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

SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 444 posts

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#401

Post by lutorm »

simonh wrote: post #313
mempko wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine this scenario. Musk is fired from his leadership role and is moved to the mail department, where he sorts mail. He is the best mail sorter in the group. Does he deserve the same respect? His influence is given by the position as leader, not any individual quality he may have. It doesn't take a great imagination to think of other possible organizational forms that don't disproportionately give one person influ…

Lets say we had taken 1000 random people off the street in 2002 and put them in charge of a new space launch company with equal funding to SpaceX. How many of them do you think are likely to have achieved the same success SpaceX has? To put it another way, if Elon Musk hadn't founded SpaceX in 2002, how many of the engineers currently working there would right now be celebrating working at a company having successful…

Maybe this random employee: http://www.technologyreview.com/emtech/15/video/watch/innova... ?

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#402

Post by mempko »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #267
mempko wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine this scenario. Musk is fired from his leadership role and is moved to the mail department, where he sorts mail. He is the best mail sorter in the group. Does he deserve the same respect? His influence is given by the position as leader, not any individual quality he may have. It doesn't take a great imagination to think of other possible organizational forms that don't disproportionately give one person influ…

We see things differently. And it's hard to argue that a guy fired from his job deserves respect. Shkreli deserves no respect (for example) and was recently fired. The coach who doesn't having a winning season gets no respect. In my experience I found a huge difference in organizations with good leadership and those with poor leadership (and I've been in both!) And I've been both the engineer and the leader in my car…

> Chuck the good thing about being in this role is you get to make some of the important decisions, the bad thing about being in this role is that you have to make the important decisions

I disagree that people make make the difference over the form. The role of CEO or product manager, or whatever, is a human invention. We as people created these roles.

Roles are designed to limit or enhance your skills. A senior role is an artificial multiplier and therefore a person's praise, or pay, or whatever, is artificially enhanced.

Imagine Musk, same as he is, in a different role, like a mailman. The FORM limits how we can contribute. LIMITS what he gets paid. and LIMITS who listens to him.

The workers of SpaceX don't listen to musk because they like the guy, they listen to him because he will fire them otherwise.

There are organizations that have different roles, and the idea of someone having so much power is a really stupid one. We decided this to be true in politics, why not other places?

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#403

Post by mempko »

simonh wrote: post #313
mempko wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine this scenario. Musk is fired from his leadership role and is moved to the mail department, where he sorts mail. He is the best mail sorter in the group. Does he deserve the same respect? His influence is given by the position as leader, not any individual quality he may have. It doesn't take a great imagination to think of other possible organizational forms that don't disproportionately give one person influ…

Lets say we had taken 1000 random people off the street in 2002 and put them in charge of a new space launch company with equal funding to SpaceX. How many of them do you think are likely to have achieved the same success SpaceX has? To put it another way, if Elon Musk hadn't founded SpaceX in 2002, how many of the engineers currently working there would right now be celebrating working at a company having successful…

You are precisely correct. Replacing Musk with someone else would lead to bigger changes than replacing the mailman.

But Why? It has nothing to do with Musk but everything to do with organizational form. He has an invention at his disposal called "Role of CEO". It is a magical invention that gives you the power to control what thousands of people do everyday. A mailman doesn't have this invention and obviously won't be able to decide what thousands of people do everyday.

There is nothing magical about Musk here. Since so few people get a chance at being CEO, it is hard to say if most people would be good or bad at it. And it is also hard to say how hard the work really is.

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#405

Post by stcredzero »

jacquesm wrote: post #129
grkvlt wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, explain how the landing of the SpaceX first stage was many times more difficult? They used different mechanisms, yes (suicide burn vs. hover-capable) and the purpose of the overall system was different, but they are both VTOL rockets. Blue Origin was first , and Bezos can quite rightly welcome SpaceX to 'the club' as the second company to achieve this, without being accused of being classless, surely?

Because the Falcon 9 traveled at several thousand miles per hour horizontally when it did its flip and then the first retro burn. By contrast, the Blue Origin rocket went straight up, and straight back down. It never moved away from the launchpad in any appreciable amount and it never had to change orientation. From a space applications perspective it is not much more useful than a blimp. Today, history was made. Blu…

By contrast, the Blue Origin rocket went straight up, and straight back down...From a space applications perspective it is not much more useful than a blimp.

