4 ms·
This article has a bunch of problems and is fairly typical of mass-media reporting in this area. Suborbital vehicles such as SpaceShipTwo, New Shepard, and Lyn
by dkbrk 10y ago
This article has a bunch of problems and is fairly typical of mass-media reporting in this area.
Suborbital vehicles such as SpaceShipTwo, New Shepard, and Lynx are lumped together with orbital launch systems. I do not think the distinction is made adequately clear in the text either; it would be very easy for a layperson to be seriously misled.
Falcon 9 isn't described separately, just as a note on the Falcon Heavy. Though the Falcon Heavy has a great deal of commonality with the Falcon 9 there are substantial differences in capabilities and economics that go far beyond mere diffrent configurations of a single vehicle. This is very odd considering the outsize influence the Falcon 9 is having on the launch industry right now. Even with the Falcon Heavy flying in the near future, the Falcon 9 is capable of lifting most payloads and will continue to be the core offering from SpaceX in the near future. It's kind of important.
Dragon and Crew Dragon are lumped together. One has been delivering cargo to the ISS since 2012, the other is slated for its first launch next year. They are different vehicles with different capabilities, designed for different purposes; albeit not without considerable commonalites.
Antares has been flying since 2013, so evidently this article isn't just about designs which are in development, experimental, or have yet to reach operation. In which case, it is strange not to compare the listed rockets to Atlas V, Delta IV, Ariane 5 and Proton.
Ariane 6 certainly deserves a mention in its own right. In most respects it is comparable to Vulcan, including plans for partial reusability (in response to SpaceX) and is of enormous political importance to the EU, ESA, and France in particular.
- emp_zealoth 10y agoUgh, the article is so full of crap it hurts. As you've said they mix suborbital toys in there Show SLS (but no price breakdown - hint - it's going to be fucking riddiculous) And it has the fucking suicidal SRB's (they dramatically increase the risk of a critical failure) that cost more to refurbish than to build new... Antares is just... And they compare the MAX SpaceX price to MIN (theoretical!) Vulcan price I actually don't fanboy SpaceX that much (I love what they are doing (because, HEY SPACE!) but I am somewhat ambivalent about them as an actor. Plus, I'd really want to see Skylon fly...), but one has to admit, right now SpaceX seems unstoppable.
- ThenAsNow 10y agoSkylon is never going to fly. The system design doesn't close with any reasonable set of engineering assumptions. This the the kind of thing the press is horrible at reporting about because they lack any technical capability to vet wild claims like what Reaction Engines (REL) is making, and they effectively just serve as a mouthpiece for REL. Real decision-makers with budgetary authority are mislead by this kind of crap. Even the SABRE cycle is overly complex and unlikely to ever be realized as envisioned. The real interesting piece of technology REL has is their precooler. That could potentially see multiple applications. SpaceX is an interesting case not because of their absolute engineering prowess/awesomeness, but because their competition and preceding Government efforts have failed (or not bothered) so many times to accomplish even what SpaceX is doing. It didn't require new technology that SpaceX invented, for example, to land a first stage after launch. But SpaceX definitely deserves plaudits for their doggedness, willingness to be unconventional, and lack of fear about failing publicly along the way.
- avmich 10y agoWonder to see the analysis of REL claims. REL includes people with proven engineering record, and, AFAIK, got money from European organizations familiar with engineering, so it would be interesting to learn what's wrong with their approach.
- boznz 10y agoAgree, Skylon wont fly. The engineering is real sexy but it wont get funded.
- snovv_crash 10y agoI wonder just how unbiased the Washington Post is now that Bezos owns it. The article does come off quite New-Shephard heavy.
- jbooth 10y agoAny bias in the article is probably about 4 levels of reporting away from Bezos. More likely that the author found various defense contractors being extremely available to chat, living in the DC area and all, and trying to get an article out on a deadline while not being an expert on the subject matter.
- mikeash 10y agoBias can exert itself in subtle ways. Merely the knowledge that the big boss has a stake in this area is enough to bias reporting on it, the big boss doesn't have to get involved personally or even have the slightest potential of doing so.
- schwarrrtz 10y agoI did notice that Blue Origin was the only company that got a paragraph explaining their logo...
- avar 10y agoTo be fair to the layperson in the case of SpaceX they're not making it any better. It's called the "Falcon Heavy" now, but it used to officially be "Falcon 9 Heavy". If they didn't want it to be confused with a minor reconfiguration of the "Falcon 9" they couldn't have done worse. Ditto with "Dragon" and "Crew Dragon".