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

41–50 of 147 posts

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

#41

Post by ericd »

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…

Wow, he really knows how to push the right buttons... I suppose it helps to have a company you built with almost unfair price/technical advantages behind you.

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

#42

Post by lotsofmangos »

[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]

I wouldn't be so hasty. By the time NASA has its own launch capability to the ISS again, Putin may have retired.

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

#43

Post by grinich »

ash wrote: post #27
grinich wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

    They had two more trips scheduled to Russia; now Ressi 
    decided, as he says, "I didn't like dealing with Russians," 
    and told Musk he wasn't going back. Musk went anyway. On 
    the second trip, Musk brought his wife, Justine — "I think 
    that's the trip when the lead Russian designer started 
    spitting at us," Cantrell says — and on the third and final 
    trip he brought his money. He was ready to buy three Russian 
    ICBMs for $21 million when the Russians told him that no, 
    they meant $21 million for one. "They taunted him," Cantrell 
    says. "They said, 'Oh, little boy, you don't have the money?' 
    I said, 'Well, that's that.' I was sitting behind him on the 
    flight back to London when he looked at me over the seat and 
    said, 'I think we can build a rocket ourselves.'"
http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/elon-musk-int...

It's a great article.

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

#44

Post by mikeash »

kindredlight wrote: post #33
mikeash wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk said a normal Falcon 9 launch is $60 million. I'm not sure exactly what's involved with "Government-driven costs in addition to the cost of launch services" but I'd hazard a guess that they're not $40 million per launch. Could end up being a nicely profitable sale for SpaceX if they can pull it off.

Musk estimates that Air Force "mission assurance" requirements would cost $30 million, hence a $90 million ("under $100 million") price-tag.

Do you happen to know just what is involved there? I'm not too familiar with this stuff, and I'm curious.

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

#45

Post by grinich »

chidevguy wrote: post #36
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)

My jaw dropped reading that the rocket could be re-used the next day. That seems like an enormous leap forward for space flight.

Rockets are built to be pretty durable machines (obviously). The environment they operate in outside of the atmosphere is harsher in many ways.

Two big issues with sea landing: transport (tug, crane, huge truck, etc.), and corrosion/contamination from saltwater.

They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch, but that's way easier to do when the vehicle is sitting empty on the pad next to all your people and equipment.

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

#46

Post by avmich »

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…

Only NK-33 modified into AJ-26 used on Antares rockets is manufactured in early 1970-s. RD-180 was designed in 1990-s, about the same time as RS-68, the engine from Delta-IV first stage.

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

#47

Post by mikeash »

DanielStraight wrote: post #17
redthrowaway wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The mission was to launch the satellite they were being paid to launch. Recovery of the rocket was a test they were running on the side. The mission justifiably got priority.

It's strange how many people seem unable to understand this. SpaceX got a bunch of testing essentially for free. NASA was gracious to allow it. They could have easily said, "We're paying you to launch stuff to ISS, keep those crazy landing legs far away from our payload."

Sea conditions were too rough for recovery. Their options were to wait for better weather, annoying the customer and possibly losing the launch (they had one more launch window after the one they used before the payload went to another launch company), or go for it and still accomplish a great deal of testing even though they probably couldn't recover the rocket. Total no-brainer to choose the second option.

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

#48

Post by mikeash »

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…

Regarding payloads, it depends on what you're launching. If your satellite is 4 tons, then you can directly compare the price of a Falcon 9 and an Atlas, for example. It doesn't get noticeably cheaper to fly a rocket at less than full payload. Obviously, if you're launching something that exceeds Falcon's maximum payload then it's not an option, but given their campaign, there must be a lot of lighter payloads going up as part of this program.

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

#49

Post by kindredlight »

mikeash wrote: post #44
kindredlight wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk estimates that Air Force "mission assurance" requirements would cost $30 million, hence a $90 million ("under $100 million") price-tag.

Do you happen to know just what is involved there? I'm not too familiar with this stuff, and I'm curious.

It's poorly-defined, but includes a wide array of reviews, audits, inspections, etc.

See PDF page 17 of http://www.gao.gov/assets/520/511460.pdf

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

#50

Post by unethical_ban »

rebolek wrote: post #37
[deleted] wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Well, F* nationalists. Earth is too important to be left to the whims of crazies like you.

As always, there is a middle ground between "rah rah " and "one world!".

The U.S. government, especially its intelligence agencies, have many potentially grave flaws for a democracy. Putin and the Russian government, however, are decidedly worse leaders for freedom, and no friend of the US government or its citizens. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to look to be less dependent on their honesty, integrity and goodwill.

So stop being so F*ing judgmental.

Post reply on HN