Good stuff, clicking through the clips now.
This is a good one where he very diplomatically describes corporate welfare lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH63zFPYmiA
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
SpaceX Falcon 9 FT Launch of CRS-8. First Stage Ocean Landing Successful
- Thread starter cameron
- Start date
- Status
This is a good one where he very diplomatically describes corporate welfare lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH63zFPYmiA
He really is a real life super hero. Last week bringing us mass market electric cars and this week landing a rocket back on a drone ship.
cebri.one
Member
About 1/3. Used F9 will cost 40M compared to the 60M for a brand new F9.
Cabbagehead
Member
Funny enough you got the crazies of society saying it's fake already lol
Yeah, compared to the Blue Origin that hovers and corrects a lot its position: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pillaOxGCo&t=120s
It's insane how the Falcon appear to be going superfast and then just lands.
Head of Vengarl
Banned
Reddit comment:
I had never seen nor heard of the Falcon 9 until 2 days ago when I came across the SpaceX video of the launch and landing that was posted to YouTube.
I had no idea about the landing stuff. I thought I was just going to see a cool video of SpaceX launching a rocket. So imagine my reaction.
I had no idea about the landing stuff. I thought I was just going to see a cool video of SpaceX launching a rocket. So imagine my reaction.
This time? $0
These are still experimental flights, they're not designed to save money but to gather data.
Eventually, consistently reusable F9 / FH stages will save tens of millions of dollars per launch.
Cabbagehead
Member
Those two statements don't work together. Its spaceflight and if it gets people excited then there is no issue. Its been a long time coming anyway. Any other matter I would understand to a degree but not this.
Jezbollah
Member
Yep, indeed.
As Musk just said in the press conference - it doesnt cost much to refuel the rocket, but it does to construct them. Reusing a rocket means no need to make another (at a cost of $60m). They will still need to be made and serviced, but the costs are drastically reduced.
mentallyinept
Banned
Damn... Elon just said he basically ran out of money when they were trying to get Falcon 1 off the ground. 3 failures. They somehow got enough money for a 4th launch and it finally worked.
If that didn't work SpaceX might not exist today. Crazy.
If that didn't work SpaceX might not exist today. Crazy.
If you read his bio it's insane how close both Tesla and SpaceX were to complete failure.
mentallyinept
Banned
Just thinking about a world without SpaceX and Tesla is just depressing considering how far they are pushing tech right now.
Yeah it's so great seeing how far they've come. Like Musk had a contingency with Google to buy out Tesla when they were on the verge of failure.
My concern is more that "spaceflight" is becoming synonymous with "SpaceX".
A few things that have come up recently:
- I was at a talk about an upcoming spacecraft launch and someone in the audience asked why they weren't launching with SpaceX.
- This happened a couple days ago and nobody cared.
- We're being corrected by people for calling it "a barge".
God damn that was incredible.
Both are incredible achievements in space travel. SpaceX just benefits from being tied to Elon Musk who is consistently in the news.
That said, I really do like how SpaceX is encouraging people to watch every one of these launches, they're exciting whether they end like they did today or in disaster like the last landing attempt on the drone.
Both are incredible achievements in space travel. SpaceX just benefits from being tied to Elon Musk who is consistently in the news.
That said, I really do like how SpaceX is encouraging people to watch every one of these launches, they're exciting whether they end like they did today or in disaster like the last landing attempt on the drone.
cebri.one
Member
Mars architecture (MCT and BFR) will be announced (hopefully) at the International Astronautical Congress in Mexico in late September. So yeah amazing times.
It amuses me so much.
It's basically picking up litter. Multi-million dollar litter.
lol
I think Blue Origin is exciting and they are coming at the same end goal as SpaceX from a different direction. SpaceX are encouraging popluar engagement with live streams and presentation whereas the guys at Blue Origin are holding back from that sort of stuff. Fanboyism is happening with Musk but I am not worried that it is getting in the way of anything, this isnt a popularity contest.
