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

Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#61

Post by panick21_ »

jltsiren wrote: post #40
panick21_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its not really aspirational so much as it is long term planning. If you 20 years ago had told people the launch rates SpaceX is achieving now people would have laughed you out of the room. And this is not from SpaceX private launch site, but a government owned launch site. SpaceX has really been the driving force behind advancing the nations launch infrastructure and launch practices. I don't see any reason w…

The USSR averaged >1.5 launches/week from 1967 to 1989. SpaceX has exceeded that, but not by a huge margin. Once they start doing daily launches, it will be something people would not have believed 20 years ago. But we are not there yet.

It is a huge margin when you take into account the size of the rocket. Also, the area where SpaceX launches has so much more distractions and other users that it is more impressive.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#62

Post by jltsiren »

panick21_ wrote: post #61
jltsiren wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USSR averaged >1.5 launches/week from 1967 to 1989. SpaceX has exceeded that, but not by a huge margin. Once they start doing daily launches, it will be something people would not have believed 20 years ago. But we are not there yet.

It is a huge margin when you take into account the size of the rocket. Also, the area where SpaceX launches has so much more distractions and other users that it is more impressive.

The other way around. SpaceX benefits from modern technology and modern manufacturing capacity, which make scaling things much easier than during the Cold War. Overall production has grown greatly in most fields, and top companies often rival superpowers of the past in their field.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#63

Post by nycdotnet »

philipallstar wrote: post #44
ffsm8 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, you're aware that the space shuttle was "reusable" though, right? Because in this context, your question would squarly land around the time before STS-1 was launched in '81 For this to be about space x, you'd have to add some qualifiers - like "privately owned"

The shuttle's rockets were not reusable.

The shuttle’s solid rocket boosters splashed down in the ocean via parachute, and were recovered and reused. The main engines and thrusters/rcs were also reused. Only the external tank was disposed. The issue with the shuttle (among many) was that the reuse was not actually economical due to the maintenance required between each launch.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#64

Post by panick21_ »

jltsiren wrote: post #62
panick21_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a huge margin when you take into account the size of the rocket. Also, the area where SpaceX launches has so much more distractions and other users that it is more impressive.

The other way around. SpaceX benefits from modern technology and modern manufacturing capacity, which make scaling things much easier than during the Cold War. Overall production has grown greatly in most fields, and top companies often rival superpowers of the past in their field.

Labor cost have gone up not down. Rocket manufactre is still incredible labor intensive. The Soviet Union had very low labor cost. The only way SpaceX could do it is by innovating into renewables.

The Soviets did it mostly be mass manufacture of 1960 technology and most launches still today use the same tech.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#65

Post by philipallstar »

nycdotnet wrote: post #63
philipallstar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shuttle's rockets were not reusable.

The shuttle’s solid rocket boosters splashed down in the ocean via parachute, and were recovered and reused. The main engines and thrusters/rcs were also reused. Only the external tank was disposed. The issue with the shuttle (among many) was that the reuse was not actually economical due to the maintenance required between each launch.

> the reuse was not actually economical

Well - yes :) That is what reusable actually means. Anything's "reusable" if you spend enough money. The idea is it's worth doing.

Re: Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport

#66

Post by fragmede »

ionwake wrote: post #51
ACCount37 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notably, Blue Origin got its case thrown out, as NASA has demonstrated that Starship was selected for HLS over National Team option on technical merit. Not that it stopped Bezos from lobbying for a second round of HLS contracts and securing a contract for Blue Origin anyway. But at least that resulted in a second HLS - instead of SpaceX's contract being clawed back.

I just thought once you are that rich, when doing "space races" that there was some sort of collaboration, due to difficulty, greater good? Im not sure why I see the space race differently

Once you're that rich, your ego won't let someone else's rocket be bigger/faster/better than yours. Otherwise we (humanity) would collaboratively be going to the moon first.
Post reply on HN