18 ms·

SES-10 Mission

1094 points by traviswingo 10y ago

thefalcon 10y ago
Exciting times. It won't be long until my son is asking me why we used to just drop these things in the ocean after first use.
blhack 10y ago
Technical webcast here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNO571C7Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNO571C7Ko Edit: Okay everyone can breathe now!
vtange 10y ago
Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? Would be a bummer if people decided they were a monopoly of some sort and demanded a break up.
- r00fus 10y ago
  Does Blue Origin count?
  - mijoharas 10y ago
    I believe they are currently doing sub-orbital flights while they are working up to re-usable orbital flights. Please correct me if i misremembered.
    - Eerie 10y ago
      You know there is absolutely no reason for you to "believe" anything about Blue Origin, right? Google, Wikipedia and Blue Origin's own website is 3 seconds away.
    - ncallaway 10y ago
      This is correct. Their current launch stack is and will remain sub-orbital hops above the Kármán line. They are actively working on their next gen launch stack (New Glenn), which is set to have its first launch before 2020. New Glenn will be a reusable launch stack capable of inserting payloads into orbit. It will be roughly similar to the Falcon Heavy in terms of mission capabilities.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    No. Not even close to this.
  - ericcumbee 10y ago
    I'm not sure how valid it is, but i read somewhere that Blue Origin and SpaceX are both shooting for the same target, but taking different paths. Blue Origin is doing Reusability first and orbital second. SpaceX went Orbital first and Reusability second. although to me it seems spacex is clearly ahead.
    - vkou 10y ago
      The difference between launching something to space and to orbit is roughly the difference between a bicycle, and a motorcycle. Blue Origin can go to space. They are nowhere close to going to orbit. We've sent things to space and back a long time ago. We call them airplanes. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15
      - ncallaway 10y ago
        Blue Origin isn't as far back as it may seem. They're new engine (BE-4) that will power New Glenn is going through test firings now. Additionally, they're angling to get BE-4 sold into other launch stacks than just their internal hardware. If they are able to get BE-4 out into other launch stacks in the next year or two, it's very possible that New Glenn will launch it's first mission before 2020. New Glenn will be comparable to the Falcon Heavy in terms of lift. The Falcon Heavy won't have it's demo flight until later this year. I'd agree that Blue Origin is behind SpaceX. Still, though, I think they are on a pretty good track to take second place in the reusable launch stack to orbit.
        yborg 10y ago
        SpaceX Merlin 1C completed its first full duration firing in 2007, a decade ago. Blue Origin is trying to go straight to a large engine with more than twice the thrust of the Merlin 1 AND using a fuel that has never been used in rocketry for an engine this size. I'm impressed that Blue Origin has come this far, but they are most likely 5 years behind SpaceX, and probably more.
  - manarth 10y ago
    No: SpaceX is launching satellites into various orbits, which Blue Origin cannot do yet (and cannot do with their current rocket).
  - pixelcloud 10y ago
    They are still a ways off from having something comparable to SpaceX. New Glenn might have a test launch in 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- neuronexmachina 10y ago
  One could argue whether they're truly private sector, but they still haven't quite displaced ULA. In 2016 there were 12 ULA launches, 8 SpaceX launches, and 2 by Orbital ATK. Looking at other countries, there were 20 Chinese launches, 18 Russian launches, 9 European launches, and 7 Indian launches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight#Orbital_launch_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight#Orbital_la...
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    That's why this is so big, dropping the costs significantly could easily pull a significant fraction of those other launches to SpaceX. Pretty soon the ability to re-launch the same booster will be considered a must-have feature if you want to be in the rocket business, unless you fly missions so close the maximum payload or trajectory that recovery is impossible.
