6 ms·

Competition is a wonderful thing.

secstate 10y ago
Indeed. Too bad Boeing and Lockheed didn't have competition in any real sense for the past 40 years or we'd be a lot closer to Mars. Sometimes it boggles the mind how much money the gov't spends to achieve fairly pedestrian ends. Solid rocket boosters for the shuttle is a good example. Just a big kickback for the ICBM business in Colorado, no real science behind using them to put people in space :(
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Well, you would require a bigger main engine without the SRBs. They were also reusable. Other rockets like the Ariane 5 also use SRBs It might not have been the best solution but it was a solution
  - secstate 10y ago
    That's a solid point, but the Ariane 5 does not do manned flight either. SRBs are less safe than liquid fuel engines too, no way to shut SRBs down on ignition ... sweet.
    - raverbashing 10y ago
      Welcome to rocket science. Not all of this is 100% safe (see past discussion of a Shuttle mission auto-shutdown, where the Shuttle main engines were shut down seconds before lift-off)
      - messe 10y ago
        > Welcome to rocket science. Not all of this is 100% safe Yes, but the Shuttle was far worse than most in that regard. It's abort modes were limited at best and crazy/non-existent at worst.
    - 7952 10y ago
      Its also that when they fail they create dangerous falling debris that could threaten the pad or an escaping crew compartment.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Yet, from 270 SRB's flights one of them failed. STS-135 included parts flown on 59 previous missions, including STS-1. The main problem was actually the weight load as the shuttle was hanging off the side.
  - neuronexmachina 10y ago
    SRBs weren't reusable in any real sense, what was left after splashdown had to be completely disassembled, separately refurbished, and then reassembled. Using the SRBs also made operations much more expensive, since any prep work done after they were mated to the Shuttle was extremely hazardous.
    - raverbashing 10y ago
      The Shuttle's main engines also had to be disassembled, refurbished and reassembled, rocket engines are complicated
      - hga 10y ago
        I've read that's in part because they were pushing the edge of the state of the art at the time they were designed, sports cars were used as an analogy. Of course, it remains to be seen if SpaceX's scheme for engine reuse will pan out.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Which is another way in which the Shuttle platform wasn't that much reusable. Falcon 9 and future SpaceX rockets are intended to be just refueled and relaunched, without having to disassemble the engines after every landing.
      - ThenAsNow 10y ago
        "Had to be..." is not quite true. How the SSME/RS-25 was designed to operate and could be operated is not the same as how NASA chose to operate it. Particularly after Challenger.
harperlee 10y ago
Came here just to say this: Musk wanting to reach Mars is a wonderful thing, but that he was able to lit a fire under other people's assess has a huge multiplier effect. I would imagine other entities (even other countries) are also entering the race even if no public announcement is made.
sunbear 10y ago
Boeing certainly has the infrastructure to jump in (I'm assuming)
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Boeing is sending astronauts to the ISS in 2018 with its CTS-100 capsule. They certainly have the space chops to be a credible competitor.
fruktstav 10y ago
How can you say that? Cooperation is a wonderful thing. Why is it a good thing that two separate entities, with the exact same goal, are keeping secrets from each other and inhibit the development towards that goal with the only reason being ownership and the ability to withold these technologies from the public? I mean, I get that regular zombies would say that competition is good - but a programmer? Haven't you heard about open source? Geez..
- jacquesm 10y ago
  What do you think the chances are that the Boeing CEO would have said this if it weren't for Musk?
  - fruktstav 10y ago
    I think that Boeing certainly would say whatever they can to make people buy their stock. Competition is such a sham, and as per usual: nobody is arguing for why cooperation is bad, ya'll just keep spewing that corporate bs.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > I think that Boeing certainly would say whatever they can to make people buy their stock. They can, and this may be one of those times. But that doesn't mean it isn't driven by competition, or at least the desire to be seen to compete. > Competition is such a sham It isn't when it works. Competition is why you can afford a car, most of the stuff in your house, an internet connection and so on. In places where there is only one vendor prices are as a rule a lot higher than when multiple parties court the same group of potential customers. > and as per usual: nobody is arguing for why cooperation is bad Cooperation has it's place, nobody needs to argue why cooperation would be bad. But in the case of Boeing and SpaceX it is fair to call them competitors because they are independent entities looking to serve the same customers. And by the way, it's a false dichotomy between cooperation and competition in the case of companies one alternative to both competition and cooperation is cartel forming. > ya'll just keep spewing that corporate bs. I don't think that was called for.

