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

SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

aviationweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#31

Post by 32faction »

krschultz wrote: post #22

SpaceX continues to be a PR machine. This news comes barely 24 hours after a significant delay due to a helium tank problem - http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/03/17/spacex-puts-off-next-fa... . I'm not saying SpaceX has a fundamental problem, I just find it interesting how obvious PR planted articles are.

PR is a big thing especially with private rockets. On the CRS-1 mission, they referred to the engine anomaly that occured During ascent as a "rapid unscheduled disassembly" when really it was a rupture in the engine fuel dome. Luckily the Falcon has an engine out capability so it still completed its primary mission. Had this been a NASA or other public company like ULA, the vehicle would've been grounded for X amount of months pending investigation, which in the case of SpaceX, would kill it's revenue stream. No launch, no profit.

that's partially why ULA keeps both the ATLAS and Delta family rockets. If one is grounded you have the other to rely on. SpaceX only has the Falcon. Hell, even the Millenium Falcon had problems with its hyperdrive.

Not trying to knock SpaceX here, I'm actually trying to get a job with them in aerospace engineering. They just have both an advantage and disadvantage by having one rocket system.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#32

Post by msandford »

FD3SA wrote: post #9

"It's about a 30% increase in performance, maybe a little more. What it does is it allows us to land the first stage for GTO missions on the drone ship." I am constantly blown away by SpaceX. This is an absurd level of improvement for an already mature, commercially successful rocket. If even 1% of the world's companies in other sectors worked this well, I can only imagine how much our quality of life would improve.…

> I think Musk should open an engineering management consulting firm, and hire a few smart people to analyze SpaceX and transfer some of its engineering management methodologies into a set of training modules.

It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't make any sense. Big institutions are arranged a certain way because of the incentives. You're not going to change the incentives because the people at the top fundamentally don't understand the way R&D works. Further, big organizations tend to reward a track record of successes no matter how small, rather than rewarding herculean efforts that only succeed halfway (or fail). The culture is generally anathema to taking risk.

Because the organizations are the way they are, nothing will change unless you change management to the highest ranks and empower people at all levels to make things better. Sadly that rarely happens in big companies; people manage to claw their way up and they're not going to risk that job, power or prestige unless it's a sure thing. Which R&D never is.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#33

Post by justin66 »

martythemaniak wrote: post #8

Currently they have to throw away the rockets used for GTO missions (around half of them) and can only attempt landings on LEO missions such as the ISS resupplies. Given their last few landing attempts, it's pretty likely that they'll be able to land a rocket sometime this year, which means that starting next year they might be able to reuse all of their F9 Rockets. A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used ro…

> A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used rocket though (no one knows the risks)

I am certain the insurers will be happy to take a crack at figuring out the risk.

That matters a lot. Whether or not you "want to fly on a used rocket," if your company can purchase a flight and insurance on a used rocket for a lot less than it can purchase a flight and insurance on a new rocket, you might be obligated to try it because of the decreased costs.

(I'm ignorant as to who actually buys the insurance for these flights, the customer or SpaceX or what, but I'm sure the point still stands)

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#34

Post by trose »

justin66 wrote: post #33
martythemaniak wrote: post #8

Currently they have to throw away the rockets used for GTO missions (around half of them) and can only attempt landings on LEO missions such as the ISS resupplies. Given their last few landing attempts, it's pretty likely that they'll be able to land a rocket sometime this year, which means that starting next year they might be able to reuse all of their F9 Rockets. A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used ro…

> A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used rocket though (no one knows the risks) I am certain the insurers will be happy to take a crack at figuring out the risk. That matters a lot. Whether or not you "want to fly on a used rocket," if your company can purchase a flight and insurance on a used rocket for a lot less than it can purchase a flight and insurance on a new rocket, you might be obligated to try it…

Would you fly in a used plane? Eventually no one will care. These rockets will be able to go through hundreds of flights before being retired.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#35

Post by darkmighty »

justin66 wrote: post #33
martythemaniak wrote: post #8

Currently they have to throw away the rockets used for GTO missions (around half of them) and can only attempt landings on LEO missions such as the ISS resupplies. Given their last few landing attempts, it's pretty likely that they'll be able to land a rocket sometime this year, which means that starting next year they might be able to reuse all of their F9 Rockets. A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used ro…

> A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used rocket though (no one knows the risks) I am certain the insurers will be happy to take a crack at figuring out the risk. That matters a lot. Whether or not you "want to fly on a used rocket," if your company can purchase a flight and insurance on a used rocket for a lot less than it can purchase a flight and insurance on a new rocket, you might be obligated to try it…

It's not a straightforward insurance matter since many many applications are time critical. If a rocket blows up they may need many more years until a replacement cargo can be manufactured, fitted into the launch schedule, etc. The coverage for that (specially opportunity costs, which are hard to measure anyway) might be too high, making the insurance premium larger than the gain provided by reusability.

