Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

washingtonpost.com

81–83 of 83 posts

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. OK. So with a simple 2-stage rocket like the Falcon 9 you have the first stage which has the 2nd stage stacked on top of it which has the payload stacked on top of it. During a normal flight the first stage (which is the biggest stage) lights, lifts the whole thing off the ground, and pushes the rocket up into the air and starts getting it up to speed. Then the first stage runs out of fuel, it separates and th…

Wow thanks, between this and Gravityloss's comment, I'm really starting to get a clear picture. So on the Falcon heavy, is the plan for all three cores to return to the launch pad independently? Just landing a few hundred feet away from each other?

Pretty much.

Also, I missed a reusability scenario with Falcon Heavy. You use crossfeed, you return the outer 2 first stage cores, and you dump everything else. This is more expensive than reusing all 3 1st stage cores, of course, but it provides a considerably amount of payload for the cost of essentially an expendable F9 plus the use of the reusable boosters. So you'd get very heavy lift capacity (I dunno, maybe 30+ tonnes to LEO) at well under $100 million, which in the current launch market is a crazy price.

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#82
Related: US House now submits a draft bill that would require the Pentagon to build a replacement, US-made engine. [1]

Alternatively, they could take a leaf from NASA's book and embrace the COTS approach that seems to be working for NASA already, so much of the development time is already resolved?

[1]: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1405/01engine/#.U2MpMig6lTw

Re: SpaceX granted injunction in rocket launch suit against Lockheed-Boeing

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CGI Federal had some interesting ties to the Obamas. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/michelle-obama-and-cgi-fede...

Actually the cited article conclusion reads: Conclusion There is no evidence that Townes-Whitley’s connection to the first lady, or CGI’s campaign contributions, had anything to do with the contract being awarded to CGI Federal as viral emails suggest. Company and government officials say the contract was awarded through a competitive — yet limited — process, and that Townes-Whitley was not involved.

Just like when the same federal agency investigates their own employees and finds no wrong doing. Or when a cop is investigated, etc..

I've seen the corruption first hand.. first in the navy and then as a contractor. The joke about the $500 hammer isn't a joke at all.

Post reply on HN