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

SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 147 posts

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#21

Post by grinich »

BrandonMarc wrote: post #13
[deleted] wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

"Seems like the wrong time to be sending hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kremlin" -- Elon Musk He's certainly not making friends in Russia today. That said, I feel like the ISS is too important to be left to the whims of the US Congress. IIRC NASA plans to deorbit the American part of it within the next decade, while Russia keeps the rest aloft and turns it into a waystation for planetary missions.

Not many people know that he initially (pre-SpaceX) tried to buy a couple decommissioned ICBMs to send a plant to Mars. He was ready to write the check, and the Russians spiked the price at the last minute.

So he's probably got a grudge or two.

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#22

Post by jack-r-abbit »

redthrowaway wrote: post #16
cloudwalking wrote: post #7

- Successful soft landing in the Atlantic - Seas were too rough for a quick recovery - Rocket subsequently destroyed by wave action - Will attempt recovery of the next Falcon 9 launch - A Falcon 9 recovered on land could be re-used the next day (!) - SpaceX is lobbying to allow private competition for National Security launches (eg GPS satellites)

Is "the ocean was wavy" really a justifiable reason for losing the rocket? Surely sea conditions are something they'd take into account when planning and executing the mission.

Is "recover an un-manned rocket" really a justifiable reason for potentially losing lives at sea?

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#23

Post by Crito »

[deleted] wrote: post #10
BrandonMarc wrote: post #6

Equally large news from today's press conference at the National Press Club - SpaceX is taking on ULA (united launch alliance, a consortium of incumbent players in the market) and the "block buy" allocation of military / national-security launches to ULA. Here's their handout, from one of the reporters there: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/459734785314013184 Playing politics a bit, Elon's claiming a ~ 75% redu…

[deleted]

While I agree that it is definitely best to use domestic launchers and not have to rely on the Russians for engines or astronaut launch, I don't think that "Fuck the Russians" is really a great expression of that. Since Apollo-Soyuz, spaceflight has been something that our two countries can productively collaborate on, despite our (at times, vast) political differences.

Maintaining good relations between NASA and the RKA is valuable for everybody. SpaceX/RKA relations are less important however.

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#24

Post by Patrick_Devine »

Is it SpaceX's intention at some point to forgo the launch tower and launch directly off of the landing legs grasshopper style? I realize it's not really necessary, but it might make it easier to get a rocket off of Mars instead of having to build a tower. Although, presumably if you can refine rocket fuel on Mars, maybe building a launch tower is no big deal.

Anyways, kudos again to Musk and SpaceX.

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#25

Post by BrandonMarc »

physcab wrote: post #15
BrandonMarc wrote: post #6

Equally large news from today's press conference at the National Press Club - SpaceX is taking on ULA (united launch alliance, a consortium of incumbent players in the market) and the "block buy" allocation of military / national-security launches to ULA. Here's their handout, from one of the reporters there: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/459734785314013184 Playing politics a bit, Elon's claiming a ~ 75% redu…

ULA uses engines manufactured from many different sources. Some rockets fly with engines manufactured in Russia, and as far as I know these aren't necessarily new engines but re-used from the 60's. But other programs use engines manufactured in the US. Atlas V rockets have engines made by Aerojet Rocketdyne which is based in Sacramento California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V Also to match costs, you have to…

Good point. I should have said "some of" as a qualifier.

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#26

Post by kindredlight »

physcab wrote: post #15
BrandonMarc wrote: post #6

Equally large news from today's press conference at the National Press Club - SpaceX is taking on ULA (united launch alliance, a consortium of incumbent players in the market) and the "block buy" allocation of military / national-security launches to ULA. Here's their handout, from one of the reporters there: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/459734785314013184 Playing politics a bit, Elon's claiming a ~ 75% redu…

ULA uses engines manufactured from many different sources. Some rockets fly with engines manufactured in Russia, and as far as I know these aren't necessarily new engines but re-used from the 60's. But other programs use engines manufactured in the US. Atlas V rockets have engines made by Aerojet Rocketdyne which is based in Sacramento California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V Also to match costs, you have to…

All Atlas V first-stage engines (RD-180) are manufactured in Russia. That the second stage engines are made in the US doesn't change the fact that you're dependent on Russian supply.

