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

421–430 of 444 posts

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

#421

Post by robotresearcher »

lmm wrote: post #319
robotresearcher wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why didn't the old companies do it? They have the same access to technical and financial expertise as anyone, and deep pockets.

"Cost-plus" funding means they didn't have any incentive to reduce costs. The thing that got them money was keeping politicians onside, so it was more important to e.g. provide jobs in relevant states.

I agree totally. I was responding to the parent who was challenging cost-plus as an explanation for Big-Co failing to bring down costs.

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

#422

Post by arrrg »

simonh wrote: post #324
arrrg wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially because of that. This nationalism is so weird. I mean, to me it’s mostly incredibly weird, nothing else much. I just cannot picture myself ever ever ever doing something like that, it’s just so incredibly alien. But a good demonstration of the toxic virality of nationalism, I guess. It manages to wriggle itself into anything.

I'm somewhat floored. In what way do you find a bunch of Americans expressing pride in their country like that toxic? Good for them. I don't find it objectionable any more than us Brits signing Rule Britannia at the end of the Proms, but I know some do. I have to admit though that once on holiday in Germany, while siting in the ruins of a castle overlooking the Rhine at night, myself and some Brit and American friend…

Nationalism in general is toxic. I firmly believe that nations are a deadly plague and that they should not exist.

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

#423

Post by jacquesm »

stcredzero wrote: post #405
jacquesm wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

Even for that application Falcon would be a lot more usable due to the increased payload compared to BO's offering.

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

#424

Post by AnimalMuppet »

arrrg wrote: post #422
simonh wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm somewhat floored. In what way do you find a bunch of Americans expressing pride in their country like that toxic? Good for them. I don't find it objectionable any more than us Brits signing Rule Britannia at the end of the Proms, but I know some do. I have to admit though that once on holiday in Germany, while siting in the ruins of a castle overlooking the Rhine at night, myself and some Brit and American friend…

Nationalism in general is toxic. I firmly believe that nations are a deadly plague and that they should not exist.

Well, it turns out that nations were better than what preceded them at keeping their citizens safe. I even suspect (but I am not a historian) that they were better at cutting down on wars (though the wars were more serious when they happened).

So if you want nations not to exist, the burden is on you to come up with something better. "No nations" can look like what used to be Somalia, or what used to be Afghanistan.

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

#425

Post by stcredzero »

jacquesm wrote: post #423
stcredzero wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

Even for that application Falcon would be a lot more usable due to the increased payload compared to BO's offering.

True. But I'm not defending BO's craft. I'm just pointing out that the "pop up" first stage trajectory is indeed interesting. You wind up with a godawful huge 1st stage and a rather tiny orbiter, but lots of things are simplified, especially with 1st stage logistics.

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

#426

Post by gozur88 »

quentusrex wrote: post #282
rebootthesystem wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Not only this, but the spacex grasshopper test was the first that I saw that had the rocket do a vertical takeoff, and then land. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

This has been done a dozen times, from DC-X to JAXA's RTV to Armadillo's Stig. What makes the SpaceX effort different is it's part of a practical launch system and not an SSTO concept prototype like the others.

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

#427

Post by gozur88 »

pi-err wrote: post #381
ChuckMcM wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I still have a newspaper clipping on my wall from Aug 21st, 1993 (San Jose Mercury News) showing it in the take off, hover, and landing stages. I really wanted to work on it then too!

TIL that the DCX was canceled by Nasa not for technical reasons - looks more like politics. The program was 21 months old and cost $60M. Is that correct? Amazing that this was achievable 20 years ago. Why no other re-usable rocket since 1996 if this was doable?

You should read one of Jerry Pournelle's rants on the subject. There was a lot of bitterness from people who supported the program.

The problem with SSTOs, in general is that while getting them to take off and land isn't a big hurdle, getting them into orbit with more than a nontrivial payload is pretty difficult.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/SSX.html

It's a concept with its supporters, but there's a pretty large program risk - the numbers are so tight you may get to the end of your development and realize your rocket works but can take only, you know, 25 pounds of payload to LEO. Or maybe a few tons. Or maybe you can't get to orbit at all.

SpaceX's plan to land each stage individually probably makes a lot more sense from the risk perspective.

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

#428

Post by nitrogen »

nitrogen wrote: post #247
m_mueller wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Randall must feel pretty snide when even Elon is referencing his comics..

Gates, too. XKCD has arrived, even if the world doesn't know it yet.

So it's very strange to me that this comment made it all the way to -2. What makes this comment about an old billionaire liking XKCD different from the parent comment about a new billionaire also liking XKCD?

This is not a complaint; inquiring minds want to know.

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

#429

Post by joe563323 »

golergka wrote: post #327
codeonfire wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bezos and Musk should NOT be on twitter for their sake. Imagine for a few decades no one tells you "no" or "you're wrong" and you have thousands of peons to kick around. Megalomania is 100% going to happen. Best just contain that behind closed doors.

Have you beenin twitter? There's plenty of people there, ready not only to tell you that you're wrong, but explain why and how in great excruciating detail

> excruciating detail

Sure in 140 characters.

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

#430

Post by joe563323 »

Shivetya wrote: post #314
rebootthesystem wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I am of the opinion that I don't give a damn, what both are doing is incredibly complex and from a nerd/geek perspective very cool. If there is some rivalry then so be it, but damn they are both working to make space accessible and for that we need to cheer them both on.

Still Elon is more geeky, technical, coder, not-care about money than Jeff is.
Post reply on HN