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

SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

aviationweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#51

Post by ChuckMcM »

krschultz wrote: post #36
ChuckMcM wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that both of the stories, the delay and the discussion of the engine came out of the same luncheon right? From the linked article : "In a luncheon talk at the Satellite 2015 show in Washington March 17" From the Spaceflight Now article : "Speaking at a luncheon in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday" So really it was just a update where all the information came out and different reporters chose different things…

The information that came out in this article is not news. There has been significant discussions about not only the improved performance of the engines, but customers debating whether or not they wanted to be the first to fly on those upgraded engines. Meanwhile the helium leak problem & reshuffling of schedule is an actual bit of news. We have known about the helium leaks before, but this is the first time it got s…

I don't know if I agree that either of these items is "news" in the "there was no other way to find out about it" sense, but if you take the classical definition of "news" is something reported by a "reporter" (or journalist) then by reporting something it becomes "news" by definition.

I realize that is sort of semantic hand waving but when you assert something it "not news" you are, in the framework of that definition, making a false-by-definition statement asserted as truth. That irritates me unreasonably.

That said, in terms of impact to the schedule and expectedness the helium leak is no unexpected. So it isn't really "news" by your definition either. The whole point of doing these preflight tests is to ferret out these issues, and by their nature a minimum weight helium tank is a tricky thing to both manufacture and install. You need only search for the phrase "SpaceX Helium Leak" on your favorite search engine and you will find this not an uncommon issue which delays launches.

As SpaceX seems to be fairly familiar with the problem, and they have fixed leaky tanks a number of times, it seems to me that it is close to, if it hasn't already, entered into the operational readyness plan, where there might be "Step 1. Find the helium leak we know is out there. Step 2. Apply the appropiate fix prior to launch." So I don't really see how you could support the claim that this is a threat to the launch schedule.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#52

Post by TeMPOraL »

32faction wrote: post #31
krschultz wrote: post #22

SpaceX continues to be a PR machine. This news comes barely 24 hours after a significant delay due to a helium tank problem - http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/03/17/spacex-puts-off-next-fa... . I'm not saying SpaceX has a fundamental problem, I just find it interesting how obvious PR planted articles are.

PR is a big thing especially with private rockets. On the CRS-1 mission, they referred to the engine anomaly that occured During ascent as a "rapid unscheduled disassembly" when really it was a rupture in the engine fuel dome. Luckily the Falcon has an engine out capability so it still completed its primary mission. Had this been a NASA or other public company like ULA, the vehicle would've been grounded for X amount…

> PR is a big thing especially with private rockets. On the CRS-1 mission, they referred to the engine anomaly that occured During ascent as a "rapid unscheduled disassembly" when really it was a rupture in the engine fuel dome.

"Rapid unscheduled disassembly" is a standard space industry term. Just like some other fun euphemisms - e.g. an "anomaly" or "lithobraking" (i.e. crashing hard into the ground). It's just a jargon, not PR. I wouldn't be surprised if whoever invented these terms had a good laugh over them.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#53

Post by erobbins »

cloudwalking wrote: post #4

"It's about a 30% increase in performance, maybe a little more." That's pretty amazing increase in performance for an existing platform. Also interesting to see that the Falcon Heavy boosters are literally just Falcon 9s strapped to the sides of a larger rocket. They will be producing just two separate rockets on the factory floor. This is how SpaceX will really squeeze out manufacturing efficiencies. Given the Falco…

30% increase can mean a lot of things.. it's almost certainly not a 30% thrust increase (helpful but not earthshaking) or 30% increase in specific impulse (nobel prize time). From the wording of the quote it sounds like it's probably a 30% increase in payload to LEO, which is certainly nowhere near 2 orders of magnitude in cost reduction.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#54

Post by lutorm »

justin66 wrote: post #33
martythemaniak wrote: post #8

Currently they have to throw away the rockets used for GTO missions (around half of them) and can only attempt landings on LEO missions such as the ISS resupplies. Given their last few landing attempts, it's pretty likely that they'll be able to land a rocket sometime this year, which means that starting next year they might be able to reuse all of their F9 Rockets. A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used ro…

> A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used rocket though (no one knows the risks) I am certain the insurers will be happy to take a crack at figuring out the risk. That matters a lot. Whether or not you "want to fly on a used rocket," if your company can purchase a flight and insurance on a used rocket for a lot less than it can purchase a flight and insurance on a new rocket, you might be obligated to try it…

It's not a straightforward question whether the risk would be higher with a used or new rocket. Machines this complicated have significant infant mortality, and it may well be that the second flight actually has lower risk of failure than the first. Only time will tell.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#55

Post by Gravityloss »

justin66 wrote: post #33
martythemaniak wrote: post #8

Currently they have to throw away the rockets used for GTO missions (around half of them) and can only attempt landings on LEO missions such as the ISS resupplies. Given their last few landing attempts, it's pretty likely that they'll be able to land a rocket sometime this year, which means that starting next year they might be able to reuse all of their F9 Rockets. A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used ro…

> A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used rocket though (no one knows the risks) I am certain the insurers will be happy to take a crack at figuring out the risk. That matters a lot. Whether or not you "want to fly on a used rocket," if your company can purchase a flight and insurance on a used rocket for a lot less than it can purchase a flight and insurance on a new rocket, you might be obligated to try it…