    - rrmm 10y ago
      SpaceX would still have to deal with scheduling: making enough upper stages and having limited launch/landing pads they share with NASA/ULA/ATK. So those with less cost-sensitive payloads (governments) would probably still pay a premium to launch their payloads sooner rather than cheaper.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        That doesn't add up: SpaceX will be able to use a chunk of their savings to outbid their competitors for launch capacity. So any premium paid by a competitor would have to be passed on to their customers to stay afloat whereas SpaceX would merely give a slightly lower discount. SpaceX really caused some sleepless nights today with the executives of other rocket companies they are several years away from being able to begin to play catch-up. This was one very long bet SpaceX made and it paid off today and will continue to pay off for years to come.
        rrmm 10y ago
- rrmm 10y ago
  They wouldn't have a monopoly since there are plenty of other launch services out there (ULA,Russians,ESA,etc). The fact that SpaceX will probably be able to do it for much cheaper doesn't factor into it.
- nickik 10y ago
  At least in the US that is not possible anymore. The wild inconsistency (arbitrary enforcement) of Anti-Trust Law has been replaced by a consistent definition thanks to the activities of many judges and legal theorists. The new definition is basically that one needs to prove abuse of consumers to make Anti-Trust law effective. I don't think SpaceX is in danger of being accused of that. They really don't have any competition on price anymore, but they are yet unable to actually do as many flights as they need to. To solve that they are building even more launch sites and thanks to the re-usability they will be able to do more flights without further increasing their engine output.
- jccooper 10y ago
  Bezos's Blue Origin is on track to have a very similar system in a few years, and perhaps even better eventually with the possibility of a reusable second stage. ULA still has plenty of contracts and could compete if its parent companies wanted to spend the money to do so. Arianespace is vaguely commercial, is currently cost-competitive, and could also choose to develop a reusable vehicle, if its parent companies/countries can stand the expense. There are also plenty of small-launcher outfits currently working that could also scale up given a contract and/or investment, just like SpaceX did from Falcon 1 to F9, were SpaceX to leave any room in the market by overpricing.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > Bezos's Blue Origin is on track to have a very similar system in a few years That's on paper, not anything they've flown has come close to what SpaceX is demonstrating as a matter of some routine now. (1) never been to orbit (2) never been to orbit and then back down to a landing (3) 6 flights vs 33 (4) payload < 2 Tonnes vs 5.5 for Falcon 9 re-usable (and 8 expendable). At this point in time Blue Origin to me looks like a slightly more serious version of Armadillo Aerospace and SpaceX looks like the company that will put the majority of tonnage into orbit in the next decade.
    - jccooper 10y ago
      It's easy to confuse Blue Origin with other companies with paper plans, but they're the real deal. Besides having demonstrated clear competence with New Shepard (with an LH2 engine no less), the orbital version is well underway. They've leased the pad, are currently building the factory, and are testing the engine. And Bezos definitely has the money. They may not be flying the New Glenn yet, but they will.
      - Robotbeat 10y ago
        Yeah. Blue Origin is probably at least 4 years behind, but Bezos has more money than God and Blue Origin's approach is technically sound, so yeah. I don't think SpaceX will indefinitely be the only reusable launch provider, and I don't think anyone would want that anyway.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? They do, such as Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, and others I can't think of off the top of my head. However, Musk appears to have a major advantage: At least two major investment banks [0][1][2] and many other observers and investors [3][4] believe a major advantage Musk has over competitors is his relationship with President Trump. They claim it has greatly increased investment in Tesla (and investment indeed has greatly increased since Musk embraced Trump after the election, but of course the cause is impossible to prove and U.S. stocks in general have rallied). If you doubt this is an issue, not only see the cites but search a news index for "musk trump" - it is widespread outside HN. I don't know about the effect on SpaceX (are they public?), but the space business is highly dependent on government contracts, project funding, and regulation; you can imagine what the appearances are. Compare that with competitor Jeff Bezos, for example, who owns a major newspaper that regularly criticizes Trump; will the competition for government contracts and other benefits be free and fair? It would be bad for the space industry, the economy, the U.S. as a nation, and the fight for the free market and against corruption if that relationship decided or even appeared to decide the winner in this competition. Appearances are reality on the public stage; if people merely perceive corruption helped him, the (many) unscrupulous people will try to use that tactics themselves and many others will doubt Musk's legitimacy. I think he has what it takes to win on his own; the other stuff could undermine him unnecessarily, and be bad for everyone else. ---- [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/elon-musk-donald-trump-wall-street.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/elon-musk-donald... [1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/technology/elon-musk-trump/ http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/technology/elon-musk-trump/ [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/ubs-analyst-says-he-cant-understand-why-tesla-shares-are-up-so-much.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/ubs-analyst-says-he-cant-und... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-26/musk-s-surprising-rapport-with-trump-yields-40-rally-for-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-26/musk-s-su... [4] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/elon-musk-is-all-in-on-donald-trump/515562/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/elon-... [Mods: Last time I mentioned Musk's relationship with Trump, you objected but the problem wasn't clear to me; I responded and asked, but probably too late to for you to see it. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13880838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13880838 ) If this post is somehow objectionable, please tell me the problem so that I can avoid it in the future. This seems like many other posts on HN, except its content criticizes a very popular figure and includes a controversial one; hopefully popularity doesn't preclude criticism and the POTUS can be discussed. I am speaking plainly and documenting it very well.]