Cabbagehead
Member
Unfortunately fanboyism/national pride, war, politics. All wrapped into a big dick measuring contest is what started space flight in the first place. An since NASA has been quiet for a while when it comes to big staged missions, or doing much in R&D as they pushed that to the private sector, regardless of the rovers. SpaceX is the new pretty girl in town with an amazing dress and likes to show off and it's working. As they work towards their goal in spacefligt, plus SpaceX has Elon musk mind you a polarizing figure, which works into that outlook.
Now will things get more "us against them" internally. When more space based companies get on the playing field and things start to heat up? Oh yes and I can see that point becoming fanboy central. But it comes with the new age and the territory.
Its going to be rough waters but the end goal is the primary mission.
cebri.one
Member
Very true. Given that BE is still experimenting and they don't have (yet) real flights going on i think it would be wiser to get some public awareness and raise some excitement among the public. And you don't get that by being so secretive about every you do.
Pristine_Condition
Member
Sure there are some "Elon=savior" noise, but ultimately, I think your concern posts are kinda silly. Because the more people get excited about spaceflight, the more media coverage it will generate, and the more people will find out about what the OTHER players in space are doing.
And the other players ARE doing some really exciting stuff.
Don't sleep on Blue Origin. I wouldn't say "nobody cared" about BlueOrigin's launch, it's just that what they are doing now is so much more modest than SpaceX, who is actually delivering spacecraft to orbit. They are making crazy progress and producing slick spacecraft, and even though they're currently sub-orbital, they won't be forever. Like Dan Rasky said...they are building their spacecraft from the top-down, which has never been done before.
After fits and starts, Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser is going forward. That's gonna be cool. And these newcomers are pushing the cultures of the big traditional players too, and all of them have plans for cool stuff.
The more people get excited about spaceflight, the more they will learn that it's not just SpaceX doing really interesting things.
Specific terms do have meaning. A launch vehicle is different than a spacecraft. A barge isn't a barge when it has engines and other things. It's a ship. So they correct the incorrect terminology. Bigelow's project isn't an "inflatable," even though it is inflated when it is deployed, as it has a structure not dependent on inflation. It's an "expandable." So Bigelow and NASA correct the incorrect language. It happens all the time, and it's no big deal.
Elfforkusu
Member
ISS == LEO, so there's still the dragon of GTO to slay. Also the question of what shape the rocket will be in after a few days at sea.
Still, huge moment. I had no idea there was a launch today!
Still, huge moment. I had no idea there was a launch today!
Cabbagehead
Member
Great point at the end.
Science and Technology is all about specific terms and correcting slips in logic. Its life or death in most cases especially in space and other dangerous fields. So correcting it now before it becomes a normal description is a good thing. Stuff like this needs, to be called by what it is based on the design and purpose and not the interpretation of it to make it easier for people. When it's not the full picture and people need the full picture in this case.
Specific terms is what this career lives and breaths on.
I'm kind of regretting making that post now. To be clear, I don't really think this is that big of a deal and in the end, it's way, way better for spaceflight to be in the position that we're in now thanks to SpaceX.
Anyway, I just don't want to see other companies suffer as a result of a lack of public support. I don't think that's really all that likely, but it's just a brewing concern as time goes on.
Totally. Like I said, I'm very happy to see them succeed.
This is what worries me, though. I'm seeing the increased coverage, but I'm not seeing people caring about what others are doing. In fact, I'm seeing more of an Us vs. Them attitude that is reminiscent of Android vs. iPhone or Sony vs. Microsoft or Twinkies vs. ... I dunno, do people give a shit about Twinkies competitors?
Anyway, I just don't want to see other companies suffer as a result of a lack of public support. I don't think that's really all that likely, but it's just a brewing concern as time goes on.
I agree! I also think it's very important in the professional sphere of spaceflight. However, I'm not in that professional sphere. I should be able to call it a barge among peers in casual conversation without people correcting me. I'm not really all that bothered by it, but it's just a sign ofagainfanboyism.
