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

131–140 of 147 posts

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

#131

Post by pc91 »

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #88
lotsofmangos wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling for NASA to stop working with Roscosmos and the ISS over Putin is nuts. Space research and exploration is more than petty flag waving.

Somehow I think taking over Crimea is more than petty flag waving to the people who live there. I'd ask for more empathy for those whose lives may be irrevocably damaged by the actions of the Russian Head of State.

To be fair, most of people living there are Russians, and they seem to be happy to live in Russia.

Of course the way Russia took Crimea wasn't very good, and was just to secure naval base, but they did it without bloodshed, which wouldn't be possible if people there wanted to stay with Ukraine.

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

#132

Post by Gravityloss »

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…

You mix up everything, and many posters do that further down.

These are the relevant rockets and their first stage engines that fly from US soil:

  1) ULA Delta IV: US made RS-68 (new).
  2) ULA Atlas V: Russian made RD-180 (new). 
  3) SpaceX Falcon 9: US made Merlin-1 (new).
  4) Orbital Sciences Antares: Soviet made NK-33 (decades old, now refurbished in USA).

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

#133

Post by avmich »

gdy wrote: post #127
avmich wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RD-180 are being manufactured continuously last ~20 years. All new, not manufactured long time ago. NK-33 - from which AJ-26 are made - aren't manufactured today. It's a question if the manufacturing will restart. There are a few tens of them in US. Orbital Sciences has that question in the middle of their table, or close to it. Russian-American relationships in space trace back to at least 1975, deep Cold War. We're…

There is a successor NK-33A engine being produced for Russia's own Soyuz-2-1v. http://www.uk-odk.ru/eng/presscenter/odk_news/?ELEMENT_ID=20... http://www.samspace.ru/news/press_relizy/4228/ (in Russian)

Unfortunately engine itself is not produced. Those are all modifications of existing NK-33.

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

#134

Post by gfodor »

ericd wrote: post #41
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.

Yes it was so easy

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

#135

Post by dfc »

cvbncvbncgbc wrote: post #129
dfc wrote: post #114

It is absurd that a citizen must pay to view the decision from his previous case against Boeing. https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.cacd.179146

Are you sure? https://ia600706.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.1...

Yes I am sure that this is how PACER works and furthermore I am also sure that the RECAP project does not have anything for this case. Did you notice the link you provided is merely a list of 71 case related documents? Do you know how many of those 71 documents have nothing listed in the "upload date" column?

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

#137

Post by BugBrother »

pc91 wrote: post #131
joyeuse6701 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow I think taking over Crimea is more than petty flag waving to the people who live there. I'd ask for more empathy for those whose lives may be irrevocably damaged by the actions of the Russian Head of State.

To be fair, most of people living there are Russians, and they seem to be happy to live in Russia. Of course the way Russia took Crimea wasn't very good, and was just to secure naval base, but they did it without bloodshed, which wouldn't be possible if people there wanted to stay with Ukraine.

That was a karma 4 acccount and this is much later, but...

The main problem imho is that the last time destabilization and military [threat] was used to steal land areas around Europe, it was by guys in mustasches... And the motivation was similar -- "protect" Russi... German speaking populations.

And right now the same methods are used in another area. Just like the 1930s, too.

That second area will hardly be the last, if it works again. "Peace in our time" failed last time...

As an European, this is just scary and everything really needs to be done to stop this before there is another big war.

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

#138

Post by mapt »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #117
rjurney wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think SpaceX loads aren't insured? This seems impossible.

If you look at previous launches of new designs you will see that the first few flights are invariably not commercial, they carry research spacecraft. These are the qualification flights; until the vehicle has a good track record the satellite operator won't find anyone to insure their bird. Now the Falcon 9 is an all-new design, and their track record isn't all that shiny - there is a history of missing the target o…

Missing the target orbit by a significant margin on all their 9 flights?

Or having their failsafe system activated after one of their engines blew up on a single mission, causing them to be in position to release the small secondary payload (which the customer did not particularly need in free flight apparently) slightly late, in a zone in which NASA had veto rights on due to proximity to the ISS. Rather than adjusting their orbit to deposit the secondary payload in the proper orbit, as is technologically feasible, NASA exercised their contractual veto and told them to drop it early.

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

#139

Post by mapt »

mkempe wrote: post #61
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…

This was an experiment. The goal is to land on terra firma, not [mare incognitum].

For Falcon 9 though, the first stage contributes so much of the dV that it is not particularly feasible to land it at the launch site - by the time it separates, it's moving at several kilometers per second away from the launch site towards the horizon. That opens up the question of where the launch/landing site pair is bound to be. A ship-based landing system, such as a semisubmersible oil drilling rig (only ~$1B used!) with a landing pad built onto it, would seem to be close to optimal for the F9 specifically.

The Falcon Heavy's 2 side boosters, on the other hand, will separate much earlier in the flight - they are likely to be much more practical to land at the launch site, particularly for direct geosynchronous payloads that allow a lot more vertical / near-vertical burn time in relation to horizontal.

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

#140

Post by grinich »

mapt wrote: post #139
mkempe wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was an experiment. The goal is to land on terra firma, not [mare incognitum].

For Falcon 9 though, the first stage contributes so much of the dV that it is not particularly feasible to land it at the launch site - by the time it separates, it's moving at several kilometers per second away from the launch site towards the horizon. That opens up the question of where the launch/landing site pair is bound to be. A ship-based landing system, such as a semisubmersible oil drilling rig (only ~$1B us…

Citation? Usually the flight plan is to increase altitude (less atmospheric drag) before increasing angular velocity to full orbit.

Elon's been pretty explicit that F9 stage 1 will land back on the pad, or very close by.

Post reply on HN