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  Arianespace is their biggest competitor, they are the de facto rulers of the commercial launch market, with SpaceX hot on their heels. The Ariane 5 launches twin payloads about 7 times a year, for a total of about 14 total spacecraft launches per year. SpaceX is about at a similar cadence but has yet to hit the overall schedule and mission reliability figures that Arianespace has achieved so it's still a bit of a race. Launching on Ariane is the easy, safe choice. Launching on the Falcon 9 is still considered to be a little bit risky, more so from a schedule perspective (which is still a big deal in the industry). SpaceX is increasing its launch cadence and reducing its prices substantially (through reusability) so they are becoming more competitive by leaps and bounds every moment. If they can follow through on their cadence increases (right now they are around an average of 3 weeks between launches and a minimum of 2 weeks) and cost reductions (see recent flight) no one else will be able to keep up with them. Their internal cost reductions on reuse are unknown but their current price reductions are around 30%, which is off of their already incredibly aggressive low launch prices. If SpaceX can provide launches at around $45 mil and can launch often enough to satisfy demand reasonably then they'll end up with the majority of the commercial launch business eventually. If you can put your satellite in orbit reliably and save on the order of $50 million then you'd be insane not to do so. There's a bit of an insurance premium with launching on SpaceX currently but that should even out after a while and the huge cost reductions swamp that difference regardless (even if, for example, SpaceX were to blow up another rocket tomorrow). The only realistic competitor for SpaceX in the near term is Blue Origin, once they develop their orbital launcher which will also have VTVL first stage reusability. The timeline on that is sometime before 2020, but that's likely to be the soonest any real competition for SpaceX's business model shows up. Once it becomes commonplace for launches to involve first stage reuse (which will probably happen over the next 5 years or so) I'd expect a lot of the other rocket companies (like Boeing and LockMart) to come out with similar designs (or go out of business or be relegated to national payloads only). It's a lot easier to put forward some hypothetical "better" design for your next generation rocket when everything is on paper, it's a lot harder to pretend your rocket is still better when you're getting your face pushed in by the competition on price by huge margins on a regular basis. Once SpaceX has the Falcon Heavy running (which will be even more reusable since the upper stage is a smaller proportion of the rocket) they'll be able to launch nearly anything anyone else can, and at dramatically lower costs. Once they're able to launch GPS satellites (which they've already got orders for) as well as the big national security birds (on the FH) for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars less than ULA then almost all of that business is going to flow to them and LockMart/Boeing are going to have some tough times.
- kilroy123 10y ago
  The Russians are doing more private launches with Soyuz and the Indians are also likely to do the same.
  - Robotbeat 10y ago
    From what I can tell, that's not true. Last year, SpaceX did 5 commercial launches (i.e. non-government) with Falcon 9 while Soyuz only did 2 or 3 (depending on how you count "commercial").
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 10y ago
History was being made today. Super, congratulations to all of SpaceX. Now let's see the landing :) STUCK THE LANDING :) :) :) Apologies to my neighbors who I surely woke up. Hah :) Incredible! Now, will they fly this one again?
