I bet I could even take this baby up again!
SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
371–380 of 444 posts
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're talking about the center engine of the first stage, not the single engine of the second stage.
Yes. How would making that a different engine "introduce a single point of failure for the return part of the mission" that wasn't there already?
Because the return part of the mission relies on nine identical engines right now. So if one fails it is not a problem. But if you replace the central one with a different one that becomes critical for the return mission then you have made matters worse.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#373What 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…
Expendable rocket design is a local maxima which reduces fitness for reuse. This is because the typical, and traditional, optimizations all work against reuse. Reducing the number of engines on the first stage lowers cost and increases reliability and performance. And makes VTVL operations nearly impossible without adding additional engines (ballooning complexity, increasing stage cost, and reducing performance in an…
Thank you, outstandingly well reasoned and explained. I understood the incentive issue. No manufacturer of a thing, that makes money per thing they manufacture, is incentivized to try and reduce the number of those things they get to manufacture. But the fact that the optimization process towards efficient rockets leads the design away from optimizations for re-usability (principally towards a single large engine on the first stage) is new to me.
The fact that the Falcon 9 is deliberately designed for less efficiency with 9 engines on the first stage, but still ends up cheaper than the alternatives is even more impressive given that insight.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#374A FIRST Robotics Competition event writ large.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#375I join in congratulating SpaceX for this awesome achievement. It's like, holy fuck, they landed the rocket AND deployed 11 satellites, all in a single Pomodoro! I also want to commend them for a few minor things: - a real-time stream from landing (as opposed to holding it and releasing footage few days later, as before) - a real-time stream from satellite deployment, with a camera placed so that we could see everythi…
I think they finally had real time stream just because they were not landing on sea anymore; they just didn't have the bandwidth from the barge. Elon mentioned the reason they couldn't stream before was technical, not political/PR, and that they always wanted to stream it.
Agreed, though. It was masterly done. Loved the timeline.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#376On the agenda: First flight since the failure on June 28 Attempt to land 1st stage on land near the launch site First flight of an upgraded rocket
An image of the landing pad. https://imgur.com/4tjcdRM What's interesting too is that the descent path of the rocket has an engine failure trajectory that will ensure the rocket will fall into the ocean if a failure occurs during the powered descent.
That's a function as much of physics and geography as planning, and one of the reasons Cape Canaveral exists---there's a lot of Atlantic Ocean in which to ditch a failing spacecraft on either the launch or landing vectors.
There's a reason the United States' launch facilities are primarily along the east coast of the country.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. How would making that a different engine "introduce a single point of failure for the return part of the mission" that wasn't there already?
Because the return part of the mission relies on nine identical engines right now. So if one fails it is not a problem. But if you replace the central one with a different one that becomes critical for the return mission then you have made matters worse.
> Because the return part of the mission relies on nine identical engines right now. So if one fails it is not a problem.
Is that true? Doesn't the landing have to use the center engine - any other single engine would be asymmetric, and multiple engines would have too high a thrust.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any spots open for a nurse! Phooey. :)
Or a farmer. Guess I'll have to wait until Mars is ready for ploughing :)
I'm pretty sure they have hired at least one farmer at their Texas site.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-real-reason-spacex-is-h...
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why would they offer a discount? The rocket is not going to fly a second time unless it has the same reliability rating as the first. They might end up offering lower cost launches, reducing the margin, but discounts on Nth-launches don't make sense.
At this point, they have the functional monopoly advantage of being able to set prices where they want them (in terms of having an exclusive technology their competitors do not have; they have competition, but if they can really slash their costs by 50% they have the capacity to set their price ten bucks below the competitions' prices and win).
... but if I understand correctly, one of the points of the reusable rocketry experiment is to be able to lower the price point to allow new customers who couldn't afford to launch at the previous per-pound cost. To give a terrible but not inaccurate analogy: Think similarly to how the Nintendo Wii found itself in entirely new markets of game players by droppping a $200 console onto the market alongside competition that was nearly double that price-point.
Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]
#380Elon should thank the American people. This achievement was financed by us and wouldn't be possible without the forward looking NASA program. So before we all thank Elon for taking our money, let's pat our selves on the back. Really we should thank the amazing spacex engineers, who worked tirelessly. Not just Elon. Sure he worked hard too, but not much more than anyone else at spacex I'm just tired of the Elon worshi…
He's the one that put that team together. It's because of him that SpaceX exists. Yes, I'm sure he'd be the first to give credit to his team.
You know he said recently that he was going to give less interviews. I'm sure he likes and uses his public persona to help his endeavors...but that's just being smart.
Steve Jobs did the same thing with Apple.
And as for thanking the American people. Hogwash. Did you personally make a choice in this matter? Sure you voted in the officials that did...that's where the money went...and they made the choice to spend it this way.
You know why? Because it's a smart move. A move towards a future where space travel can expand and grow because it will be more economical and feasible to accomplish.
So...yes, of course the engineers should be applauded! And THEY know this! And I'm positive they are celebrating this monumental event.
You should too! :)