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

SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

vine.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 279 posts

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#121

Post by r00fus »

JacksonGariety wrote: post #79
sixQuarks wrote: post #23

Sorry for sounding like such a fanboy, but during my 40 years on this earth, I have never been more impressed with a human being. The guy is pushing the envelope on perhaps the most difficult engineering/technological endeavor ever attempted by a private company - and he's making it look cool and futuristic. As if that wasn't enough, he's doing this in two different industries simultaneously. I'm not saying he can do…

What about the privatization of space technology from a political standpoint? You see nothing problematically evil there?

It's not a question of what's evil - it's a question of which option is more evil than the other.

NASA from a legislation and funding standpoint looks about as corrupt as automotive industry.

At this point, it seems like the only moves forward are going to come from disrupting entities like SpaceX or foreign governments.

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#122

Post by Sammi »

geerlingguy wrote: post #12
ufmace wrote: post #4

Cool video! Just what we've been waiting to see. I wonder what actually exploded there? Part of the argument for why the landing was supposed to be relatively safe was that the stage would be mostly empty of fuel by the time that it landed, so there wouldn't be much to explode if something went wrong. So is that an explosion of the remaining fuel in the rocket, or something on deck?

It doesn't take much to make the kind of explosion you see in the video (those chemicals are quite volatile). I think the safety comes from that being the extent of the explosion. Compare that to a fully-fueled stage, which would have 90x more fuel, a 90x larger fireball, shock wave, etc. The deck of the ship almost looked undamaged!

Images of the barge post explosion here: http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/01/11/photos-spacexs-rocket-l...

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#124

Post by 32faction »

sandworm wrote: post #111

SpaceX is certainly doing great things, but where was this vid a couple days ago? When I first heard of the hard landing I jumped online to see the vid. But no vid appeared. Then I realized what was happening. A vid of a crashing rocket is never a good thing for a spacelaunch company. It's just bad PR. Thinking back, we don't see many vids from SpaceX that aren't unqualified successes. They surely had this vid within…

> Where was this video a couple of days ago?

Usually when there's an error or a failure on a mission, there will be an immediate lockdown of all PR, videos etc to analyze the problems first and understand what happened before the official release of material. This might seem trivial but I'll type it anyway.

First off, if SpaceX released videos and didn't know what happened, the press would obviously speculate and SpaceX's brand would lose value somewhat. If the videos were released and the problem is a little harder to solve, well now you have a video of your error circulating and you don't even know what to tell the press what happened.

If you watch the Mission Control footage during Columbia's fatal reentry, when Houston realized the worst had happened, Flight Director Cain said over the intercom "G.C., FLIGHT, Lock the doors". This was meant figuratively and literally; He told Ground Control to lock the doors of Mission Control so no one could leave, and that all information regarding the incident would not leave that room. Not even the President could enter that room after Ground Control locked the doors.

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#125

Post by Someone1234 »

leo_mck wrote: post #88
Someone1234 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not saying he can do no wrong, but I'm just flabbergasted that there are still so many armchair critics and naysayers when it comes to Elon Musk. That's why you're a fanboy. Nobody is perfect, and Elon Musk likes to make fun of the competition quite publicly when they have an issue, while ignoring his project's own failures. It is hard to even discuss the man on HN as anything that could even be taken as critic…

I am not familiar with the hyperloop concept so maybe I am wrong but I never understood the "cost is too high" argument. Is this not almost always the case on every technology breakthrough? Things like gene mapping and 3D printing comes to mind - someone had to started doing it at prohibitive costs so we can evolve the tech and get the prices down.

> Is this not almost always the case on every technology breakthrough?

In the case of the hyperloop the technology isn't too bad. We can likely build it without developing too much. Most of the technological problems are already largely solved in aircraft design.

In this case it is more a "this cost literally too many resources" problem. High speed rail is fairly simple, you clear land (expensive), flatten it, even it out, and then lay metal tracks with wooden/concrete sleepers.