- birken 10y ago
  And they caught it again. Truly amazing.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Sitting here smiling ear to ear :) Also interesting how many references there were to the Mars mission in the lead up to the launch.
  - mpetrovich 10y ago
    Amazing. But the video seemed to cut out right before landing.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      They warned that would happen, the real time coverage is a good show of confidence.
    - Coincoin 10y ago
      It always happen right after you can barely see the fire reflecting on the barge. The vibrations from the rocket screws with the satellite connection. We don't have the technology yet to have internet in the middle of the ocean without satellites.
      - derekp7 10y ago
        Why not have a small secondary ship parked about a mile away, that can act as a satellite relay? Should be able to maintain a good link over that small distance.
M_Grey 10y ago
Whatever you think about Musk, or Mars, this aspect of his business is just amazing. SpaceX is incredibly impressive, and the novel approach to landing and reusability is really moving things forward.
remarkEon 10y ago
Question: Will future SpaceX clients now want to put their payloads in orbit on a "flight proven" booster, instead of one that hasn't flown before?
- RivieraKid 10y ago
  If it's cheaper then yes.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    They're not talking about cheaper, they are talking about more reliable.
    - quotemstr 10y ago
      Well, you can combine cheapness and reliability by looking at total cost after launch insurance.
      - Rebelgecko 10y ago
        That's not really a fair comparison. The amount of money you lose if something bad happens is more than just the cost of replacing your payload (which is what insurance covers)
        BHSPitMonkey 10y ago
        Why wouldn't they obtain insurance for the total cost of the mishap?
        Rebelgecko 10y ago
        Losing a payload can have a domino effect of bad things that insurance doesn't cover. Kind of like how your car insurance won't pay for your lost income if you get in an accident and then get fired for missing work. Maybe the car analogy is a bit of a stretch, but look at Spacecom, whose Amos-6 satellite blew up during a static fire back in September (this wasn't actually covered by launch insurance, but Spacecom had separate insurance for anything that happens before the launch). Beyond the cost of a new satellite (covered by insurance) and a new launch (SpaceX is giving them one for free) Spacecom still has to provide coverage for their customers. The solution is to lease someone else's satellite for 4 years, which cost them $88 million [1]. On top of that, they were in the middle of selling the company for $285 million. The deal was contingent on the Amos-6 satellite being fully operational. Supposedly, the buyer only wants to pay $190 million now. They may also end up backing out. Someone else's launch going badly can also be bad for your company. The explosion that took out Amos-6 also damaged the pad and threw off SpaceX's schedule (which was already oversubscribed). Inmarsat was required by the EU to start using their spectrum by a given deadline, which they ended up missing. Theoretically, the EU could take away their spectrum allocation (although they probably won't). Inmarsat did end up having to buy a launch with another provider though, which probably cost them a ton of money[3]. [1] http://spacenews.com/spacecom-begins-service-with-a-borrowed-satellite-rebranded-amos-7/ http://spacenews.com/spacecom-begins-service-with-a-borrowed... [2] http://spacenews.com/spacecom-reports-lull-in-talks-with-chinese-buyer/ http://spacenews.com/spacecom-reports-lull-in-talks-with-chi... [3] http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/8/13883640/spacex-satellite-launch-inmarsat-arianespace-schedule-delay http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/8/13883640/spacex-satellite-...
themgt 10y ago
It looked like one of the grid fins got toasted. Will they still be able to stick the landing? fingers crossed edit: and they did it! I was pessimistic for a minute there!
- cmsimike 10y ago
  I saw that! I wonder if it was from the entry burn. I was worried because as I saw the fin get toasted, the video cut out, but that was because stage 1 went trans-sonic.
  - JshWright 10y ago
    The video cut out because the stage fell below the horizon (from the perspective of the tracking station on the Cape).
- hwillis 10y ago
  Someone on reddit said it was an ablative coating. This was also a heavy launch, so it's not surprising they'd be hitting the atmosphere faster.
