SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by neurotech1 » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 1:59 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #135

neurotech1 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's why it's likely the manned Dragon capsule will be one of the safest manned spacecraft in history. Lets not forget that the two shuttle accidents were as much about a human factors failure, as a systems failure. Make no mistake about it, If a company like SpaceX ever got complacent about safety, it is game over. They will not get a second chance. Remember McDonald-Douglas, and how many DC-10 accidents, that b…

I wouldn't say the DC-10 problems of the 1970s forced McDonnell-Douglas out of the airliner business. They continued in business into the 1990s before being acquired by Boeing. The DC-10 itself was in passenger service until just a few years ago, and is still flown in freighter and military configurations.

The last DC-10 airliner was made in the 80s. The 747 is still in production. People aren't buying tickets to fly FedEx so the safety perception isn't as big an issue.

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

#142

Post by ams6110 » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 2:46 AM UTC

neurotech1 wrote: post #141

ams6110 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say the DC-10 problems of the 1970s forced McDonnell-Douglas out of the airliner business. They continued in business into the 1990s before being acquired by Boeing. The DC-10 itself was in passenger service until just a few years ago, and is still flown in freighter and military configurations.

The last DC-10 airliner was made in the 80s. The 747 is still in production. People aren't buying tickets to fly FedEx so the safety perception isn't as big an issue.

Perception is the key, statistically the DC-10 was not an unsafe aircraft. Its hull loss and fatality rates are not much different from the 747.

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

#143

Post by ams6110 » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 2:48 AM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #130

neurotech1 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's why it's likely the manned Dragon capsule will be one of the safest manned spacecraft in history. Lets not forget that the two shuttle accidents were as much about a human factors failure, as a systems failure. Make no mistake about it, If a company like SpaceX ever got complacent about safety, it is game over. They will not get a second chance. Remember McDonald-Douglas, and how many DC-10 accidents, that b…

The Space Shuttle was a far less reliable system from a fundamental design perspective. The size of the wings, the nature of the thermal protection system, the insulating foam and the use of a super-cryogen as fuel, the side-by-side staging, the use of solid fueled boosters on a manned launcher, etc. Engineering estimates show that we were incredibly, incredibly lucky to have the Shuttle safety record we did, the veh…

Remember the space shuttle is a 1970s design. I'd certainly expect that a 21st century design would fare better in nearly every regard.

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

#144

Post by btilly » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 3:56 AM UTC

nhangen wrote: post #118

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…

You speak as though you are not a fan of SpaceX. Care to explain why?

I actually am a fan of SpaceX.

But I am not a fan of using as yet unproven superlatives. They will have a failure rate. They will have a fatality rate. The only question is what that rate will be. And right now we have no useful data on that.

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

#145

Post by droithomme » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 4:16 AM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #131

droithomme wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is your issue that the are trying to make it the safest, or that they said that they are trying to make it the safest? The article doesn't say they are trying to make it the safest and it doesn't say they said they are trying to make it the safest. The article says it will be the safest, even though it hasn't even been tested in flight.

Specifically what it says: "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." That reads to me as "We are working hard with the goal of making it the safest." They haven't done it yet, but they are stating what they hope to do. Anyway, I think you are looking at this too hard.

Specifically what the article says, and which I quoted in my opening post here on this topic, is "the Falcon 9-Dragon combination will be the safest spacecraft ever developed".

This article is not just the unqualified opinion of the blog SpaceFlight Now, the article is a word for word printing of the following official Space-X corporate Press Release, exactly as quoted. It is an official claim by the company.

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120803

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

#146

Post by adastra » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 4:46 AM UTC

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…

Ignore the launch statistics. Only one thing matters: SpaceX is hiring the top grads of the top aerospace engineering schools, and no one else even comes close. There's a Michigan professor who said every year he keeps track of his top "rock star" students to see where they end up, and the last couple of years almost all of them have gone to work at SpaceX. We're talking the top 1% of aerospace engineers of the top schools for aerospace: MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Purdue, Michigan, etc. etc. Elon is getting them all. That is why he will succeed, and you can take it to the bank.

