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

SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

spaceflightnow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 188 posts

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#31

Post by eavc »

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #21

Every time I see something like a rocket or space shuttle launch, I can't help but wonder how much of the weight and cost could be saved using alternative methods . Even helium/hydrogen filled balloons could get them a good chunk of the way there. I know that would be horribly impractical for something the size of the shuttle and it's rocket boosters/fuel tanks, but if a balloon rig can get them to 120,000 ft they ha…

I've seen this idea on Reddit before, and it was explained that the issue of getting to orbit has nothing to do with altitude and everything to do with velocity.

You can be a great deal farther away from the Earth than orbital altitudes, but if you're not actually orbiting, you're going to fall directly toward the surface.

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#32

Post by jonmrodriguez »

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #21

Every time I see something like a rocket or space shuttle launch, I can't help but wonder how much of the weight and cost could be saved using alternative methods . Even helium/hydrogen filled balloons could get them a good chunk of the way there. I know that would be horribly impractical for something the size of the shuttle and it's rocket boosters/fuel tanks, but if a balloon rig can get them to 120,000 ft they ha…

Getting upward isn't the problem. It's acquiring the massive horizontal speed required to orbit that is more energy expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Launch.2Flanding

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#33

Post by JPKab »

austenallred wrote: post #12

I'm impressed that there's $440M left in NASA (or over $1 Billion with Sierra Nevada and Boeing included) to fund a new space shuttle, somehow I was under the false impression that there wouldn't be any more of that type of thing. Hats off, Elon Musk. Hats. Off.

It's a travesty that Boeing got more than SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada got any money at all. I can't wait to see those two bloated, horrifically managed behemoths fail miserable with the money. The only reason NASA gave them anything was to shut up the congressman Boeing and Sierra have in their pockets. Remember this, because SpaceX, with slightly less money than Boeing, will produce FAR, FAR more.

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#34

Post by derekp7 »

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #21

Every time I see something like a rocket or space shuttle launch, I can't help but wonder how much of the weight and cost could be saved using alternative methods . Even helium/hydrogen filled balloons could get them a good chunk of the way there. I know that would be horribly impractical for something the size of the shuttle and it's rocket boosters/fuel tanks, but if a balloon rig can get them to 120,000 ft they ha…

The job of the rockets isn't to gain height (that is a side effect), unless you are working with a sub-orbital design. The job is to accelerate the payload to around Mach 25 or so. The reason this is challenging is that you not only have to accelerate the payload, you also have to accelerate the fuel, fuel tanks, engines, and other associated hardware too. Which is why the promising techs mostly revolve around using less fuel (such as rail launch for the initial oomph), or something like scram jet for the first stage (they part of the fuel and reaction mass comes from the atmosphere for the first few Mach). Or something that has very small fuel amounts, and only caries reaction mass (nuclear with H2O as the reaction mass).

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#35

Post by netfire »

btilly wrote: post #20

It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed". But a lot of stuff can go wrong - fast - when you're sitting on a big pile of potential explosives that under other circumstances you'd keep a safe distance from. Until they actually achieve it, you shouldn't throw the superlatives around. I will be the first to applaud if SpaceX achieves this goal. I am certain that they want to achieve this goal. Bu…

I'm curious to know how this compares to other new aircraft testing, since there are already plenty of commercial companies in that space. Admittedly, spacecraft is a a bit different from normal aircraft, but something going horribly wrong in either situation still means almost certain death.

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#36

Post by jlgreco »

droithomme wrote: post #18

"the Falcon 9-Dragon combination will be the safest spacecraft ever developed" Oh I wish they hadn't said that, they said the same thing about the Titanic.

Well, they said the Titanic would be unsinkable, not less sinkable than previously developed ships.

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#38

Post by hammock »

So SpaceX is now officially a government contractor. This may be the beginning of the end for them. Can we name any govt contractor with a $400MM contract that has stayed true to its entrepreneurial principles and not fallen into the rent-seeking abyss?

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#39

Post by natep »

physcab wrote: post #28
btilly wrote: post #20

It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed". But a lot of stuff can go wrong - fast - when you're sitting on a big pile of potential explosives that under other circumstances you'd keep a safe distance from. Until they actually achieve it, you shouldn't throw the superlatives around. I will be the first to applaud if SpaceX achieves this goal. I am certain that they want to achieve this goal. Bu…

This is a pretty important observation. I will applaud SpaceX for their efforts as well, but there is a massive difference between transporting cargo into space and human beings. SpaceX claims their transport is cheaper but they have not claimed it is safer . If they are really aiming for the human transportation business I wonder if the true cost of their rocket ships will be much more on par with existing vehicles.…

From TFA: "This is a decisive milestone in human spaceflight and sets an exciting course for the next phase of American space exploration," said SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer Elon Musk. "SpaceX, along with our partners at NASA, will continue to push the boundaries of space technology to develop the safest, most advanced crew vehicle ever flown."

So yes, he is claiming it is the safest, and I think he has good reason to, as your sibling comments explain.

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#40

Post by natep »

ceejayoz wrote: post #25
btilly wrote: post #20

It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed". But a lot of stuff can go wrong - fast - when you're sitting on a big pile of potential explosives that under other circumstances you'd keep a safe distance from. Until they actually achieve it, you shouldn't throw the superlatives around. I will be the first to applaud if SpaceX achieves this goal. I am certain that they want to achieve this goal. Bu…

> It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed". But a lot of stuff can go wrong - fast - when you're sitting on a big pile of potential explosives that under other circumstances you'd keep a safe distance from. Until they actually achieve it, you shouldn't throw the superlatives around. This claim revolves more around the fact that the rocket can do a powered abort at any time, I think. It's pure…

It also revolves around the fact that it's a comparison to other rockets, not any mode of transport imaginable.
Post reply on HN