- ygra 10y ago
  The grid fins are painted with ablative paint that's supposed to burn away while protecting what's underneath. Same with the legs. But they do suffer damage during re-entry as could be seen on photos of them from previous landed boosters. I'm fairly sure that's all expected and accounted for.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    The legs are only flown once and are replaced in their entirety, they take the brunt of the impact from landing and may suffer non-elastic deformation.
    - ygra 10y ago
      I didn't say the legs were going to be re-used. I just said they were painted in a way that the paint can burn away, just like the grid fins. If you're coming down through your own exhaust you don't want to risk damaging the things you land on a few meters above the ground.
aidos 10y ago
They've landed it too! Amazing!
- david-given 10y ago
  Although when the technical webcast went black just at the moment when I'd expect the vehicle to come into sight, I was sure that something had gone wrong and they'd pulled the plug.
  - karyon 10y ago
    In the hosted webcast they explained that the droneship is on a satellite link and expected to loose connection as soon as the first stage closes in due to vibrations. Edit: someone else here said the exhaust fumes might also disrupt the satellite link.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    That's exactly what I thought too. I assumed it went kaboom and they cut the feed. What a nice surprise when they called out a successful landing!
    - david-given 10y ago
      ...one day I'm hoping they'll release all the cut footage from the, um, learning experiences of the early Falcon 1 and 9. I'm sure that they've cleaned up the broken frames and there'll be lots of fascinating fireworks.
wolfram74 10y ago
And they stick the landing!
SubiculumCode 10y ago
CONGRATULATIONS SPACE X!
madamelic 10y ago
That "live" Elon interview seemed really pre-recorded... Did anyone else get that feeling?
- stephenitis 10y ago
  only that they cut to him as they were counting down... it seemed genuinely teary
- andrewwhartion 10y ago
  No. If it was pre-recorded, I'd be surprised if he was "lost for words".
  - madamelic 10y ago
    Ooooops. Shows me. I turned it off to leave work.
- Strom 10y ago
  Yeah, everything about that seemed pre-recorded, especially considering how calm everyone in the background was. Understandable though considering how busy Elon is.
  - nraynaud 10y ago
    might be people focused on their job, like getting a satellite at the agreed-upon position :) (but I agree, forget this satellite stuff, show me where the trash landed, and tell us where the fairings are!)
  - madamelic 10y ago
    Oh absolutely. I didn't mean it as a negative. It was just an observation
- traviswingo 10y ago
  Maybe they tried a couple times...probably because he was choking up. :)
dougmwne 10y ago
History made, their biggest public accomplishment since the first landing!
chapati23 10y ago
YES!!!
bborud 10y ago
Nailed it!
Taniwha 10y ago
So they are supposed to be trying to recover the two fairing halves this time around - any news of that?
- rrmm 10y ago
  I haven't heard anything about it. They were also going to be testing the 'Roomba' robot contraption on the recovery ship. Best place I know of for news is probably the reddit r/SpaceX subredit.
- rrmm 10y ago
  They apparently did recover the fairings successfully.
  - mholt 10y ago
    Not quite: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/847599001746644996 https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/847599001746644996
    - JshWright 10y ago
      It sounds like the test was successful. They weren't planning to catch them, but wanted to demonstrate soft landing in a targeted area (much like the early Falcon 9 landing tests).
braymundo 10y ago
Fantastic!!! Being able to watch a reusable rocket land perfecty, from my mobile phone while casting to a TV, over a computer network, while located in southern Brazil makes me SO PROUD to be human!
- eliaspro 10y ago
  It just depresses me seeing how many people don't have the slightest clue why this is something incredibly remarkable - the complexity behind each and every component, process, research and engineering making this possible - and then start bitching about the new Emoji set on their smartphone
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    And when, say, an amazing archeological artifact is uncovered, we probably won't appreciate the complexity that went into that, and the folks at ArcheologistNews will be pissed. There are so many fields and so many complex processes. I can assure you that any one of: the world of power transmission, or offshore oil drilling rigs, or commercial shipping, or chemical process design and optimization, or tons of other stuff, is enough to warrant an entire "HN". So don't expect people to appreciate it all. But what we can appreciate is the fact that you and I don't need to understand archeology to contribute to society ;)
    - gallerdude 10y ago
      I've always pondered that I'd love to read in on these other fields, see what they find interesting and new.
