Instead of cost-plus funding that came almost solely from the government and which allowed rockets like ULA's Delta IV and Atlas V to stay competitive in the $300-400 million range without having to find ways to cut costs. SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Orbital Sciences, as well as other new companies, have to…

Thanks. I've heard the story but I haven't seen evidence of it, it smells too much like a marketing story (we're young and exciting, those old people are boring and stuck in the past), and it seems very unlikely: I don't buy that the 'old' companies wouldn't want to reduce their costs by 75%, greatly increasing demand for their very expensive service, greatly increasing their bottom line - even in a cost-plus arrange…

Post by detritus » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 11:52 AM UTC