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

SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket

ses.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket

#41

Post by pastullo »

colechristensen wrote: post #15
rst wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The delay between landing and relaunch has less to do with refurb on this particular booster, than with the series of tests that they're doing on other returned boosters to convince both the customers and their insurance companies that they generally come back in re-flyable condition, which have been happening on and off for months. Among other things, a different booster has been put through at least three full-leng…

They would have launched sooner, but public opinion is swayed too much by failure. Engineers and money men don't really care, failure is interesting and valuable. Unfortunately, so is public opinion and support... and every perceived failure has a million armchair rocket scientists shitting on SpaceX because people loove to do that sort of thing... so they have to be unduly careful about it.

This is really not about public opinion. SES insisted a lot with SpaceX to get the first re-used booster at a considerable discount. They were also the very first customer to fly on SpaceX. The delay in launching it comes from two reasons: a) because they had to do quite a lot of extra testing on the recovered booster to certify it again for flight and b) because SpaceX is actually overloaded with launches as they have the most cramped launch schedule of any other company.

Re: SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket

#42

Post by glaberficken »

varjag wrote: post #29
shpx wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get the point, we know exactly what they're doing, so why do it? I wish press releases didn't make me parse what they're really saying. I know "marketing" works, but if I was a satellite company, I would expect my audience to be smarter than that.

The same reason we get everything priced a cent short of dollar, despite everyone being aware of the trick.

off topic:

I wonder what the "real" cost of this is across the world? You know, things like minting cent coins and transporting them around, and other things I wouldn't even imagine!

Re: SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket

#44

Post by PDoyle »

glaberficken wrote: post #42
varjag wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason we get everything priced a cent short of dollar, despite everyone being aware of the trick.

off topic: I wonder what the "real" cost of this is across the world? You know, things like minting cent coins and transporting them around, and other things I wouldn't even imagine!

In Canada? No cost at all.

Re: SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket

#45

Post by IgorPartola »

So knowing nothing about this subject, why do they pursue landing rockets, or at least landing them vertically? It seems like the hardest possible way to handle this problem, as opposed to for example what the shuttles did. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

Re: SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket

#46

Post by DanielStraight »

IgorPartola wrote: post #45

So knowing nothing about this subject, why do they pursue landing rockets, or at least landing them vertically? It seems like the hardest possible way to handle this problem, as opposed to for example what the shuttles did. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

Why land? Fuel makes up a very small percent of the launch cost of a rocket. Landing also allows a much better experience for cargo and crew return, and it makes it possible to bring equipment to other planets or moons.

Why vertical? Vertical landing is much more flexible. You can land on a barge at sea. You can land on the launchpad itself. You can land on a planet or moon with no atmosphere.

Re: SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket

#47

Post by ragebol »

IgorPartola wrote: post #45

So knowing nothing about this subject, why do they pursue landing rockets, or at least landing them vertically? It seems like the hardest possible way to handle this problem, as opposed to for example what the shuttles did. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

The space shuttle was not retired because it was too easy to keep them in flight/orbit.

The space shuttle as a whole, with the boosters, external tank, wings, wheeled landing gear was also very complex and costly. More complex than a SpaceX Falcon 9, dare I say.

Re: SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket

#48

Post by nicolapcweek94 »

DanielStraight wrote: post #46
IgorPartola wrote: post #45

So knowing nothing about this subject, why do they pursue landing rockets, or at least landing them vertically? It seems like the hardest possible way to handle this problem, as opposed to for example what the shuttles did. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

Why land? Fuel makes up a very small percent of the launch cost of a rocket. Landing also allows a much better experience for cargo and crew return, and it makes it possible to bring equipment to other planets or moons. Why vertical? Vertical landing is much more flexible. You can land on a barge at sea. You can land on the launchpad itself. You can land on a planet or moon with no atmosphere.

> You can land on a planet or moon with no atmosphere.

IE: Mars, the ultimate SpaceX goal, which has just enough atmosphere to be annoying but not nearly enough to make parachutes work, so they had to find another way to land a big enough payload to transport 100 tons of stuff there

Re: SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket

#49

Post by Symmetry »

IgorPartola wrote: post #45

So knowing nothing about this subject, why do they pursue landing rockets, or at least landing them vertically? It seems like the hardest possible way to handle this problem, as opposed to for example what the shuttles did. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

All the extra weight from the Shuttle's aerodynamic surfaces would really cut into SpaceX's cargo capability too much. And remember that the part that landed was only a small fraction of whole launch system's bulk. SpaceX is hoping to eventually get a quick turnaround which means not throwing away lots of parts. And in the short term they can make incremental progress because what they're using to land isn't much more than what they needed to get to space in the first place.

Re: SES-10 Launching to Orbit on SpaceX's Flight-Proven Falcon 9 Rocket

#50

Post by Symmetry »

walrus01 wrote: post #18

It is really interesting to see that this is a very 'ordinary' commercial geostationary launch customer, and not a government funded research satellite. This is oversimplified, but traditionally, rockets that are in beta test mode are tested like: 1) static pad tests/firings of engines 2) all-up launch of the full rocket, carrying a boilerplate satellite with some instrumentation, maybe some cubesats or low cost smal…

I think the only reason it would make sense to do (3) before (4) is that the government paid for your development and wants to be the first to use it. Because they're more typically unique government payloads are typically much more expensive to lose in the case of a failure than another couple of commsats going into a constellation.
Post reply on HN