Indeed. Too bad Boeing and Lockheed didn't have competition in any real sense for the past 40 years or we'd be a lot closer to Mars. Sometimes it boggles the mind how much money the gov't spends to achieve fairly pedestrian ends. Solid rocket boosters for the shuttle is a good example. Just a big kickback for the ICBM business in Colorado, no real science behind using them to put people in space :(

raverbashing 10y ago
Well, you would require a bigger main engine without the SRBs. They were also reusable. Other rockets like the Ariane 5 also use SRBs It might not have been the best solution but it was a solution
- secstate 10y ago
  That's a solid point, but the Ariane 5 does not do manned flight either. SRBs are less safe than liquid fuel engines too, no way to shut SRBs down on ignition ... sweet.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    Welcome to rocket science. Not all of this is 100% safe (see past discussion of a Shuttle mission auto-shutdown, where the Shuttle main engines were shut down seconds before lift-off)
    - messe 10y ago
      > Welcome to rocket science. Not all of this is 100% safe Yes, but the Shuttle was far worse than most in that regard. It's abort modes were limited at best and crazy/non-existent at worst.
  - 7952 10y ago
    Its also that when they fail they create dangerous falling debris that could threaten the pad or an escaping crew compartment.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Yet, from 270 SRB's flights one of them failed. STS-135 included parts flown on 59 previous missions, including STS-1. The main problem was actually the weight load as the shuttle was hanging off the side.
- neuronexmachina 10y ago
  SRBs weren't reusable in any real sense, what was left after splashdown had to be completely disassembled, separately refurbished, and then reassembled. Using the SRBs also made operations much more expensive, since any prep work done after they were mated to the Shuttle was extremely hazardous.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    The Shuttle's main engines also had to be disassembled, refurbished and reassembled, rocket engines are complicated
    - hga 10y ago
      I've read that's in part because they were pushing the edge of the state of the art at the time they were designed, sports cars were used as an analogy. Of course, it remains to be seen if SpaceX's scheme for engine reuse will pan out.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Which is another way in which the Shuttle platform wasn't that much reusable. Falcon 9 and future SpaceX rockets are intended to be just refueled and relaunched, without having to disassemble the engines after every landing.
    - ThenAsNow 10y ago
      "Had to be..." is not quite true. How the SSME/RS-25 was designed to operate and could be operated is not the same as how NASA chose to operate it. Particularly after Challenger.

harperlee 10y ago

Came here just to say this: Musk wanting to reach Mars is a wonderful thing, but that he was able to lit a fire under other people's assess has a huge multiplier effect. I would imagine other entities (even other countries) are also entering the race even if no public announcement is made.

sunbear 10y ago

Boeing certainly has the infrastructure to jump in (I'm assuming)

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Boeing is sending astronauts to the ISS in 2018 with its CTS-100 capsule. They certainly have the space chops to be a credible competitor.

fruktstav 10y ago

How can you say that? Cooperation is a wonderful thing. Why is it a good thing that two separate entities, with the exact same goal, are keeping secrets from each other and inhibit the development towards that goal with the only reason being ownership and the ability to withold these technologies from the public? I mean, I get that regular zombies would say that competition is good - but a programmer? Haven't you heard about open source? Geez..

jacquesm 10y ago
What do you think the chances are that the Boeing CEO would have said this if it weren't for Musk?
- fruktstav 10y ago
  I think that Boeing certainly would say whatever they can to make people buy their stock. Competition is such a sham, and as per usual: nobody is arguing for why cooperation is bad, ya'll just keep spewing that corporate bs.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > I think that Boeing certainly would say whatever they can to make people buy their stock. They can, and this may be one of those times. But that doesn't mean it isn't driven by competition, or at least the desire to be seen to compete. > Competition is such a sham It isn't when it works. Competition is why you can afford a car, most of the stuff in your house, an internet connection and so on. In places where there is only one vendor prices are as a rule a lot higher than when multiple parties court the same group of potential customers. > and as per usual: nobody is arguing for why cooperation is bad Cooperation has it's place, nobody needs to argue why cooperation would be bad. But in the case of Boeing and SpaceX it is fair to call them competitors because they are independent entities looking to serve the same customers. And by the way, it's a false dichotomy between cooperation and competition in the case of companies one alternative to both competition and cooperation is cartel forming. > ya'll just keep spewing that corporate bs. I don't think that was called for.