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

151–160 of 368 posts

Re: SES-10 Mission

#151

Post by grondilu »

nickik wrote: post #140
grondilu wrote: post #82

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…

For all Spaceflight of getting to Space is huge, no matter what you are trying to do. I'm not sure why it is conflicting for you. Even if they are delusional, you profit from cheaper access to Space no matter why they are going there.

One thing I don't like is that Musk stated that he expects that colonization project to be a public-private partnership. That means that the government will put money into it, and I'm not OK with the State investing in what is to me nothing but an extraordinarily exotic real-estate project. Going to mars for science is ok. Going there and build insanely expensive accommodations, just for the sake of living there, is not, unless you do it with your money.

Re: SES-10 Mission

#152

Post by jacquesm »

RivieraKid wrote: post #102
remarkEon wrote: post #94

Question: Will future SpaceX clients now want to put their payloads in orbit on a "flight proven" booster, instead of one that hasn't flown before?

If it's cheaper then yes.

They're not talking about cheaper, they are talking about more reliable.

Re: SES-10 Mission

#153

Post by rrmm »

Taniwha wrote: post #40

So they are supposed to be trying to recover the two fairing halves this time around - any news of that?

They apparently did recover the fairings successfully.

Re: SES-10 Mission

#155

Post by lutorm »

tdy721 wrote: post #116
david-given wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My heart attack moment was during the launch when I started seeing flame flickering around the tops of the engines... and then I thought to look at the altitude indicator, and realised they were at about 10km, and it was just the plume expanding as the atmospheric pressure dropped.

The flames around the top of the engines is normal, it's the exhaust from the turbo pumps feeding the main engines. Check this page, the Merlin uses an open cycle, where fuel/oxidizer used to fuel the pumps is just dumped overboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-generator_cycle This picture clearly shows both exhausts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)#...

Yeah, it's normal, and it usually ends up getting sucked backward, presumably due to the turbulent airflow in the space between the end of the vehicle and the engine nozzles:

Echostar: https://youtu.be/zEfEBJfD_RE?t=18m23s

JCSAT: https://youtu.be/QZTCEO0gvLo?t=17m38s

CRS-9: https://youtu.be/ThIdCuSsJh8?t=17m45s

Re: SES-10 Mission

#156

Post by jacquesm »

jccooper wrote: post #124
vtange wrote: post #4

Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? Would be a bummer if people decided they were a monopoly of some sort and demanded a break up.

Bezos's Blue Origin is on track to have a very similar system in a few years, and perhaps even better eventually with the possibility of a reusable second stage. ULA still has plenty of contracts and could compete if its parent companies wanted to spend the money to do so. Arianespace is vaguely commercial, is currently cost-competitive, and could also choose to develop a reusable vehicle, if its parent companies/cou…

> Bezos's Blue Origin is on track to have a very similar system in a few years

That's on paper, not anything they've flown has come close to what SpaceX is demonstrating as a matter of some routine now.

(1) never been to orbit

(2) never been to orbit and then back down to a landing

(3) 6 flights vs 33

(4) payload At this point in time Blue Origin to me looks like a slightly more serious version of Armadillo Aerospace and SpaceX looks like the company that will put the majority of tonnage into orbit in the next decade.

Re: SES-10 Mission

#157

Post by jacquesm »

hackuser wrote: post #136
vtange wrote: post #4

Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? Would be a bummer if people decided they were a monopoly of some sort and demanded a break up.

> Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? They do, such as Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, and others I can't think of off the top of my head. However, Musk appears to have a major advantage: At least two major investment banks [0][1][2] and many other observers and investors [3][4] believe a major advantage Musk has over competitors is his relationship with President Trump. They…

Blue Origin does not currently belong in the list of competitors. They are (not yet) in the same class (and may never be).

Re: SES-10 Mission

#158

Post by theothermkn »

mr_overalls wrote: post #87

The obvious question: how much cheaper will a reusable rocket make it, per pound, to put a payload in orbit?

I've run through this calculation here before, but it's always interesting to rehash:

Both LOX and kerosene are about the price of milk. If we assume that a gallon of either weighs about 7 lbs, then it takes, at 1% mass fraction, 99 lbs, or about 14 gallons, of fuel and oxidizer to put a pound of payload into orbit. At a 2% mass fraction, it's only 7 gallons. Call it $3.50 per gallon, so the fuel cost for a pound of payload is only about $25-$50. It's truly negligible compared to the cost of the rocket, whose costs are tied mainly literally to paperwork, due to the very tight margins on the factors of safety.

The rest of the equilibrium cost is going to be amortizing that rocket over as many launches as is responsible.

Re: SES-10 Mission

#159

Post by jacquesm »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #142
vtange wrote: post #4

Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? Would be a bummer if people decided they were a monopoly of some sort and demanded a break up.

Arianespace is their biggest competitor, they are the de facto rulers of the commercial launch market, with SpaceX hot on their heels. The Ariane 5 launches twin payloads about 7 times a year, for a total of about 14 total spacecraft launches per year. SpaceX is about at a similar cadence but has yet to hit the overall schedule and mission reliability figures that Arianespace has achieved so it's still a bit of a rac…

The one part of the market where they will continue to see competition is for those payloads/trajectories where there is no way to land the booster.
Post reply on HN