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

SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight

#71

Post by fooker »

mikeash wrote: post #69
fooker wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add a refueling station in orbit and this setup requires less BFR + BFS launches. I am guessing a BFR + specialized fuel container payload will deliver far more fuel to orbit compared to BFR + BFS + fuel.

There is already a plan for a tanker version of the BFS, since as you note it wouldn’t be efficient to refuel with another crewed craft. I don’t see what the station helps with, though. That’s just extra mass to launch.

Managing logistics? A series of BFR launches to station some fuel in orbit seems like a better choice than having to launch a fuel tanker BFR each time.

Re: SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight

#72

Post by mikeash »

fooker wrote: post #71
mikeash wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already a plan for a tanker version of the BFS, since as you note it wouldn’t be efficient to refuel with another crewed craft. I don’t see what the station helps with, though. That’s just extra mass to launch.

Managing logistics? A series of BFR launches to station some fuel in orbit seems like a better choice than having to launch a fuel tanker BFR each time.

Why? I don’t see the advantage. It would make sense if one BFR tanker could launch enough fuel for multiple missions, which you’d then want to store somewhere, but that’s not the case.

Re: SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight

#73

Post by mr_toad »

vertline2 wrote: post #2

This blows my mind and I have naive questions. How can the materials withstand such forces? Is a piece inside replaced (he said without taking it apart)? Is ablation a factor at all?

The retropropulsion actually helps shield the rocket from heat.

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/13935/how-does-the...

Re: SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight

#74

Post by thechao »

romwell wrote: post #67
InTheArena wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a epoch defining change. It does feel like a ton of time ago, and everyone in the industry (most notably ULA, Arianespace and the Chinese) are trying to figure out what they do now that the SpaceX steamroller is in full force.

>It was a epoch defining change. It does feel like a ton of time ago, and everyone in the industry (most notably ULA, Arianespace and the Chinese) are trying to figure out what they do now that the SpaceX steamroller is in full force. Nitpicking on the language: why would SpaceX be a steamroller ? Steamrollers are slow . Also, what does it mean for a steamroller to be in full force ? Steamrollers push downward at a c…

It’s an idiom.

Re: SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight

#75

Post by SEJeff »

InTheArena wrote: post #13
ashraymalhotra wrote: post #9

> It is worth recalling that SpaceX only flew a "used" booster for the first time in March 2017. It's amazing this happened just a little over a year ago.

It was a epoch defining change. It does feel like a ton of time ago, and everyone in the industry (most notably ULA, Arianespace and the Chinese) are trying to figure out what they do now that the SpaceX steamroller is in full force.

Don't forget Roscosmos, who is going to be in a world of hurt when NASA and other customers stop using their services and instead use SpaceX.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/russia-may-lack-the-... sums it up nicely.

Re: SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight

#76

Post by romwell »

thechao wrote: post #74
romwell wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It was a epoch defining change. It does feel like a ton of time ago, and everyone in the industry (most notably ULA, Arianespace and the Chinese) are trying to figure out what they do now that the SpaceX steamroller is in full force. Nitpicking on the language: why would SpaceX be a steamroller ? Steamrollers are slow . Also, what does it mean for a steamroller to be in full force ? Steamrollers push downward at a c…

It’s an idiom.

It is not clear what "it" you refer to here.

Referring to SpaceX as a steamroller is a metaphor[1].

"In full force" is, indeed, an idiom that generally means "in entirety", "completely"[2]

"Steamroller in full force" is neither a metaphor nor an idiom. It's a mashup of the two, and a phrase hitherto unuttered because it doesn't carry meaning.

Put simply, the set of things that can be "in full force" generally does not include steamrollers.

Please see Orwell's essay I linked to. "Fascist octopus has sung its swan song" is an example there that is a similar mix of metaphors.

There are many ways this can be fixed; steamrollers can gain momentum, for example.

As I said - it's not a principal point; I'm nitpicking. However, I believe clear communication is important - so here is an opportunity to improve.

- [1]https://www.grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/

[2]https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+full+force

Re: SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight

#77

Post by [deleted] »

fooker wrote: post #68
mikeash wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could, but I’d hesitate to call the result an SSTO, and you’d be better off using the whole BFR stack anyway. Orbital refueling is critical for the Mars plans. BFR can’t launch for Mars without it, so the capability will definitely be there.

Add a refueling station in orbit and this setup requires less BFR + BFS launches. I am guessing a BFR + specialized fuel container payload will deliver far more fuel to orbit compared to BFR + BFS + fuel.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight

#78

Post by asdfgl »

fooker wrote: post #68
mikeash wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could, but I’d hesitate to call the result an SSTO, and you’d be better off using the whole BFR stack anyway. Orbital refueling is critical for the Mars plans. BFR can’t launch for Mars without it, so the capability will definitely be there.

Add a refueling station in orbit and this setup requires less BFR + BFS launches. I am guessing a BFR + specialized fuel container payload will deliver far more fuel to orbit compared to BFR + BFS + fuel.

Orbit isn't just one thing. The plane changes (some of the most expensive types of burns) involved to get to the same orbit as a tanker and then to the target orbit would vastly outway any potential benefits.
Post reply on HN