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

After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 153 posts

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#31

Post by bserge »

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #28
sandworm101 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Staraship: 0.1B dollars worse case scenario (Elon aims at 0.002B$) Lol. No. That is beyond pipe dream territory. There a innumerable costs associated with spacelaunch that have absolutely nothing to do with reusability. Range closures. Payload integration. Regulatory compliance (ie safety). Telemetry. That USAF person in the back of the room with their finger on the destruct button. That stuff doesn't happen for f…

> And... insurance. To add to everything else already mentioned, when launch price goes down, it suddenly becomes feasible to build much cheaper satellites: both because you can afford to build them heavier, and you can take more risk. That reduces insurance costs.

That's an interesting thought. I wonder what advances could be made to satellites if they were allowed to make them twice as heavy, for example.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#32

Post by sidlls »

JackFr wrote: post #2

I’m not a rocket scientist and I also don’t want to bash NASA, but the size of the budget here coupled with the lack of transparency about the failure is in stark contrast with what we’ve seen out of both SpaceX and Blue Origin. Maybe what NASA is trying to do here from an engineering perspective is much, much harder. I also feel there may be unjustified spin in this article. But to an untrained eye this article sure…

As if SpaceX has delivered anything that isn’t: a) (effectively) government funded and b) built on the back of decades of NASA engineering effort. Blue Origin hasn’t actually done anything.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#33

Post by sandworm101 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #22
sandworm101 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Staraship: 0.1B dollars worse case scenario (Elon aims at 0.002B$) Lol. No. That is beyond pipe dream territory. There a innumerable costs associated with spacelaunch that have absolutely nothing to do with reusability. Range closures. Payload integration. Regulatory compliance (ie safety). Telemetry. That USAF person in the back of the room with their finger on the destruct button. That stuff doesn't happen for f…

> That USAF person in the back of the room with their finger on the destruct button. I'm not going up until that job is eliminated!

Then you aren't going up. Rockets are massive tanks of explosives flying through the air at supersonic speeds. That person is there to protect the people on the ground. Launch escape systems will protect the crew, but given the energies involved, the crew is less important than the potential for killing hundreds on the ground, or potentially thousands onboard a cruise ship.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#34

Post by Beached »

sidlls wrote: post #32
JackFr wrote: post #2

I’m not a rocket scientist and I also don’t want to bash NASA, but the size of the budget here coupled with the lack of transparency about the failure is in stark contrast with what we’ve seen out of both SpaceX and Blue Origin. Maybe what NASA is trying to do here from an engineering perspective is much, much harder. I also feel there may be unjustified spin in this article. But to an untrained eye this article sure…

As if SpaceX has delivered anything that isn’t: a) (effectively) government funded and b) built on the back of decades of NASA engineering effort. Blue Origin hasn’t actually done anything.

falcon? to my knowledge nasa has only partially funded cargo and crewed dragon, falcon 1 and 9 were developed through private funding and became profitable and stable before nasa even got their hands in the pot.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#35

Post by mdorazio »

sidlls wrote: post #32
JackFr wrote: post #2

I’m not a rocket scientist and I also don’t want to bash NASA, but the size of the budget here coupled with the lack of transparency about the failure is in stark contrast with what we’ve seen out of both SpaceX and Blue Origin. Maybe what NASA is trying to do here from an engineering perspective is much, much harder. I also feel there may be unjustified spin in this article. But to an untrained eye this article sure…

As if SpaceX has delivered anything that isn’t: a) (effectively) government funded and b) built on the back of decades of NASA engineering effort. Blue Origin hasn’t actually done anything.

I'm really tired of seeing this stupid argument that SpaceX is government funded. The entire aerospace industry is government funded because the government has huge amounts of money and offers large contracts to many companies. By this measure, Palantir and many younger startups are also government funded. It's a meaningless statement. Bash SpaceX for their work culture and other issues all you want, but their business model is just fine.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#36

Post by sandworm101 »

bserge wrote: post #31
Denvercoder9 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And... insurance. To add to everything else already mentioned, when launch price goes down, it suddenly becomes feasible to build much cheaper satellites: both because you can afford to build them heavier, and you can take more risk. That reduces insurance costs.

That's an interesting thought. I wonder what advances could be made to satellites if they were allowed to make them twice as heavy, for example.

None. If you want a heavier satellite you simply have to pay proportionally more to launch it. Nobody outside of government agencies comes anywhere close to the maximum load of a single super heavy launch, and even that "battleship" approach to satellites is giving way to smaller devices. So the mass isn't really the limiting factor, rather it is cost. Doubling of launch weights for a price, being able to launch at a 50% discount, won't result in any spectacular technology. What will happen is that big communication satellites will be given large fuel tanks, longer service lives, that ironically might reduce the number of needed launches of large satellites to geostationary orbit. NASA will be able to more cheaply explore the solar system. While people wanting to launch on the cheap will benefit, they generally won't have the funds to push any technological boundaries.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#37

Post by tailspin2019 »

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new.

Hasn’t SpaceX proved that?

The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN.

I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving forwards.

Should we cut the NASA team a bit of slack?

Let’s not forget also that it’s NASA who have also drastically changed their strategy and have enabled private companies like SpaceX to shine through their partnerships.

NASA is big, wasteful, bureaucratic yes, but they are changing, slowly... and this “failure” is not the stick I’d choose to beat them with.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#38

Post by mcbutterbunz »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new. Hasn’t SpaceX proved that? The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN. I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving fo…

I don’t mind failure and I understand there are going to be setbacks. I just wish they would fail faster. I love NASA and all they’ve done but 10 years of SLS without a launch makes me doubt this thing will ever get off the ground. With a new administration, I feel like we’re one setback away from the whole thing being cancelled.

Re: After a decade, NASA’s big rocket fails its first real test

#39

Post by ElFitz »

tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

You have to fail to move forwards. A lack of failure is a sign of a lack of trying anything new. Hasn’t SpaceX proved that? The negative commentary around this seems a little in contrast to how we’d talk about a SpaceX “failure” on HN. I know NASA and SpaceX are very different, but Elon is the king of drifting deadlines too. And SpaceX do fail, but they do a good job of “owning their failures” and they keep moving fo…

True, but they are failing very, very, slowly.

The big difference between NASA and SpaceX lies in how fast they each move, and what they are failing at.

Failing at launching the first private rocket on a tight budget, at landing a rocket for the first time, or at iterating on rocket designs at pace rarely, if ever, seen before is expected. As a matter of fact, it’s success that isn’t expected.

Failing at making yet another (very expensive) rocket built by supposedly experienced manufacturers overseen by a huge public organisation over more than a decade with huge funding? Well, it’s a bit disturbing to say the least.

Post reply on HN