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

SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 839 posts

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#491

Post by justin66 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #386
justin66 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same with the suit design, looks like an awful low budget sci-fi film. Or a high budget sci fi film, or a medium budget sci fi film, since literally every film involving a spacesuit ever made had a more reasonable design than the utterly ridiculous, cumbersome, and bulky Hamilton Standard design American astronauts were stuck with for such a long time.

Wasn't the Hamilton Standard suit for EVAs? I don't think the ones they wore today are comparable, they're more of a replacement for the "pumpkin suits"

I thought they were both designed by Hamilton Standard. If not, my bad. I don't think I'd want to stick up for any of the older suits as being aesthetically, or much more importantly, functionally, being as good as they should have been.

Of all the possible critiques of SpaceX, an attack on the new space suits is a genuinely weird one.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#492

Post by linkmotif »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #86

It is hard to convey how "sustainable" this feels to me. For the first time, humans have gone into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. All of the NASA missions prior to this have an ambience of "uneconomical but useful". Even the shuttle, which was supposed to be this cost effective space truck, turned out to be not even close. And the last thing I'm feeling is the a…

I don't understand how SpaceX is "commercial." As I understand it, they exist because the US Government wants to have a space program. Yes, they can launch satellites, but how many for-profit non-state entities can use these things? It seems like SpaceX is possible because there are governments out there with money to burn.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#493

Post by apendleton »

sunstone wrote: post #394
aeturnum wrote: post #205

How wonderful! Congratulations to the entire Space X team, this is a real accomplishment and I'm sure not one that came easily. It's exciting to see relatively small companies fulfilling roles that people thought might require massive military contractors. Elon is an interesting figure. He is, I think, a paradigmatic example of the imperfect creator. His undeniable success in difficult endeavors can create an aura of…

Perhaps a more interesting comparison is between Elon the CEO of Tesla and Elon the CEO of SpaceX. You may notice that these are two very different personalities that serve two different corporate requirements. The Elon of SpaceX introduces himself as "I'm proud to be here representing the SpaceX team." The Elon of Tesla is smoking up on camera, throwing humongous ball bearings at the Cybertruck windows, sleeping in…

I get the sense that a lot of the distinction is that at SpaceX he has a by-all-accounts extremely competent lieutenant in Gwynne Shotwell running the day-to-day operations and probably, to some extent, helping keep him grounded, whereas it has always seemed like there's been a bit of a non-Elon leadership vacuum at the top at Tesla. To the extent that there has been other top management, they don't seem to last that long, and seem to have trouble earning his trust, which I imagine makes challenging his nuttier ideas harder to do.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#494

Post by gibolt »

chiph wrote: post #457
gibolt wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It get even more exciting when you consider that $110M is the cost to NASA. The cost to SpaceX could quickly reach an order of magnitude lower as it becomes more frequent and reused. As a bonus, the increased profits pay for the next ship, dropping costs even further.

An order of magnitude is a stretch, I think. But a 25% savings is probably pretty doable, which drops the cost to $82.5M. Consider that Richard Garriott allegedly paid $30M for his trip to the ISS, so if you have three passengers and one crew, you're turning a profit of $7.5M

Nope, way less than that. A single expendable rocket may have that margin, although I'd expect even better. Accounting for 5 flight of a si glen booster and capsule, that cost drops precipitously to at least 60-70% percent savings.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#495

Post by garmaine »

tsimionescu wrote: post #219
ChuckMcM wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the government paid to develop crew dragon. And they buy launch services which is another source of revenue. The government paid for Apollo. And once they decided they no longer wanted it, it became impossible to use Apollo parts, technology, or any of the engineers or technicians to put people into orbit. The capability "vanished." If the government never bought another ticket to space, Crew Dragon could be mad…

If Crew Dragon is only making money from the government, how would it still be there tomorrow if the government weren't paying? Do you really imagine that there will be a market for this as it stands today? How much training and medical evaluation have the astronauts gone through to ensure they could survive the trip and know how to operate?

SpaceX is selling Crew Dragon to others. There are already bought flights brokered for space tourists, and Tom Cruise is going to be filming a movie in space too.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#496

Post by garmaine »

est31 wrote: post #310
NortySpock wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your parent poster's point was that previously the IP was owned by NASA. The companies contracted to build Apollo or the Space Shuttle was unable to reuse the IP to sell rides to another company or fly private citizens, nor could they bundle and sell the IP. SpaceX owns the Crew Dragon IP and tooling, and they can sell flights to private citizens - in fact I believe they said today that they are contracted wi…

You still can't launch a rocket on US soil without a permit from the FAA, and for launches from outside of the US, I'm pretty sure that SpaceX's rocket technology is quite export controlled. But yes, it's now a bit more independent from Congress's financial mood.

You also can't fly a plane out of a commercial airport without FAA approval. So what's your point?

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#497

Post by garmaine »

loufe wrote: post #361
joubert wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have more information? (Who, what for)

The story I heard (link below) is that a Japanese fashion businessman wanted to fly his entourage around the moon and back. https://apnews.com/ef359e63b98b4263b4ac0eea28988538/SpaceX's...

That's unrelated (Starship, not Crewed Dragon).

There are 4 unnamed tourists set to fly next year. Tom Cruise is also in negotiations to film in space using Crewed Dragon, which would presumably involve at minimum Mr. Cruise plus a cameraman.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#498

Post by hesk »

runarberg wrote: post #315
TeMPOraL wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fair point. Hell, I'd argue that half the interest in spaceflight (except those of people seeing it all through the lens of an Excel sheet) is because of the idea of sending people up there. That alone makes an occasional manned mission worth it, just to keep the general interest alive.

It is not the 1910s any more. We don’t risk other peoples lives on exploration. Heroic though it might seem, it is ultimately foolish. We are already exploring the solar system with machines. And there is no reason to risk the explorers life for a more limited and more expensive ways to explore.

Carl Sagan disagrees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH3c1QZzRK4

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#499

Post by schoolornot »

reddog wrote: post #321

My unsolicited advice to the folks on this thread that were moved by todays launch: make time to travel to Florida and see one of these launches in person. If you have kids take them with you. Years ago I took some time out of a very busy schedule to see STS-130, the last shuttle night launch. I've always been a space nerd but I wasn't prepared for how seeing, hearing and feeling a launch in person was so different t…

Kennedy Space Center is a full-day event and one of my favorites. Oh, what an awesome site they put together for all ages. And you very well might get to meet an astronaut.

I wasn't able to see a launch when I was last there but I did get to see a Falcon rocket in one of the hangars.

Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit

#500

Post by logarhythmic »

arnaudsm wrote: post #412
aeturnum wrote: post #205

How wonderful! Congratulations to the entire Space X team, this is a real accomplishment and I'm sure not one that came easily. It's exciting to see relatively small companies fulfilling roles that people thought might require massive military contractors. Elon is an interesting figure. He is, I think, a paradigmatic example of the imperfect creator. His undeniable success in difficult endeavors can create an aura of…

Elon's speech pertinence was exceptional in the 2010s, but his last 12 months were really chaotic (pedo-sub, tesla-tweets-420 and "it's just a flu" scandals). I guess that working 100h weeks takes a toll on your brain. Fortunately his companies can live without him now.

Elon is synonymous with Tesla. Its not so obvious to me that they could survive without him, it is a consumer product after all.
Post reply on HN