SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#161

Post by mbpp » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 10:58 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #20

It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed". But a lot of stuff can go wrong - fast - when you're sitting on a big pile of potential explosives that under other circumstances you'd keep a safe distance from. Until they actually achieve it, you shouldn't throw the superlatives around. I will be the first to applaud if SpaceX achieves this goal. I am certain that they want to achieve this goal. Bu…

Why does the safety of manned space flights get so much attention? Last time I checked the AIDS or malaria weren't cured. Perhaps those interested in fatality rates should divert their attention to Africa and give SpaceX more breathing space. It's not like there's going to be a shortage of astronauts.

Elon Musk: There must be some ability to experiment to advance the state of the art. In the early days of aviation there was a great deal of experimentation and a high death rate. We don't want that — the public would not be accepting — but by the same token we can't have a situation where no deaths are ever allowed, because that would put innovation in a coffin too. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0801-mo...

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#162

Post by jessriedel » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 11:39 AM UTC

zcvosdfdgj wrote: post #115

JPKab wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a travesty that Boeing got more than SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada got any money at all. I can't wait to see those two bloated, horrifically managed behemoths fail miserable with the money. The only reason NASA gave them anything was to shut up the congressman Boeing and Sierra have in their pockets. Remember this, because SpaceX, with slightly less money than Boeing, will produce FAR, FAR more.

Sierra Nevada and SpaceX have almost the same number of employees. So not sure why you think they're bloated and SpaceX isn't. Personally I'm happy NASA spread the money around. The last thing we need is the government to simply build another Boeing or Lockheed. And by that I mean: if SpaceX has 100% of the market because of NASAs funding, I fully expect them to stop competing on price (at some point).

> if SpaceX has 100% of the market because of NASAs funding, I fully expect them to stop competing on price (at some point).

Probably, although you should keep in mind that SpaceX == Elon Musk, since he plans on retaining a majority share.

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#163

Post by Tloewald » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 12:32 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #142

neurotech1 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last DC-10 airliner was made in the 80s. The 747 is still in production. People aren't buying tickets to fly FedEx so the safety perception isn't as big an issue.

Perception is the key, statistically the DC-10 was not an unsafe aircraft. Its hull loss and fatality rates are not much different from the 747.

Statistically the 747 is 6x safer than the DC10, and its figures are distorted by the Canary islands collision that had nothing to do with airworthiness.

http://www.fearofflying.com/resources/safest-airliners-and-a...

That said, today both planes are (literally) perfectly safe.

The DC-10s problems all stemmed from a bad cargo door latch design combined with insufficient redundancy in its hydraulics.

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#164

Post by Tloewald » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 12:39 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #46

ceejayoz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed". But a lot of stuff can go wrong - fast - when you're sitting on a big pile of potential explosives that under other circumstances you'd keep a safe distance from. Until they actually achieve it, you shouldn't throw the superlatives around. This claim revolves more around the fact that the rocket can do a powered abort at any time, I think. It's pure…

So what you're telling me is that they have a more sophisticated system than previous ones with sophisticated backups. When it comes to reliability sophisticated can go either way - it can be better or can just give more things than can go wrong. For instance what happens on your vertical landing if a sensor malfunction causes the software to decide that the rocket is not vertical unless it is at a 20% tilt? (Don't l…

Sounds like the guy you talked to has the paranoia covered.

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#165

Post by Tloewald » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 12:43 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #93

btilly wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're wrong that the same argument can be used on cars. Because one thing that we have with cars is lots and lots of real data from the field. We don't say that cars today are safer than cars from the 70s because we have a list of safety features. We can say it because we have actual accident statistics and casualty rates. Yet even with cars, even with the fact that they have experienced designers, when you build a…

OK, let's put it this way. You have to options: Option 1: Ride in a car with a single button labeled "press to start engines, you will not be able to stop until they run out of fuel". This car has been driven about a hundred times. Option 2: Ride in a car with a "start engine" button and a "stop engine" button, plus a throttle. This car has been driven several times plus extensive testing on the ground. "Option 2 is…

The shuttle also contains design compromises caused by congress splitting up contracting. E.g. The o-rings are there to seal connections that an ideal design wouldn't have. The pieces joined were assembled in different congressional districts.

