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

71–80 of 147 posts

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

#71

Post by cfreeman »

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…

What you wrote about Atlas V is a bit misleading. It uses an American engine for the upper stage, but the whole issue is about the Russian built RD-180 engines that power the first and largest stage. The other ULA rocket, the Delta IV, does use all American engines but the Delta IV is less capable and sees far less use.

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

#72

Post by cfreeman »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #55
grinich wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch That. You need to re-qualify the engine after each launch. The cost of labour far exceeds the cost of materials, you need to strip and re-build the thing, and you ask yourself just how much money you can save through re-using the first stage. I don't think it's much.

The Merlin engine was designed from the beginning to be re-useable. They don't have to be "stripped and rebuilt" after each launch. They have already fired engines on the test stand for multiple mission durations with no problems.

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

#73

Post by toomuchtodo »

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #24

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.

I don't believe the landing legs are rated to support a fully fueled vehicle; when the vehicle returns to land, it'll be bone dry after its final burn to stop it above the ground.

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

#74

Post by ceejayoz »

aschampion wrote: post #32
Patrick_Devine wrote: post #24

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.

The strongback does a lot more than legs ever would: resistance to winds when awaiting the launch window, fueling, data connections, etc. Not to mention you need some sort of tower to lift the rocket upright after payload integration and servicing -- unless you do vertical integration, which they will need to do to win USAF contracts. But then you need a crane, anyway.

And eventually, you'll need a way to get the people in it.

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

#75

Post by fixermark »

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…

This catch-22 applies across the government-aerospace interface surface.

I used to intern for a company trying to break into aerospace software---not hardware, just tracking and modeling. At the time, they faced a nearly-vertical climb into the market to get around the big names in aerospace; they couldn't sell to them directly (the people involved in the purchasing decisions were the people who would be getting downsized if the software proved to be as good as advertised) and they couldn't sell to the Air Force (it's basically nearly impossible to get into an AF contract cycle if you haven't been in an AF contract cycle).

Their break-in point was the US Army; at the time, the Army had a relatively small air asset capability (relative to the other branches), but a sudden need to know what was up with the GPS constellation AT ALL TIMES relative to their land and air deployments. The company was able to get face-time with the Army reps because the regular aerospace names wanted to sell them software that came at a price-point that usually bundled a shiny new fighter jet or stealth asset with it, and they weren't willing to drop their prices because they didn't want their regular Air Force customers asking "Why is the Army getting this software for a tenth of the up-charge you quoted us when we closed this whole contract last year?"

Sadly, that was years ago and I have no idea of the shape of the market now. My only other data point is the portrayal of the aerospace industry in the movie _The Aviator_ and the observation that it hadn't changed much between then and the early-21st century. ;)

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

#76

Post by oh_sigh »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #55
grinich wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch That. You need to re-qualify the engine after each launch. The cost of labour far exceeds the cost of materials, you need to strip and re-build the thing, and you ask yourself just how much money you can save through re-using the first stage. I don't think it's much.

So, have you done more analysis on this than SpaceX has?

You should send them this post of yours so they stop wasting all that money! I bet they never thought of what you said.

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

#77

Post by grinich »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #55
grinich wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch That. You need to re-qualify the engine after each launch. The cost of labour far exceeds the cost of materials, you need to strip and re-build the thing, and you ask yourself just how much money you can save through re-using the first stage. I don't think it's much.

On traditional launch vehicles, yes. Shuttle was definitely this way. And I'm sure SpaceX will initially do a complete disassemble and inspection to gather more data about the wear and tear.

But the Merlin engines have been designed from the start to be reusable and dependably reignitable, whether at sea level or upper atmosphere. They're pretty amazing-- essentially the pinnacle of +50 years of engine design. Tom Mueller is a huge badass. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine)

And check out that bad boy roar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkdReoxGHG8

I don't have a link on hand, but Elon has said multiple times that the majority cost of the Falcon-9 is the raw material. One of the reasons they've been able to drop the price significantly is by using more efficient manufacturing techniques, requiring less material and creating less waste. (e.g. stir-friction welding)

It's also worth noting that Falcon-9 can still complete a mission with one (and perhaps two?) engine failures, which gives quite a more comfortable margin of error. There's a big difference between "perfect" and "near perfect" when it comes to engineering these things. ;)

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

#78

Post by smackfu »

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.

I would think inspecting, cleaning, and assembling the stack would take days. So next-day is probably Musk hyperbole.

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

#79

Post by jccooper »

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #24

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.

Probably not. The tower is used for horizontal transport and erection to vertical, for loading power and propellant to all stages of the rocket up until a few minutes before ignition, and for protection against strong winds. And, perhaps, loading last minute cargo (like people).

So you kind of have to have it in the current configuration. And since you have to use a prepared range and pad, it's not that much additional infrastructure.

One could perhaps design such a rocket, with storable propellants (liquid oxygen boils off, which is why they keep supplying it for as long as possible) and ground-level power connections. And on Mars the wind isn't really a problem. But that's a different rocket.

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

#80

Post by syncsynchalt »

BrandonMarc wrote: post #14
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.

... especially if, as he said, he can reduce his current launch costs by 30% by re-using rockets.

It seems likely the the USAF would specify first-run rockets for the best chance of success, so the USAF would not see a cost reduction unless spacex were to re-purchase the recovered booster or similar (or offered a credit that equated to the same).
Post reply on HN