If most of the rockets make hundreds of flights, then there's probably a statistics that says the first flight is riskier than the tenth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#56

Post by threeseed »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #51
krschultz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The information that came out in this article is not news. There has been significant discussions about not only the improved performance of the engines, but customers debating whether or not they wanted to be the first to fly on those upgraded engines. Meanwhile the helium leak problem & reshuffling of schedule is an actual bit of news. We have known about the helium leaks before, but this is the first time it got s…

I don't know if I agree that either of these items is "news" in the "there was no other way to find out about it" sense, but if you take the classical definition of "news" is something reported by a "reporter" (or journalist) then by reporting something it becomes "news" by definition. I realize that is sort of semantic hand waving but when you assert something it "not news" you are, in the framework of that definiti…

Pretty sure you must be the only person in the world to think like this. News is generally considered to be objective, factual etc. A journalist reporting on an event but who was paid by a company or working off a PR media release is generally not considered news. I am not saying that this is an example either way just that your definition is pretty odd.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#57

Post by grayrest »

martythemaniak wrote: post #8

Currently they have to throw away the rockets used for GTO missions (around half of them) and can only attempt landings on LEO missions such as the ISS resupplies. Given their last few landing attempts, it's pretty likely that they'll be able to land a rocket sometime this year, which means that starting next year they might be able to reuse all of their F9 Rockets. A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used ro…

> SpaceX may end up with quite a large number of rockets, which they'll have to fly to establish costs/risks/etc.

I assumed this was the motivator for their satellite internet backbone scheme.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#58

Post by ChuckMcM »

threeseed wrote: post #56
ChuckMcM wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if I agree that either of these items is "news" in the "there was no other way to find out about it" sense, but if you take the classical definition of "news" is something reported by a "reporter" (or journalist) then by reporting something it becomes "news" by definition. I realize that is sort of semantic hand waving but when you assert something it "not news" you are, in the framework of that definiti…

Pretty sure you must be the only person in the world to think like this. News is generally considered to be objective, factual etc. A journalist reporting on an event but who was paid by a company or working off a PR media release is generally not considered news. I am not saying that this is an example either way just that your definition is pretty odd.

Ok, interesting digression. I'm trying to parse your argument, where you claim:

   > A journalist reporting on an event but who was paid by
   > a company or working off a PR media release is 
   > generally not considered news.
So there are a lot of unhooked elements in this claim. Does it change if "a company" is a traditional media company (say News Corp) or a blog like Spaceflight Now? And is a "PR media release" the same thing as a "press release" (that would be a bunch of stuff a company announces and puts on a variety of distribution sources (like PR Newswire)? Does it change is the human was present and listening to the talk, or if they weren't present and not listening to talk given?

Let me put that in a different context, if Obama gives a speech, and releases the speech to the media ahead of time, and a "news outlet" prints, or shows, or somehow makes available a "story" which is consumed by a reader or a viewer or a listener, was that not "news" that they heard? What would they call it? When you listen to the program on the radio they call that segment a "news update" what do you call it?

Do reporters have agendas? Sure they are reporters. Does the same "news" sound different coming from CNN and Fox and ABC ? Yes. And while we can all indict the media for being dupes, I expect stories that unless stories are paid placement (and neither example in this thread appears to have been a paid placement) are considered to be "news stories" by most people. Perhaps biased news based on the biases of the news organization but news none the less.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#59

Post by Gravityloss »

pqomdv wrote: post #40
eabraham wrote: post #38

Considering that the cheaper "used" launch cost will lower the bar for getting satellites to LEO, I wonder how long until we need to worry about Kessler Syndrome[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

I can't wait for junkyard micro-satellites equipped with an ion thruster. They are launched in the hundreds at a time, each locates their specific target, attaches and start a slow descend to burn in the atmosphere. This process is done automatically over a time-frame of months, since ion thrusters work slowly, which is great for automation.

there are even more efficient and cheaper ways for deorbiting than ion engines.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#60

Post by justin66 »

darkmighty wrote: post #35
justin66 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used rocket though (no one knows the risks) I am certain the insurers will be happy to take a crack at figuring out the risk. That matters a lot. Whether or not you "want to fly on a used rocket," if your company can purchase a flight and insurance on a used rocket for a lot less than it can purchase a flight and insurance on a new rocket, you might be obligated to try it…

It's not a straightforward insurance matter since many many applications are time critical. If a rocket blows up they may need many more years until a replacement cargo can be manufactured, fitted into the launch schedule, etc. The coverage for that ( specially opportunity costs, which are hard to measure anyway) might be too high, making the insurance premium larger than the gain provided by reusability. I'd believe…

> It's not a straightforward insurance matter since many many applications are time critical.

If you can put a dollar figure on the potential time loss, it's still a pretty straightforward matter.

If you're flying with a "we must get this in orbit ASAP or the world will catch on fire" priority then, eventually, one will probably pay more for that. (the government will contract out a series of flights so it will play out differently for them)

It's going to take some flying for that to all shake out. As others have pointed out, it's not obvious that the first flight will have the lowest risk. It will be the most expensive in the beginning because its risk is the best understood.

Post reply on HN