Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 444 posts

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#381

Post by pi-err »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #293
vpribish wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

get a load of this: https://youtu.be/wv9n9Casp1o?t=2m11s 1995, DC-X, and it's pyramidal

Yeah, I still have a newspaper clipping on my wall from Aug 21st, 1993 (San Jose Mercury News) showing it in the take off, hover, and landing stages. I really wanted to work on it then too!

TIL that the DCX was canceled by Nasa not for technical reasons - looks more like politics. The program was 21 months old and cost $60M.

Is that correct? Amazing that this was achievable 20 years ago. Why no other re-usable rocket since 1996 if this was doable?

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#382

Post by baq »

gozur88 wrote: post #251
tempestn wrote: post #168

This is so exciting. Not quite a moon landing, but still feels like watching a significant moment in history. Does anyone know what specifically changed to allow a landing attempt on land as opposed to barge? Was it just that they gained enough confidence with the barges that they would at least be able to hit the target (and not crash into a building or something), or was some regulatory clearance received or someth…

It was three things. They had to get multiple government agencies to approve the landing pad and plan. They had to have a relatively light payload. And they had to "deep freeze" the fuel to squeeze in enough for a return. I suspect even as this becomes routine most landings will still be on the barge. Every ounce of fuel you use to reverse your direction is an ounce you could have put toward a larger payload.

OTOH sometimes the payload just isn't that big.

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#383

Post by mikeash »

creshal wrote: post #315
TeMPOraL wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not more, just better.

More would have helped too. But better is, uh, better.

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#384

Post by TeMPOraL »

ufukbay wrote: post #339
TeMPOraL wrote: post #127

I 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…

When I read about Elon Musk including SpaceX I cannot help myself but think that he is like one of those comic book heroes from Marvel. :) They want to reuse rockets similar to planes in the future. It's mind blowing and super exciting!

Tony Stark / Iron Man in the recent Marvel movies was actually modelled on Elon Musk. Elon even has a cameo in IM2 :).

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#385

Post by mikeash »

lmm wrote: post #340
wereHamster wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the falcon 9 could, in theory, do multiple attempts (given it has enough fuel)? If the first attempt doesn't work out, pull itself up a bit, correct, and then fall down again?

It doesn't have enough fuel, and keeping more in the booster would mean reducing the payload it could carry. I think most of the ways the landing could go wrong involve the rocket falling over, which wouldn't be recoverable (the fins do nothing at low speed, and the engine can gimbal but only a little bit).

In addition to fuel, the engines also can't restart an unlimited number of times. Starting the engines requires a special chemical charge to get the fire going, and it only carries as many as it actually needs.

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#386

Post by mikeash »

lmm wrote: post #377
jacquesm wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, if the center engine fails, the landing fails. There's no way to recover from that.

But the great thing about SpaceX's system is that it starts with a cheap expendable rocket, then makes it recoverable. You lose one? Who cares, build another one. They could have a 50% success rate recovering the first stages and it would still make things amazingly cheaper.

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#387

Post by mabbo »

planckscnst wrote: post #122
TeMPOraL wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a vague feeling he's being snide to pay Elon back for those mildly snarky tweets back when Blue Origin landed their rocket. EDIT: Musk: "Congrats to Jeff Bezos and the BO team for achieving VTOL on their booster" Musk: "It is, however, important to clear up the difference between "space" and "orbit", as described well by https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/" http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/24/news/companies/elon-musk-jef…

Actually, thinking about it, if they staged a faux-rivalry, it would probably get more public interest in space. People can choose their team and have someone to root for and someone to hate.

I've said it before: we need another space race. If we can't convince the superpower countries to do it, might as well be two billionaire CEOs.

Think we can get Gates or Buffet into it as well maybe?

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#388

Post by mikeash »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #213
grkvlt wrote: post #124

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.

It's not "tribalism" to understand that Blue Origin's landing was fun but irrelevant unless you want to play five-minute space tourist, while SpaceX's landing is a massively significant event for the future of space travel.

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#389

Post by rblatz »

imdsm wrote: post #290
weaksauce wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can always have a big flashing banner that says "previously recorded" or "prior missions" or something like that.

I can get the news from other places, I like that the live feed is just the live feed. Once it's done, it's done. Let's not fill it with shit shall we?

I agree, I don't need the perspective of an author over top of the launch audio feed. I liked the rougher but more authentic streams they did in the past.
Post reply on HN