Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's cheaper then yes.
They're not talking about cheaper, they are talking about more reliable.
Well, you can combine cheapness and reliability by looking at total cost after launch insurance.
SES-10 Mission
231–240 of 368 posts
Re: SES-10 Mission
#232History was being made today. Super, congratulations to all of SpaceX. Now let's see the landing :) STUCK THE LANDING :) :) :) Apologies to my neighbors who I surely woke up. Hah :) Incredible! Now, will they fly this one again?
In the Post-Mission Press Briefing [1] Elon Musk said SpaceX will gift the stage to "the cape" (so either NASA Kennedy Space Center or the CCAFS) because it's historic. Also, they don't need to keep the Block 3 cores, they want to transition to Block 5 as soon as they can to get the 7 flights of a frozen configuration of Block 5 to get certified for flying people.
Re: SES-10 Mission
#233I can't wait until I have a talk with my kids when they realize the significance of this day: Kid: Daddy, ou mean when you were growing up, they threw away rockets each time? Me: Yes Kid: Doesn't that make them expensive? Me: Yes. And then not long after will be the other talk: Kid: Daddy, you mean people used to be in charge of driving themselves in cars? Me: Yes Kid: Did people ever die? Me: Millions Good job Elon…
>I can't wait until I have a talk with my kids when they realize the significance of this day https://goo.gl/photos/7rT5rxvsP9AxVZxn6 My four year old daughter, watching the launch with rapt attention. When we watched the Echostar 23 launch two weeks ago, she asked why it didn't land... Crazy that rockets landing is already totally normal for her.
Your backyard is a forest? Looks awesome :)
btw, I suggest disabling sharing geo location of photos (https://photos.google.com/settings - Remove geo location in items shared by link).
Re: SES-10 Mission
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's easy to confuse Blue Origin with other companies with paper plans, but they're the real deal. Besides having demonstrated clear competence with New Shepard (with an LH2 engine no less), the orbital version is well underway. They've leased the pad, are currently building the factory, and are testing the engine. And Bezos definitely has the money. They may not be flying the New Glenn yet, but they will.
Re: SES-10 Mission
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think the stated reason for building a sustainable city on Mars--to ensure that a disaster on Earth doesn't end the species--is a damned good one. The science and other technology that will come as a result of the colonization is just bonus.
Re: SES-10 Mission
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure the plan is to put this one in a museum. Later variants are supposed to be easier and more reliable to re-fly.
Something to think about: pretty soon there will be nothing strange about a rocket that has flown before. Contrast it with the feeling you have for a 737 that has done 2500 starts and landing prior to you going on board, it's a sign of confidence that it did that. Now it will be many many years before there will be boosters with numbers of take-offs and landings > 20 or so but at some point insurance premiums for unf…
>737 that has done 2500 starts and landing
You can probably add another zero there. 737 airframes don't even need a special inspection and maintenance program until they hit 60,000 takeoff/landing cycles. [1]
[1] http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf...
Re: SES-10 Mission
#237SpaceX is an amazing company that is moving innovation forward in leaps and bounds. I love this because it does bring people together and gets humans to look up, above problems and fighting and gets us realizing we are in this together.
I still cannot get over the reverse landing on the drone that first time[1] it was almost unreal and took them a while to get there [2]. That image is seared in my brain like the moon landing probably is for people who lived through that.
It was about a year ago and SpaceX is already, in less than a year, performed the reverse landing on the drone and successful relaunched. Amazing moment in human history and SpaceX continues to lead the way.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPGUQySBikQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa_mtakPlfw
Re: SES-10 Mission
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if you go to the extreme case (the entire rocket is reusable with _no_ refurbishment) the cost of rocket fuel is $200,000 while the approximate cost of the hardware is in the range of $60M. So, in the extreme case it would be _massively_ cheaper. On the order of 99% savings. At the moment, SpaceX is only reusing a portion of the rocket (the first stage, not the second stage or the fairings ). And that re-used p…
I honestly don't think they'll _have_ the chance to enjoy the margins. There will likely be a lot more competition in the future. The Chinese, Russians, Indians, blue origin, vector space systems, and United Launch Alliance finally getting their shit together, trying to do a redesign to better compete.
Certainly in the long term they won't be able to enjoy their margins.
However, they are already one of the lowest cost launch providers available at the moment. Others have work to do just to catch up with SpaceX today. And _nobody_ is just around the corner on reusability. I don't know of any other provider that will have a reusable launch in the next 3 years.
Even then, those other providers will just be dipping their toes in reusability.
I suspect, if reusability starts going well for them SpaceX will have 4-6 years to enjoy the benefits of being the only major provider on the market with a reusable first stage booster. It won't last forever, but there are some good times coming up for them in the near-term if they can keep things running smoothly.
Re: SES-10 Mission
#239Amazing! I genuinely think that this is a bigger deal than the moon landings. The moon landings were pretty awesome in their own way, but at the end of the day, with the way they were done, it was basically a stunt. None of it put any infrastructure for the long-term access of space into place, or anything to make future moon landings easier. This paves the way for the costs of space flight to be cut in half, or even…
The space program of the 1960s, culminating with the moon landings, seems like a far greater achievement to me than what SpaceX is doing, adjusted for the state of the art.
Re: SES-10 Mission
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bit disappointing to me that poverty, human trafficking, addiction, habitat destruxtion, cultural erasure, genocide, torture, extinction, etc aren't very powerful motivators for such people. I feel such pressure to use our new skills to solve these problems, but I know 10 years ago they were a combination of invisible/impossible to me. If I hadn't been aggressively pushed by smart feminists to examine my life…
They're not really comparable. You can engineer your way to Mars. You cannot engineer your way to a solution for addiction or violence; unless you want to launch a full-blown dystopian eugenics program.
That's a bit disingenuous. There are people are trying to engineer solutions to those problems, both with and without technology. They've also been around longer than rocket scientists. For every 1 SpaceX engineer, say there's 10 other humans working solving violence, addiction, homelessness using data and science. What if they just don't show up in TechCrunch.