In response to your edits:

>but they can't get more flights because of their record

The Air Force required 3 successful flights in the exact configuration the Air Force would fly. SpaceX provided the "record" as stipulated by the Air Force, which nevertheless committed to a large block-buy contract with ULA. By the Air Force's own standards, the billion-dollar subsidy is not necessary for their needs-to-get-to-space payloads.

Also, "the other companies" is just a single supplier, ULA.

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#27

Post by ash »

grinich wrote: post #21
BrandonMarc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Seems like the wrong time to be sending hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kremlin" -- Elon Musk He's certainly not making friends in Russia today. That said, I feel like the ISS is too important to be left to the whims of the US Congress. IIRC NASA plans to deorbit the American part of it within the next decade, while Russia keeps the rest aloft and turns it into a waystation for planetary missions.

Not many people know that he initially (pre-SpaceX) tried to buy a couple decommissioned ICBMs to send a plant to Mars. He was ready to write the check, and the Russians spiked the price at the last minute. So he's probably got a grudge or two.

I've heard of Russian ICBM story, but I haven't heard of this part before:

> the Russians spiked the price at the last minute

What's the source for this part?

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#28

Post by lutusp »

redthrowaway wrote: post #16
cloudwalking wrote: post #7

- Successful soft landing in the Atlantic - Seas were too rough for a quick recovery - Rocket subsequently destroyed by wave action - Will attempt recovery of the next Falcon 9 launch - A Falcon 9 recovered on land could be re-used the next day (!) - SpaceX is lobbying to allow private competition for National Security launches (eg GPS satellites)

Is "the ocean was wavy" really a justifiable reason for losing the rocket? Surely sea conditions are something they'd take into account when planning and executing the mission.

You clearly have not been at sea, close to the water. A cylindrical object, without a sea anchor, in moderately rough seas, would naturally turn sideways to the waves and be destroyed very quickly in the breaking waves.

I don't know whether SpaceX has fitted their boosters with sea anchors yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this addition after the present loss. In windy conditions, a sea anchor provides some drag and keeps the boat (or booster) pointed perpendicular to the waves, thereby minimizing the force expended on the object.

> Surely sea conditions are something they'd take into account when planning and executing the mission.

Ocean experts are constantly preparing for extreme conditions, then discovering they didn't prepare for conditions that were extreme enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#29

Post by andrewtbham »

BrandonMarc wrote: post #6

Equally large news from today's press conference at the National Press Club - SpaceX is taking on ULA (united launch alliance, a consortium of incumbent players in the market) and the "block buy" allocation of military / national-security launches to ULA. Here's their handout, from one of the reporters there: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/459734785314013184 Playing politics a bit, Elon's claiming a ~ 75% redu…

I watched a senate hearing where Elon Musk squares off with the ULA. It's awesome. One great quote is where the ULA says Space X can't handle the missions. Elon responds. If our rockets are good enough for NASA, they are good enough for the Department of Defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#30

Post by beachstartup »

redthrowaway wrote: post #16
cloudwalking wrote: post #7

- Successful soft landing in the Atlantic - Seas were too rough for a quick recovery - Rocket subsequently destroyed by wave action - Will attempt recovery of the next Falcon 9 launch - A Falcon 9 recovered on land could be re-used the next day (!) - SpaceX is lobbying to allow private competition for National Security launches (eg GPS satellites)

Is "the ocean was wavy" really a justifiable reason for losing the rocket? Surely sea conditions are something they'd take into account when planning and executing the mission.

hmm, an armchair rocket scientist... don't think i've seen that one before.
Post reply on HN