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

#147

Post by natep » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 4:57 AM UTC

alpine wrote: post #125

natep wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let us know how building that space elevator goes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2M73aXuORI

Why don't you brief me. I'd be interested in how you invalidate my argument in the above.

You've lost me. Are you admitting that you have no counterargument to the video, which argues that space elevators are too impractical to be made in the forseeable future, or just pretending I didn't post it?

And by argument above, do you mean your paranoid rantings about government takeover of SpaceX? Personally, I'm more worried about corporations having too much influence on the government, not the other way around.

As for your nationalisation examples:

1. The gold confiscation had nothing to do with private companies

2. oil nationalisation didn't take place in America

3. I have no idea what in the 70's you're refering to

4. Bailouts: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that SpaceX will never be so integral to the national economy that it can't fail without taking down the whole system. Nor that Elon Musk will take on so much risk that he is in danger of failing.

And you can't have it both ways, Mr. "However, lazy quips aside, the past is not the future." If that's the position you're going to argue from, then you can defend literally any claim about the future, to the point where effects no longer have causes.

If you really want to learn about how moneyed interests have corrupted the US government, you should read _Republic, Lost_ by Lawrence Lessig http://www.indiebound.org/book/9780446576437

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

#148

Post by JoeCortopassi » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 5:29 AM UTC

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…

My comment sparks a legitimate discussion, is on topic, and I get downvoted? My apologies for not knowing the finer points of why orbiting vehicles need to gain velocity instead of altitude...

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

#149

Post by jlgreco » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 6:14 AM UTC

droithomme wrote: post #145

jlgreco wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically what it says: "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." That reads to me as "We are working hard with the goal of making it the safest." They haven't done it yet, but they are stating what they hope to do. Anyway, I think you are looking at this too hard.

Specifically what the article says, and which I quoted in my opening post here on this topic, is "the Falcon 9-Dragon combination will be the safest spacecraft ever developed". This article is not just the unqualified opinion of the blog SpaceFlight Now, the article is a word for word printing of the following official Space-X corporate Press Release, exactly as quoted. It is an official claim by the company. http://…

Regardless, I maintain that you are looking for something that really is not there.

This is from a company that has faced criticism from prominent figures that safety would be an issue simply because they were not NASA. It only makes sense that they would place a high emphasis on safety in their public relations in light of that.

Not to mention this is coming from a company who's president said just a few days ago, "In the early days of aviation there was a great deal of experimentation and a high death rate. We don't want that — the public would not be accepting — but by the same token we can't have a situation where no deaths are ever allowed, because that would put innovation in a coffin too."

This simply is not a company that is taking the safety of their craft for granted.

I still don't understand what you think their attitude towards safety should be.

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

#150

Post by anovikov » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 6:39 AM UTC

alpine wrote: post #112

erikpukinskis wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I commend SpaceX for the work they've done to reduce the costs, but it's not particularly fair to compare to the Shuttle program for several reasons: 1) SpaceX employs engineers who worked on the Shuttle, thus getting all of their lessons learned for free. 2) SpaceX gets to use facilities NASA built, like launchpads and testing facilities much more cheaply than if they had to build their own facilities. They tested t…

If I remember my history correctly, the original shuttle objectives were compromised by US intelligence interests that required the shuttle to attain certain latitudes that were good for launching intel assets? If so, the shuttle program could have been a lot cheaper?

It was even worse. They required ability to fly to polar orbits, plus ability to make single-orbit missions, which meant a lot of cross-range (meaning otherwise unnecessarily heavy wings). To make things worse, nobody ever paid for these features because Air Force bailed out of Shuttle project long before first flight, but when it was too late to delete hardware needed for these now-unnecessary features. Shuttle had terribly bad luck since the beginning.