SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#311

Post by tectonic » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

jorblumesea wrote: post #284

tectonic wrote: post #209

This is a huge success for NASA's Commercial Crew Program. Both the total development costs ($1.7B and $2.8B for Crew Dragon and Starliner, respectively) and the per-seat costs ($60-67M and $91-99M) have outperformed all other NASA crewed programs since the early days of the agency. For comparison, development costs for the Space Shuttle were $27.4B, while Orion is estimated at $23.7B. (From https://orbitalindex.com…

But how much of that cost was initial R&D vs what SpaceX was doing? It's hard to compare costs given that it feels like much of NASA space development was science research into how to actually do it, paving the way for future projects. There are many examples of successful commercial programs that could only exist because of huge ("unprofitable") government R&D behind it. Google maps, the entire internet, commercial…

Yes, there were likely other costs, but from NASA's perspective, their costs were way lower. For example, for their first investment of $396M in commercial cargo deliveries to the ISS with SpaceX, they got the development of the Cargo Dragon, the Falcon 9, and the KSC launch site.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#312

Post by yolomcsuperswag » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

markus_zhang wrote: post #305

sandworm101 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. If we are talking pure commercial travel, it is a vehicle without a destination. The ISS is definitely not a commercial project. There are lots of reasons for the ISS to exist, and they have changed over time, but it has never been a money-making venture. While the dragons certainly do come in under budget, they are a more…

hmmm

Money is just a technology to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. Are you suggesting capitalism has a problem in that people voluntarily exchange goods and services, and if so: How could that be bad?

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#313

Post by justin66 » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

fermienrico wrote: post #185

bryanlarsen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two rows of physical buttons below the touch screens along with a large manual abort lever. The physical buttons are used for manual docking.

And it’s painted black against black backdrop when the decision to pull it happens in milliseconds level. :facepalm: This is what a Martin Baker ejection handle looks like: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BJTDWG/martin-baker-ejection-seat-... With all due respect to all the engineers that work at SpaceX, the UI of the cockpit has regressed to the point of pure marketing. Same with the suit design, looks like an awful low b…

> Same with the suit design, looks like an awful low budget sci-fi film.

Or a high budget sci fi film, or a medium budget sci fi film, since literally every film involving a spacesuit ever made had a more reasonable design than the utterly ridiculous, cumbersome, and bulky Hamilton Standard design American astronauts were stuck with for such a long time.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#314

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

blackrock wrote: post #294

zitterbewegung wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people are floating the idea that eventually we would either have commercial companies adding a "space hotel" to the ISS for testing purposes and when the ISS is retired that the hotel would continue to exist. Once you have companies either vying for real estate in orbit the demand for people to visit the hotel could eventually spur demand for other places to go.

SpaceX should build space modules next, after they finish Starship. And interconnect them to make a ring. Then spin the ring to generate artificial gravity. And leave a center pod for zero-g activities. Now that would make a fantastic space hotel.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#315

Post by runarberg » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #299

andy_ppp wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even when robots can do this, the defiance of our physical limitations is beyond something we should be able to do. It’s the best of us as a species risking our lives for progress and similarly to something like free solo, even if I’m not capable of doing something so death defying it makes me feel alive to see people who push the boundaries of what’s possible so far.

That's a fair point. Hell, I'd argue that half the interest in spaceflight (except those of people seeing it all through the lens of an Excel sheet) is because of the idea of sending people up there. That alone makes an occasional manned mission worth it, just to keep the general interest alive.

It is not the 1910s any more. We don’t risk other peoples lives on exploration. Heroic though it might seem, it is ultimately foolish. We are already exploring the solar system with machines. And there is no reason to risk the explorers life for a more limited and more expensive ways to explore.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#316

Post by aaronmdjones » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:26 PM UTC

speedgoose wrote: post #183

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've already seen conspiracy theorists online who claimed that loss of signal during every first stage landing is a proof that it's all a hoax. Like, they switch footage to another droneship with a rocket that was always there. I wonder if these people believe in flat Earth, too?

I read that the loss of the connection is very likely hardware related but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX simply doesn't want to livestream something that may crash with a high probability. Nothing to do with the anti-science flat earth movement.

SpaceX has actually very openly admitted to all of their previous failures in this area: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#317

Post by ecpottinger » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

speedgoose wrote: post #183

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've already seen conspiracy theorists online who claimed that loss of signal during every first stage landing is a proof that it's all a hoax. Like, they switch footage to another droneship with a rocket that was always there. I wonder if these people believe in flat Earth, too?

I read that the loss of the connection is very likely hardware related but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX simply doesn't want to livestream something that may crash with a high probability. Nothing to do with the anti-science flat earth movement.

Then they would not put out this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ with music even.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#318

Post by philwelch » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

jdm2212 wrote: post #252

philwelch wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that doesn't make sense. SpaceX can achieve much higher profit margins by reusing rockets, even with lower prices, because their costs are lowered by a much greater proportion thanks to reusability. Also, Boeing doesn't make mistakes as the result of some bizarre conspiracy that turns out to benefit them in the end. Most of Boeing's mistakes hurt Boeing.

> SpaceX can achieve much higher profit margins by reusing rockets What I've always heard is the legacy defense contractors are used to cost-plus contracts where you don't make bigger profits by reducing costs. They sometimes don't adapt well to firm-fixed-price contracts because changing the organizational culture takes ages. And also the reality is that they can keep raking in money anyway -- Boeing is in fact coll…

That might be the case, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that you can turn a bigger profit by making your rockets reusable. Boeing isn't even just a "legacy defense contractor"--a massive part of their business is commercial airliners. That hasn't gone well for them either lately.

I think the more reasonable explanation for Boeing is that they already have access to ULA's proven launch vehicles, so designing a new one just for Starliner wasn't necessary. I think Boeing just chose a more conservative strategy while SpaceX managed to out-innovate them.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#319

Post by sephamorr » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

avmich wrote: post #20

sephamorr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RCS engines are practically always hypergolic since you need to be able to pulse on and off very easily/quickly, and propellents need to be storable (non-cryo). If you look at the choices remaining, they're all various levels of extremely toxic.

Buran had non-toxic components for RCS. Kliper was planned with non-toxic RCS. Soyuz spacecraft at least has non-toxic components for capsule RCS, so when the capsule lands, it doesn't need to be approached in a chemical protection suit. It's not a question of choices - there are choices. I suspect it's a question which is considered less important so far, so SpaceX didn't pay that much attention to it, considering t…

Soyuz still uses UDMH and nitrogen tetroxide as its propellants. It simply jettisons the propulsion module before reentry so the reentry module has no thruster system and therefore no (toxic) fuel. With the return of a SpaceX vehicle, the recovery crew don't have suits on, that would be very unwieldy at sea, and they would just back off if trace gas detectors measure a toxic leak.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#320

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sat, May 30, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

zitterbewegung wrote: post #238

sandworm101 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. If we are talking pure commercial travel, it is a vehicle without a destination. The ISS is definitely not a commercial project. There are lots of reasons for the ISS to exist, and they have changed over time, but it has never been a money-making venture. While the dragons certainly do come in under budget, they are a more…

Most people are floating the idea that eventually we would either have commercial companies adding a "space hotel" to the ISS for testing purposes and when the ISS is retired that the hotel would continue to exist. Once you have companies either vying for real estate in orbit the demand for people to visit the hotel could eventually spur demand for other places to go.

I would be astounded if there were no space hotel projects shopping around for finance already.

Although I think given the likely customer profile we're at least as likely to get Vegas-in-Orbit - casinos, hookers and all - as labs and exploration.