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

SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 147 posts

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#61

Post by mkempe »

grinich wrote: post #45
chidevguy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My jaw dropped reading that the rocket could be re-used the next day. That seems like an enormous leap forward for space flight.

Rockets are built to be pretty durable machines (obviously). The environment they operate in outside of the atmosphere is harsher in many ways. Two big issues with sea landing: transport (tug, crane, huge truck, etc.), and corrosion/contamination from saltwater. They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch, but that's way easier to do when the vehicle is sitting empty on the pad next…

This was an experiment. The goal is to land on terra firma, not [mare incognitum].

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#62

Post by dang »

[deleted] wrote: post #39
Crito wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that it is definitely best to use domestic launchers and not have to rely on the Russians for engines or astronaut launch, I don't think that "Fuck the Russians" is really a great expression of that. Since Apollo-Soyuz, spaceflight has been something that our two countries can productively collaborate on, despite our (at times, vast) political differences. Maintaining good relations between NASA and the…

[deleted]

This is a bad Hacker News comment: both politically inflammatory and a glib throwaway. That makes it a bad comment squared, not even counting its implicit Godwinism.

Your "Fuck the Russians" comment upthread was another bad one. It derailed the conversation into an off-topic, indignant subthread. These are the thistle patches of HN.

Please don't post any more comments like these to Hacker News.

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#63

Post by iliis »

paul_f wrote: post #60

This may be a dumb question, but why are they test landing in the ocean instead of on land? Flight paths preclude it?

The seas are huge and empty. Keep in mind that this was just an experiment which could easily have gone wrong. You probably don't want to have to explain why you made a rocket-shaped hole in somebody's roof ;)

Also: Chances are higher that you're able to recover useful wreckage (like data loggers) when you crash into water.

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#64

Post by conroy »

paul_f wrote: post #60

This may be a dumb question, but why are they test landing in the ocean instead of on land? Flight paths preclude it?

Safety. Previous attempts at a soft landing failed, with the firsr stage crashing into the ocean. Once they can be sure of a soft landing, my bet is they'll move to land.

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#65

Post by jessriedel »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #55
grinich wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rockets are built to be pretty durable machines (obviously). The environment they operate in outside of the atmosphere is harsher in many ways. Two big issues with sea landing: transport (tug, crane, huge truck, etc.), and corrosion/contamination from saltwater. They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch, but that's way easier to do when the vehicle is sitting empty on the pad next…

They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch That. You need to re-qualify the engine after each launch. The cost of labour far exceeds the cost of materials, you need to strip and re-build the thing, and you ask yourself just how much money you can save through re-using the first stage. I don't think it's much.

> I don't think it's much.

SpaceX disagrees. They expect to cut the cost of launch by 1 order of magnitude

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

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#66

Post by mikeash »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #55
grinich wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rockets are built to be pretty durable machines (obviously). The environment they operate in outside of the atmosphere is harsher in many ways. Two big issues with sea landing: transport (tug, crane, huge truck, etc.), and corrosion/contamination from saltwater. They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch, but that's way easier to do when the vehicle is sitting empty on the pad next…

They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch That. You need to re-qualify the engine after each launch. The cost of labour far exceeds the cost of materials, you need to strip and re-build the thing, and you ask yourself just how much money you can save through re-using the first stage. I don't think it's much.

Unlike NASA's adventures with the space shuttle, SpaceX is a for-profit business with a goal of making money. They wouldn't be pursuing reusability if they didn't think it would increase their ability to make a profit.

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#67

Post by mikeash »

kristofferR wrote: post #57
mikeash wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange how many people seem unable to understand this. SpaceX got a bunch of testing essentially for free. NASA was gracious to allow it. They could have easily said, "We're paying you to launch stuff to ISS, keep those crazy landing legs far away from our payload." Sea conditions were too rough for recovery. Their options were to wait for better weather, annoying the customer and possibly losing the launch (th…

NASA isn't stupid, they know that if SpaceX manages to get rocket reusability they'll save a lot of money which would otherwise be spent on rocket launches.

Of course. But in the short term, they have a bunch of cargo that needs to get to the ISS soon, and they weren't in a position to tolerate many more delays.

It goes beyond NASA as well. If SpaceX can demonstrate that their reusability testing doesn't impact the launch, that increases the odds that their other customers will allow it on their launches too.

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#69

Post by adinb »

BrandonMarc wrote: post #6

Equally large news from today's press conference at the National Press Club - SpaceX is taking on ULA (united launch alliance, a consortium of incumbent players in the market) and the "block buy" allocation of military / national-security launches to ULA. Here's their handout, from one of the reporters there: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/459734785314013184 Playing politics a bit, Elon's claiming a ~ 75% redu…

ULA testified to congress that they have a 2 year supply of RD-180 engines (not sure of the exact number).

The RD-180 argument is definitely weaker. Cost & reusability are much stronger arguments for canceling/recompeting the ULA block buys.

That said, I can't wait until we have genuine competition in the space launch sector, especially with lightning fast turn times. It would be a genuine revolution in space access—even if money were no object, there's no one in history that has had the technology to support continual launches to orbit.

Re: SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic

#70

Post by arjunnarayan »

mikeash wrote: post #44
kindredlight wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk estimates that Air Force "mission assurance" requirements would cost $30 million, hence a $90 million ("under $100 million") price-tag.

Do you happen to know just what is involved there? I'm not too familiar with this stuff, and I'm curious.

Elon Musk explains it in this answer to Senator Shelby. The whole committe hearing is interesting, but your specific question is answered at 53:02 in the video, which I link here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0#t=3182

Post reply on HN