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#166

Post by Tloewald » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 1:08 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #71

natep wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From TFA: "This is a decisive milestone in human spaceflight and sets an exciting course for the next phase of American space exploration," said SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer Elon Musk. "SpaceX, along with our partners at NASA, will continue to push the boundaries of space technology to develop the safest, most advanced crew vehicle ever flown." So yes, he is claiming it is the safest, and I think he has good reason…

'to develop the safest' is the future tense. It seems nitpicky but I believe Elon is trying to communicate that safety of the crew will be a priority. If you read some of the Congressional debate on the commercial crew program you will see that some people question whether or not a commercial enterprise will put the safety of the crew ahead of their own profits, and even the survival of their own company. Their argum…

I'm not sure what SpaceX's "failures" were. Did the spacecraft crash and explode? Was this the Falcon 9 or the Falcon 1?

Historical safety is indicative of actual safety but not definitive, and not all you should be interested in. The shuttle was almost certainly less safe than its statistics indicate. If every launch delay of more than one day were considered a failure the shuttle's success rate would be very poor indeed.

Another question is how safety statistics are calculated. E.g. The overall safety of cars, measured by deaths per passenger mile, say, reflects many things, not just the engineering of cars themselves (in like manner, NASA's cautious use of the shuttle did much to ameliorate its excessively fraught design). On the other hand, crash safety ratings are prospective -- a five star crash rating won't save you colliding with a semi trailer, driving off a cliff, or into a lake, or having an accident at 120mph, or having your fuel tank explode.

There was an interesting discussion of actual car safety per model in the New Yorker a few years back, with the Toyota Avalon on top, and the VW Jetta second. Who drives a car and how it is driven turn out to be more important than crumple zones.

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#167

Post by Tloewald » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 1:13 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #75

rwhitman wrote: post #64

Eventually one of these private space companies will have a highly public, challenger-type disaster. I wonder if a startup like SpaceX could survive something like that.

Kind of depends on ratios apparently. Not to pick on Airbus but they have had planes drop out of the sky over the ocean, plow into the ground at an air show, and run out of gas mid flight. But they have survived. Most of their planes have worked fine. If SpaceX has 500 successful launches and one blows up and kills everyone on board, it will be sad, but it wont kill them, it might not even hurt their stock if they co…

Airbus was some kind of convoluted giant joint venture between Europe's governments and largest aerospace concerns, with a Lot of national prestige (and defense connections) wrapped up in it so it was kind of too big to fail and not a very good example in this context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#168

Post by JL2010 » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 2:15 PM UTC

Is manned flight necessary anymore?

I feel that a lot of design overhead is put into making a shuttle or space station safe and livable for humans. Why not focus on the main mission: to conduct research experiments.

I know there is the romantic idea of human space travel, but if it's not ready yet, why not invest more in autonomous systems and more advanced robotics for the sake of conducting the actual mission and sparing the lives of some truly brilliant and extraordinary people (potential astronauts).

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#169

Post by kingkawn » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 2:21 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #154

kingkawn wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why?

Because we have new materials, new technologies, and 40 years of experience with space plane design and operations, that's why.

The U-2 spy plane is in service after the retirement of its original replacement.

Re: SpaceX wins $440M contract with NASA to develop Space Shuttle successor

#170

Post by InclinedPlane » Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 2:57 PM UTC

kingkawn wrote: post #169

TeMPOraL wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we have new materials, new technologies, and 40 years of experience with space plane design and operations, that's why.

The U-2 spy plane is in service after the retirement of its original replacement.

The B-52 is still a heavily used part of the US heavy bomber fleet and current plans are to keep it in service until 2040 and perhaps beyond (which is longer than the B-1b is planned to be in service).