I'd believe most companies could prefer [more certain] safety -- which just means SpaceX will have to work on increasing reused rocket numbers by whatever means.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#36

Post by krschultz »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #29
krschultz wrote: post #22

SpaceX continues to be a PR machine. This news comes barely 24 hours after a significant delay due to a helium tank problem - http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/03/17/spacex-puts-off-next-fa... . I'm not saying SpaceX has a fundamental problem, I just find it interesting how obvious PR planted articles are.

You realize that both of the stories, the delay and the discussion of the engine came out of the same luncheon right? From the linked article : "In a luncheon talk at the Satellite 2015 show in Washington March 17" From the Spaceflight Now article : "Speaking at a luncheon in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday" So really it was just a update where all the information came out and different reporters chose different things…

The information that came out in this article is not news. There has been significant discussions about not only the improved performance of the engines, but customers debating whether or not they wanted to be the first to fly on those upgraded engines.

Meanwhile the helium leak problem & reshuffling of schedule is an actual bit of news. We have known about the helium leaks before, but this is the first time it got so bad they had to so dramatically change the launch schedule. If it is a fundamental problem (which is sure seems to be), it might put this years launch schedule in some jeopardy.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#37

Post by FD3SA »

msandford wrote: post #32
FD3SA wrote: post #9

"It's about a 30% increase in performance, maybe a little more. What it does is it allows us to land the first stage for GTO missions on the drone ship." I am constantly blown away by SpaceX. This is an absurd level of improvement for an already mature, commercially successful rocket. If even 1% of the world's companies in other sectors worked this well, I can only imagine how much our quality of life would improve.…

> I think Musk should open an engineering management consulting firm, and hire a few smart people to analyze SpaceX and transfer some of its engineering management methodologies into a set of training modules. It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't make any sense. Big institutions are arranged a certain way because of the incentives. You're not going to change the incentives because the people at the top fundamentally don…

I completely agree, and if you look at my past posts, I am quite cynical with most modern companies precisely because I understand that human primal impulses, such as the insatiable drive for status and wealth accumulation, tend to completely sabotage any potential for innovation.

Musk's companies are two of the very few exceptions to this universal empirical reality, and as such underscore the need to try and understand what makes them (SpaceX and Tesla) different, right down to the psychology of the executive team and founders. In my opinion, nothing is more important for the success of a company than the psychological foundations of the executive team and investors. They set the incentive structures, and their subordinates do their best to carry them out.

In most companies, the incentive structure is to get paid as much as possible by playing office politics. Hence, we get golden parachutes, "cost-centers", and an obsession with stock price and quarterly profits.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#39

Post by TeMPOraL »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #27
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They launch to specific orbits desired by the customers. It might well be extremely expensive to move the second stage from these orbits to some common one where could dock.

Yes, definitely cost prohibitive from a fuel perspective to change orbits, but the vehicle could be safed for future use. I do not have enough information as to whether though would be valuable unless Tesla as some way to produce fuel on-orbit for the waiting, safed second stages.

Well, FWIW, it works in Kerbal Space Program. But as you said, this would require for the fuel to be brought from somewhere else than Earth's gravity well. Maybe Planetary Resources will find some kerosene on a near-Earth asteroid?

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#40

Post by pqomdv »

eabraham wrote: post #38

Considering that the cheaper "used" launch cost will lower the bar for getting satellites to LEO, I wonder how long until we need to worry about Kessler Syndrome[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

I can't wait for junkyard micro-satellites equipped with an ion thruster. They are launched in the hundreds at a time, each locates their specific target, attaches and start a slow descend to burn in the atmosphere. This process is done automatically over a time-frame of months, since ion thrusters work slowly, which is great for automation.
Post reply on HN