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

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

spaceflightnow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 188 posts

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

#21

Post by JoeCortopassi »

Every time I see something like a rocket or space shuttle launch, I can't help but wonder how much of the weight and cost could be saved using alternative methods. Even helium/hydrogen filled balloons could get them a good chunk of the way there. I know that would be horribly impractical for something the size of the shuttle and it's rocket boosters/fuel tanks, but if a balloon rig can get them to 120,000 ft they have gotten 15% of the way there (and overcome initial inertia) for pennys, and could probably shed a lot of weight that it normally uses to overcome those first 20 miles or so. Plus, at 120,000ft, gravity has already dropped from something like 9.8 newtons (sea level) to 9.68 (120,000ft). This might not seem like much, but it a good chunk of the way to the 9newtons that the Space Shuttle normally orbits at, and has to allow them to shed even more weight.

I'm obviously not an astro-physicist, physicist, or even that smart of a guy. I just can't help but think there are more efficient ways to get past 100,000ft without brute forcing the problem with rockets

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

#22

Post by ceejayoz »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #15
ceejayoz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really funding a new space shuttle. It's essentially NASA buying seats on the human-rated version of the existing Dragon capsule.

True. It's not like they'll be launching a Hubble with Dragon.

I believe the unmanned Falcon 9 Heavy is designed to have greater to-orbit capacity, though, and would be capable of launching Hubble.

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

#23

Post by mitchty »

codex wrote: post #14
dfriedmn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of Musk's original goals was to do it 10x cheaper, and accd to his recent discussion with NPR, he's already at 1/8th of the cost(1). What an amazing accomplishment. 1. http://www.npr.org/2012/05/18/153015277/on-eve-of-launch-spa...

This speaks more to the colossal clusterfuck that was the overengineered, unreliable Space Shuttle program. Doing it 10x cheaper than the Russians would be a real accomplishment.

To be a bit fair, the shuttle was the only part of a much larger boondoggle that originally involved NASA and the DOD. Its a much better example of mission creep, after reading Richard Feynman's "personal observations on the reliability of the shuttle" after the Challenger explosion shows just how badly the shuttle was designed/pressed into service/etc...

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

#24

Post by guscost »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #15
ceejayoz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really funding a new space shuttle. It's essentially NASA buying seats on the human-rated version of the existing Dragon capsule.

True. It's not like they'll be launching a Hubble with Dragon.

That's what Falcon Heavy is for ;)

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

#25

Post by ceejayoz »

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…

> 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 purely liquid fueled, with full ability to shut off and restart the engines. They're also designing the capsule to land on rockets, meaning it won't need to aim at a runway or water - any flat area will do.

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

#26

Post by [deleted] »

austenallred wrote: post #12

I'm impressed that there's $440M left in NASA (or over $1 Billion with Sierra Nevada and Boeing included) to fund a new space shuttle, somehow I was under the false impression that there wouldn't be any more of that type of thing. Hats off, Elon Musk. Hats. Off.

[deleted]

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

#27

Post by comicjk »

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #21

Every time I see something like a rocket or space shuttle launch, I can't help but wonder how much of the weight and cost could be saved using alternative methods . Even helium/hydrogen filled balloons could get them a good chunk of the way there. I know that would be horribly impractical for something the size of the shuttle and it's rocket boosters/fuel tanks, but if a balloon rig can get them to 120,000 ft they ha…

Assuming the balloon itself has zero mass, every cubic meter of hydrogen in your balloon can lift a maximum 30 grams of payload. For the 2000 ton space shuttle, that's sixty million cubic meters - a spherical balloon half a kilometer in diameter. There's a reason we don't launch rockets with balloons.

There are practical non-rocket ideas, though, such as the Verne Gun: http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/150-kiloton-nuclear-verne-g...

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

#28

Post by physcab »

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…

This is a pretty important observation. I will applaud SpaceX for their efforts as well, but there is a massive difference between transporting cargo into space and human beings.

SpaceX claims their transport is cheaper but they have not claimed it is safer. If they are really aiming for the human transportation business I wonder if the true cost of their rocket ships will be much more on par with existing vehicles. I'm sure they have taken advantage of some optimizations and efficiencies in new technologies and materials. But I also believe one of the reasons the other rockets are so much more expensive is not because they are relying on old technology, but having to satisfy much more stringent government regulations regarding safety, testing, and quality control. The ATLAS V has had 100% Mission Success and that does not come cheaply.

Post reply on HN