With the hyperloop you're literally building a tunnel that has to withstand weather including extremes, withstand negative pressure internally without crushing, transfer the weight/internal/external forces down to pillars, and yet still you're left with the "clear land" problem as nobody wants to live under a hyperloop track, or have it blocking their natural sunlight.

Hyperloop might see some savings as it requires less land than high speed rail, but you'll easily offset that by physically how many resources go into the tunnel and pillars (and raising the tunnels into position and sealing them).

If all hyperloop was was a tunnel in the sky it might be easier to imagine the financials making sense. But then you add negative pressures within, and you're talking about aircraft skin the entire length of the thing, and then dealing with attaching these pieces of loop together on-site (so presumably double-riveting them like aircraft skins are, which is time consuming/expensive).

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#126

Post by forkandwait »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #92
iamcreasy wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Elon Musk said talking about hyperloop was like shooting his own foot. It was a premature idea. But the interesting part is some(more than some) people are actually trying trying to come up with a real world implementations of hyperloop and so far their verdict is 'it's doable' and they are working on it. And these people are engineers from reputed companies around the world. I don't particularly like the conce…

"Premature idea" is probably better phrased as "not feasible on technical grounds." Even tlb said it has huge problems. The steel expands in summer due to heat. Where does it go? Roads can expand using those interlocking teeth things, but hyperloop has to remain a closed system. Oh well. Everyone should dream once in awhile. EDIT: So... is this incorrect?

How about hedging your statement to "not CURRENTLY feasible using TODAY'S materials and structural concepts (trusses, etc)". Space flight and industrial production of fertilizer were both considered impossibilities when first proposed.

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#127

Post by ggonweb »

ufmace wrote: post #4

Cool video! Just what we've been waiting to see. I wonder what actually exploded there? Part of the argument for why the landing was supposed to be relatively safe was that the stage would be mostly empty of fuel by the time that it landed, so there wouldn't be much to explode if something went wrong. So is that an explosion of the remaining fuel in the rocket, or something on deck?

This is the tweets by Elon Musk on this "Tks. Turns out we recovered some impact video frames from drone ship. It's kinda begging to be released…" " Before impact, fins lose power and go hardover. Engines fights to restore, but …" "Rocket hits hard at ~45 deg angle, smashing legs and engine section" "Residual fuel and oxygen combine " "Full RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) event. Ship is fine minor repairs. Exciting day!" "Next rocket landing on drone ship in 2 to 3 weeks w way more hydraulic fluid. At least it shd explode for a diff reason." https://twitter.com/sacca/status/556107612396457984

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/555980855537975296

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#129

Post by Crito »

sandworm wrote: post #111

SpaceX is certainly doing great things, but where was this vid a couple days ago? When I first heard of the hard landing I jumped online to see the vid. But no vid appeared. Then I realized what was happening. A vid of a crashing rocket is never a good thing for a spacelaunch company. It's just bad PR. Thinking back, we don't see many vids from SpaceX that aren't unqualified successes. They surely had this vid within…

It would be embarrassing for SpaceX if somebody from the public discovered something in the video that SpaceX had missed. It therefore makes sense that they would sit on the video for a while, making sure they had learned as much as there was to learn from it before releasing it to the public.

Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”

#130

Post by quux »

nickhalfasleep wrote: post #123

I wonder what the cost savings to space there are for buying a trip for a satellite on a "used" booster. Also if SpaceX is recycling the 1st stage, I wonder if they have plans to "Recycle" the 2nd stage in orbit.

I imagine the cost savings would be huge. The fuel and oxidizer for a typical satellite launch is only a few hundred thousand dollars, but the rocket is in the 10's of millions. Even if you add a million or 2 for refurbishing the used booster it's still huge.

IIRC SpaceX's next generation of rockets will be designed so a reusable second stage will be possible.

Post reply on HN