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

SES-10 Mission

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 368 posts

Re: SES-10 Mission

#81

Post by jacquesm »

mikeash wrote: post #76
jacquesm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why this is so big, dropping the costs significantly could easily pull a significant fraction of those other launches to SpaceX. Pretty soon the ability to re-launch the same booster will be considered a must-have feature if you want to be in the rocket business, unless you fly missions so close the maximum payload or trajectory that recovery is impossible.

SpaceX is still struggling with launching frequently and reliably. I'm hopeful that they will solve those problems, but until they do, other launch providers will have a leg up for customers who really need their payload not to be destroyed and really need it to be launched on time. Keep in mind that some of these satellites being launched cost hundreds of millions of dollars, so paying a few tens of millions extra f…

That's true, but overall their failure rate is really not all that bad. Only the Russians are doing better and they're doing better because they are not innovating at all.

I could 3 out of 33 as failures, one of those is a partial failure.

The only area where SpaceX really can't compete yet is manned flight, everything else looks quite rosy.

Re: SES-10 Mission

#82

Post by grondilu »

I've noticed that during the webcast they talked much more about their planetary colonisation project than they usually do. I guess it makes sense since today is the first time they actually implement the re-usability plan they believe is the key to this colonisation.

But frankly, is the cost of going to mars really that important for its colonisation? I mean, I wouldn't move to mars even if going there was free. For one, there's no breathable air, for Pete's sake. They are talking about building a city on a place where there isn't even breathable air. That's insane.

This whole thing is very conflicting to me. On one hand I can appreciate the technological achievement and I acknowledge that re-usability will be extremely useful for space exploration, but on the other hand I can't help thinking that those people who get excited about building a city on mars are completely delusional.

Re: SES-10 Mission

#83

Post by Someone »

I understand the enthusiasm, but I don't see enough hard data to convince me this will be a commercial success.

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He..., SpaceX has launched and landed about 10 of these rockets, and has so far reused one. That rocket was first used about a year ago.

Factors that might prevent this from making this economically superior to 'just' ramping up production are:

- the fraction of launches that can be reused.

- the amount of effort needed to prepare a rocket for reuse relative to that needed to produce a new rocket.

They will have been extra cautious this time, but from the above, the answers _could_ be "about 10%" and "almost one year, taking way more effort than building a new one does".

I would think the real answers are a bit better and will get even better over time, but I also don't think they already are at "close to 100%" and "a couple of weeks", because, if they were, I think they would have launched a used rocket earlier. I also am not convinced they can get there.

That's mostly guessing, though, as I'm not a rocket scientist and can't find hard information on this. Does anybody have that?

Re: SES-10 Mission

#84

Post by azernik »

kibwen wrote: post #57

The link is to a livestream and I didn't get here in time to watch the landing live, has a recording of the landing been uploaded anywhere yet?

Should be in YouTube - they were streaming it there too, and YT streams are watchable after the fact. Look at the SpaceX channel.

Re: SES-10 Mission

#85

Post by rrmm »

mikeash wrote: post #76
jacquesm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why this is so big, dropping the costs significantly could easily pull a significant fraction of those other launches to SpaceX. Pretty soon the ability to re-launch the same booster will be considered a must-have feature if you want to be in the rocket business, unless you fly missions so close the maximum payload or trajectory that recovery is impossible.

SpaceX is still struggling with launching frequently and reliably. I'm hopeful that they will solve those problems, but until they do, other launch providers will have a leg up for customers who really need their payload not to be destroyed and really need it to be launched on time. Keep in mind that some of these satellites being launched cost hundreds of millions of dollars, so paying a few tens of millions extra f…

Even worse than the expense of the payload is the time: some payloads take several years to build and some literally can't be replaced (e.g. Webb telescope, though it could be replaced it probably wouldn't get funded).

Re: SES-10 Mission

#88

Post by soperj »

kibwen wrote: post #57

The link is to a livestream and I didn't get here in time to watch the landing live, has a recording of the landing been uploaded anywhere yet?

You can just go back on the live stream.

Re: SES-10 Mission

#89

Post by mikeash »

jacquesm wrote: post #81
mikeash wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX is still struggling with launching frequently and reliably. I'm hopeful that they will solve those problems, but until they do, other launch providers will have a leg up for customers who really need their payload not to be destroyed and really need it to be launched on time. Keep in mind that some of these satellites being launched cost hundreds of millions of dollars, so paying a few tens of millions extra f…

That's true, but overall their failure rate is really not all that bad. Only the Russians are doing better and they're doing better because they are not innovating at all. I could 3 out of 33 as failures, one of those is a partial failure. The only area where SpaceX really can't compete yet is manned flight, everything else looks quite rosy.

10% is pretty bad. ULA has launched over a hundred times with no failures. The much-maligned Shuttle had two failures in 135 flights (and, strictly speaking, only one of those failures would have prevented a payload from getting to orbit). I'm pretty sure the Russians are the only ones doing worse right now.
Post reply on HN