351–360 of 444 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can the first stage land with a failed center engine?
On a parachute maybe, but then it will still be damaged on landing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a parachute maybe, but then it will still be damaged on landing.
What I meant was I don't think a different-model center engine would be any more of a single point of failure than it already is.
In a single moment, SpaceX earns itself more than $50 million dollars, right? That's a big bonus for everyone who made this possible and some well earned time off, and then back to work changing the world! So from what I've read, the returns are immense; the amount of learning they can do from examining their own rocket is the real initial treasure. Their rocket design should advance considerably based on this trove,…
Technically they only earn the $50m when they use this stage to actually launch another mission. Even then, you'd have to subtract any discount offered to the purchaser of the second mission. I'm not in any way trying to detract from this stunning, tear-inducingly great achievement, but that's the reality.
They might end up offering lower cost launches, reducing the margin, but discounts on Nth-launches don't make sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many of us in other countries wouldn't think of chanting our countries name Unless you're German, than that statement is almost certainly false. And even Germany is changing. Your statement most likely reveals more about your political leanings then the levels of nationalistic fervour in different countries.
> Unless you're German, than that statement is almost certainly false. What? Imagine a Scandinavian or a Briton chanting their countries names in any other place than a sporting event (with an opposing country). It just doesn't happen.
Other than football I can't think of any other time I've ever heard anyone chant "England, England" or whatever.
Might be slightly more likely in Scotland as they are a bit more nationalistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Why is this downvoted? There is some serious tribalism going on in this thread. You all need to chill out and start thinking again. Who cares whether BO or SpaceX was first, or whether China or America was first? We should be happy that humanity is closer to Mars.
I can't give the exact answer but if I had to guess, I'd say it's a consistently argumentative attitude under the guise of asking questions. The commenter has asked the same question "what makes this SpaceX thing so special?" at different points of this thread and has gotten many different answers providing a bunch of different view points. They're not trying to get clarity, they're trying to convince people that this isn't an accomplishment, and there seems to be a hint of accusation ("you only think this is better than BO because HN loves Musk and hates Bezos") in the questions.
That's my guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bezos and Musk should NOT be on twitter for their sake. Imagine for a few decades no one tells you "no" or "you're wrong" and you have thousands of peons to kick around. Megalomania is 100% going to happen. Best just contain that behind closed doors.
Have you beenin twitter? There's plenty of people there, ready not only to tell you that you're wrong, but explain why and how in great excruciating detail
An amazing achievement, and one I'm sorry to have missed watching live as I was AFK. However, having watched this just now, I could have really done without all the bro-nerd whooping and faux prime time personality-presentation. The latter's awkward and naff and just got in the way for me - the former was simply irritating in the extreme. Maybe I'm getting old, but I'd rather have a bit of restraint and less of the i…
It's not just you. This is my take on it: However nerve-racking the launch and first stage recovery were, this wasn't a sports event, and cannot support that kind of hyper-enthusiastic presentation style without looking staged and histrionic. Sports presentations like that work because there are lots of fans cheering wildly in the background, and sports might be unique in their license to evoke extreme enthusiasm wit…
What changed that made this cost-effective? 1) The companies pursuing this, SpaceX, Blue Orgin, etc., can't be the first to think of it. If the first stage accounts for 75% of the cost of a launch, as one article I read says, I'm sure many have considered, going back to the first launches decades ago, how to reuse it. 2) The technology to land rockets vertically has existed for a long time, going back to the lunar la…
Landing the Lunar Lander on the moon is completely different to landing a tall, thin high-centre of gravity rocket full of explosive fuel, using AI because there's no crew onboard.
Or did you mean something else?
I'm pretty sure the first vertical landing of a rocket was only achieved in the last few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I meant was I don't think a different-model center engine would be any more of a single point of failure than it already is.
They're talking about the center engine of the first stage, not the single engine of the second stage.