Actually, the "pop-up" 1st stage trajectory is interesting from a space applications perspective. You can think of it this way: a SSTO spaceplane is just beyond the cusp of possible for technology made out of normal matter and fueled by chemical rockets. But what if you could somehow cheat and launch an SSTO at very high altitude? Then it's just below the cusp of possible. So you wind up with a completely reusable TSTO craft.

So how is that more interesting than a high altitude blimp? You get the craft back faster, directly to the facility. Recovery is more straightforward. The equipment and technology is the same sort of equipment and technology as in the orbiter craft. Also, if you're able to get up to a "mere" 600 mph or so downrange velocity, due to the mathematics of the rocket equation, you're still saving a sizable chunk of vehicle weight in fuel.

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#406

Post by chrisshroba »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #265
ChuckMcM wrote: post #236

This is so epically awesome that I feel like we orbited a human for the first time or something. Bezos whining aside, its a huge deal to return 9 engines from a workhorse booster back to the pad to be refurbed and re-used. If the $5M each costs are correct, that is $45M in cost savings right there. But perhaps more importantly its the first "first" for SpaceX which has not been done by NASA or anyone else. Launch a p…

The whole Bezos/BlueOrigin thing is kind of sad. They are nowhere near a "club" with SpaceX. One of the huge differences (and there are many) is that Falcon 9 was doing 6,000 Km/hr (~4,000 mi/hr) when the first stage separated and turned around to come back. The path was not straight up, but rather one to launch the second stage into orbital flight (which reached 26,000 Km/hr and 600 miles of altitude). Then Falcon9'…

Question: if what Bezos did was just launching straight up and then landing, why is it any better than this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwwS4YOTbbw

when SpaceX launched 1000m and landed? Just because it was higher? It seems like SpaceX has Bezos beat on both sides - they launched and landed a rocket before Bezos, and now theyve launched and landed a rocket higher than Bezos. So all Bezos did was launch his rocket higher than SpaceX's at the time. Is that right?

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#407

Post by stcredzero »

hyperpallium wrote: post #203
TeMPOraL wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This video ain't bad, but it skims over the two most important points and skips one completely: - SpaceX rocket goes really fast horizontally; it has to flip around and boost back, and then correct from horizontal to vertical orientation. - Falcon 9 is an actual space launch system; it has different (i.e. much stricter) engineering constraints than a suborbital rocket. In particular, this affects the engine design. -…

Why don't they put a smaller engine in the centre for landings?

The turbopumps that pump fuel into the main engines are basically mini rocket engines. They even contribute a small amount of thrust. So it's possible that the rocket could be redesigned so that the center return/hover engine could also be a fuel pump for the outer ring of main engines. However, this introduces a single point of failure for the main mission of launching payloads.

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#408

Post by stcredzero »

creshal wrote: post #315
TeMPOraL wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, the biggest laugh I had on /r/spacex was when the CRS-7 failure study came up and they had to remove the word "strut" from the list of terms that caused comments to be automatically put to moderation - it was banned because of all the KSP jokes, but suddenly the rocket really found itself in need of moar struts.

Not more, just better.

Actually, not better. Just "Not worse." The struts that were manufactured to spec were fine. The problem was with struts that weren't up to spec.

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#409

Post by vectorjohn »

grkvlt wrote: post #130
JshWright wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New Shepard is able to make several compromises that make landing _much_ easier. New Shepard doesn't have to get anywhere close to orbital velocity, so it can use a far less powerful engine. That means it can throttle down far enough to hover. That is a _huge_ advantage over Falcon 9, which must time the landing burn perfectly to hit 0 velocity at the exact moment it touches the ground. They're in the same club like…

But the F9 first stage doesn't get to orbital velocity, either, remember. The achievements are comparable, despite the fact it makes SpaceX come second. Blue Origin was first with a VTOL rocket stage, as part of a space system.

They're barely comparable. If at all. The F9 isn't at orbital velocity (although, much faster and on an orbital trajectory that has to be cancelled out). Sure. But the F9 was actually taking a payload to orbit. The Blue Origin never will, it's just a mega rich tourist toy.

Re: SpaceX launch webcast: Orbcomm-2 Mission [video]

#410

Post by soperj »

mabbo wrote: post #387
planckscnst wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, thinking about it, if they staged a faux-rivalry, it would probably get more public interest in space. People can choose their team and have someone to root for and someone to hate.

I've said it before: we need another space race. If we can't convince the superpower countries to do it, might as well be two billionaire CEOs. Think we can get Gates or Buffet into it as well maybe?

Buffet no, but Paul Allen has invests in space (SpaceshipOne, and Vulkan)
Post reply on HN