Cabbagehead
Member
To be honest the reason you see a lot of this. Is because SpaceX is first to market with almost all of this stuff and are leading the way in the private sector. In this area almost alone and again as we all know it helps to have Elon Musk being the one driving that ship. Then you have all the coverage and live streaming they do to interact with the community. People feel connected to them compared to other's so you get that fanboy mentally just on principle.
So until other companies get on the same or better playing field as SpaceX it's going to be tough. Others have to progress to their level or higher or stay foot notes in the industry. There is no longer a single umbrella to stand under once, NASA pushed this to the private sector and into big business. Its a double edged sword that i hope more times then not turns out positive. Rather then negative given the goal.
Bottom line if you're king, you kind of dictate the terms more or less. NASA is and was that king in the world and others followed suit. This is a big contest until it isn't, until most have something that works per the standard or beyond it.
Pristine_Condition
Member
You've said that over and over again, but I'm not seeing how using specific terms--which everyone in the industry, and in science tries to do when dealing with the less-informed media--has ANYTHING to do with "fanboyism." You're saying it's "fanboyism," without offering any real compelling evidence.
Like in the Bigelow Aerospace example I used--are there even Bigelow Aerospace fanboys? I don't really think so. But clarifying the term "expandable" vs. "inflatable" does have meaning, and it's important to distinguish one from the other in the interest of informing the public.
I see people nitpicking on behalf of a corporation in casual conversation as a sign of fanboyism. If we disagree on that, that's cool. To be clear though, I said specifically that it was discussion occurring outside the professional sphere. I think it's important to keep the media well-informed and to be precise in the terminology of spaceflight. Still, does it really matter if I just happen to call it a barge?
Also, please don't get the impression that it's just the barge thing. I brought up other points and that one just happened to be fresh in my mind.
Zantetsuken
Member
I'm just sitting here thinking about all the math involved in making this happen. Mindblowing stuff and an epic feat.
But.... HYPERLOOP.. I need it now
I need a whole network of them so I can be in a different city every weekend
Your sentiment about the fanboyism is certainly on, but the aerodynamic and delta-v needs differ so much between the up and down payload delivery vs delivering a payload into orbit that needing fanboyism to explain why people don't care about the Blue Origin launch but care about this is a bit out there. People who aren't fanboys but understand the tyranny of the rocket equation and how cost-dependent spaceflight is see this as a momentous achievement in history. Thinking the same of Blue Origin's accomplishments (which are still notable) exposes a lack of understanding about rocketry and the big picture of space flight.
The reason why SpaceX is getting so much attention and "fanboyism" is because they are doing things that haven't been done before. As much as Blue Origin deserves credit, it is still not landing a rocket on the same scale as SpaceX. Size of the rocket, velocity, and trajectory are magnitudes less than SpaceX. Credit where credit is due.
I'd kind of like to stop talking about this, but I can't help but try to clarify my position. I really shouldn't have said anything.
I wasn't trying to imply that fanboyism was the only explanation. I'm also certainly not claiming that praising this achievement and ignoring Blue Origin makes you a fanboy.
I see this is as momentous achievement in spaceflight history. I watched the thing live and might have cheered a little. I also know and understand that this is a much bigger deal than what Blue Origin is doing.
DeadlyParasite
Member
Kind of a side-related question but will this technology afford the ability to expand the ISS massively? It's always seemed odd to me that the station hasn't grown exponentially as rocket tech progresses.
Lol apparently Musk tweeted this and then deleted it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSx4DGBstYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSx4DGBstYA
Yeah, that's by necessity, the engines are literally too powerful to do it any other way. In order to hover or descend with constant velocity you need to maintain a thrust to weight ratio of 1.0. The problem is, with the stage nearly empty, it's too light that the engines can't throttle down low enough to achieve that. That means the only option is decelerate all the way down and hit 0 velocity at the moment of engine cut-off. If they mistimed it and started the landing burn too early, the rocket would actually start accelerating upwards again before hitting the ship.
- Status