True enough, but the price I quoted was for the vehicle that NASA estimated it would cost them $4 billion to build, or $1.7 billion for private industry to build. Reusability wasn’t on the table then.
Ahh… sorry, thought I was replying to someone that capable of reading. But good job buddy, you typed something. It doesn’t have anything to do with what I stated, but at least you tried. Pat on the back! If you were here in person, I’d give you a star sticker!
Moderating:
Personal attacks aren’t allowed in MPSIMS. If you don’t understand someone’s point, ask politely or talk to someone else. Or if you must reply, you can say something like, “i guess we are talking past each other, i don’t think i agree, but let’s move on.”
There are some things that we are talking past eachother on here, and I don’t disagree with you on most of what you say… However…
I do think that the biggest factor here is that SpaceX wasn’t given a no-bid cost+ contract. SLS could be done much cheaper, it’s just that the many companies that make up that conglomeration had no incentive to do so, and in fact, had the perverse incentive to inflate costs. Politicians didn’t say that SpaceX has to build their capsule in Alabama, their avionics in Texas, their rocket engines in Idaho, and their fuselage in Kentucky.
He also doesn’t have a 106 year old company, with pensioners and stockholders all wanting to get paid.
It’s less about Musk’s personal vision or genious, and more just getting out from under the legacy contracts and costs that have been associated with space flight for decades.
To drive home your point anecdotally, about 6 years ago I took a tour of the Space-X facility in Hawthorne (which was a unique experience in itself for one who was used to the paperwork and processes necessary to get into a “typical” spacecraft bay or building). While showing us around, the Space-X employee/friend of a friend took us to the area where they assembled the rocket engines. He explained each station in the assembly line and let us know that if someone came up with an improvement, they would start inserting it at the appropriate station. I thought about this for a moment (in the old school aerospace, an improvement might show up in 5 years in a prototype) and asked him “So, what you are telling me is that one of your core competencies here is recovery?”. He was a little surprised, but he agreed.
Taking risks is not a good thing in a production environment where failure isn’t quickly acknowledged and dealt with by people who are expected to quickly recover from failure. Rigid processes and policies protect against incompetence in the workforce, but they also protect against rapid, smart, expert reaction.
Aerospace can simultaneously be the most rewarding and the most frustrating workplace.
Electron successfully launched a payload into orbit, but did not snag the 1st stage in the air. In a previous attempt, they did grab hold of it, but the pilot was not comfortable with how the helicopter was behaving. This time I’m not sure they even saw the 1st stage. If I were to guess (and it is just that, a guess) the copter was too far away (based on fast it looked to be flying)
Brian
Apparently they lost telemetry and moved the copter away as a safety precaution.
(Rocket Lab is the company, Electron is the name of the rocket)
Brian
Ahh, too bad. Lest anyone forget, recovering rockets is hard:
They’ll get it right eventually, and a few iterations later they’ll make it look easy.
Nice montage. I enjoyed the part with the tippy booster balleting about the drone ship.
Which raises a question: how do they secure the drone ship booster once it lands? A big automated net? Guy lines shoot out and attach to the booster feet?
Initially, sent people out onto the barge to weld “shoes” over the feet. But that’s kinda dangerous even in calm seas.
Since then, they’ve built the Octagrabber:
It’s a large, flat robot that hangs out in a “garage” on one end of the barge, and when a booster lands it slides under it and clamps onto some brackets. The Octagrabber is heavy enough that there’s little chance of tipping or sliding once it’s hooked on.
Does some brave fellow run out and weld the landing legs to the deck?
Huh, I took “drone” ship to be “unmanned”, so any recovery stabilization would be automated.
Thanks for the explanation!
The barge is definitely unmanned when in use and underway. People only go onboard when it’s at shore (or to secure the rocket before they had the Octagrabber). However, there is a nearby support ship. I’m not sure if they manually (but remotely) control it, or if they just dial in a target location and then follow along.
I’d have to double check, but I think their support ship is the same one that recovers the payload fairings. That is very much a manual operation, as they have to fish them out of the water and store them on deck somewhere. Regardless, they haven’t completely automated the process yet.
Any boat is rather small to have room for a landing booster and a guy with a welding torch or without.
Blue Origin wanted to have a giant ship for landing their booster:
However, even then they claimed the ship would be unmanned during landing. Seems kinda silly, really. If you’re going through all the trouble of having a ship that large, put in some reinforced section so that the crew doesn’t have to evacuate to another ship if something goes wrong. And honestly, for all the nice fireballs in the SpaceX video, these aren’t really that energetic explosions. There just isn’t much propellant left, and the rocket isn’t moving that fast. None of the failures came remotely close to sinking the barge.
Anyway, they scrapped the ship, and it looks like they’ll be switching to a barge like SpaceX.
Didn’t want to pollute the other thread, so I’m replying here. You’ve misinterpreted the events. That was the first flight of the Falcon Heavy. SpaceX offered a free ride to several parties, but no one took the offer–after all, this was the first flight of a very complicated system, and the possibility of failure was high. Even free is not cheap if your payload gets destroyed. So instead they flew a dummy payload to prove the system. This is not a new thing, and many brand-new rockets do the same–it’s just that they usually lift a boring stack of steel plates or the like. SpaceX flew a car instead. The net result was the same and had the side effect of gaining more outside interest.
I’d call it a marketing event for Tesla. Tesla brags they don’t advertise, which is true for the usual modes of advertising. But this was an advertisement nonetheless.
It’s definitely that, too. Both SpaceX and Tesla are masters at cheap marketing–whether by rolling it into things they’d already be doing, or getting free press coverage, or otherwise. Nevertheless, the primary goal was simply to prove the rocket worked. Since the alternative was a block of steel or something, why not do something exciting instead?
Because the guy is a narcissist?
Narcissism = failing to go out of your way to make everything as boring as humanly possible. Got it.