      - pilsetnieks 10y ago
        Yeah, I think it's not that you're focused on your one field, just that some people have the curiosity to look into things and appreciate the work being done; some people have that for their field only; and some people just don't give a crap at all about things that don't directly affect them.
ninjamayo 10y ago
YIPPEE!!! That was amazing SpaceX. Thanks Elon!
bluecat 10y ago
What a fantastic achievement, I'm so happy. I love when a problem solved excites all of humanity.
jondishotsky 10y ago
Don't ever let anyone tell you that something is impossible.
- sidcool 10y ago
  Yep! Never tell me the odds! Great moment in human history.
- agumonkey 10y ago
  I have to say that to doctor this afternoon.
SEJeff 10y ago
I can't wait until I have a talk with my kids when they realize the significance of this day: Kid: Daddy, ou mean when you were growing up, they threw away rockets each time? Me: Yes Kid: Doesn't that make them expensive? Me: Yes. And then not long after will be the other talk: Kid: Daddy, you mean people used to be in charge of driving themselves in cars? Me: Yes Kid: Did people ever die? Me: Millions Good job Elon and SpaceX, get some rest, and then focus on the Model 3! Elon: We have proven what can be done, that many said was impossible. drops mic after SpaceX lands flawlessly
- Flame 10y ago
  The real-time streaming made me really excited for the future. Elon is truly a genius... SpaceX will save so much money. I can't wait to see what comes next. Honestly, the rate at which technology is growing is truly absurd if you think about it.
  - beamatronic 10y ago
    I think a lot of it comes from the fact that (almost) every literate human being can communicate (almost) instantly around the planet with (almost) every other literate human being, and the fact that with machine translation, language is less of a barrier all the time.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Illiterate people can too using Skype and such. Instant planetwide communication between any party of humans sharing a common language is now pretty much a given.
      - sqeaky 10y ago
        While you are correct for the most part, I would point out that text services have wider distribution even if only for bandwidth reasons. But there are other reasons, there are good (enough) and widely distributed text standards (SMS), but not yet for video. But maybe we are both over thinking it, does the old voice network reach even further?
kibwen 10y ago
The link is to a livestream and I didn't get here in time to watch the landing live, has a recording of the landing been uploaded anywhere yet?
- softawre 10y ago
  Just click back in the video on the linked page.
- azernik 10y ago
  Should be in YouTube - they were streaming it there too, and YT streams are watchable after the fact. Look at the SpaceX channel.
- soperj 10y ago
  You can just go back on the live stream.
- midwestcode 10y ago
  YouTube link of the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8
paulsutter 10y ago
For nostalgia's sake, here's Elon's speech to employees after the first successful launch of Falcon 1 (flight 4), in 2008 at Kwajalein Atoll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQhtMrUQlE&t=32m30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQhtMrUQlE&t=32m30s (speech begins at 32:30, in case link doesn't work)
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Why does this video look like it was shot in 1990? Camera quality can't have been that bad in 2008, can it?
  - mrkgnao 10y ago
    Might have been an early mobile phone camera.
    - mstade 10y ago
      I don't think the video was shot with a mobile camera, but probably a DV camera typical of the day – Canon XL1 was pretty popular if I recall. These days you can record HD video on your cell phone, but a decade ago (and recall, the original iPhone was released just in the year prior to this video) you had to get dedicated equipment that would run in the thousands of dollars. Camera quality has absolutely exploded in the last decade, when compared with how much they've shrunk, and Apple certainly had a role to play in that transformation. I'm not at all surprised that video from a decade ago looks so dated compared with video today.
- mrkgnao 10y ago
  He's definitely matured a ton as a speaker. I mean, he isn't smooooth now, but there are far fewer pauses, to the point where it's just another striking feature about him instead of making his words hard to follow. Also, the kid being held aloft at 34:20 was a very cute touch. https://youtu.be/8FQhtMrUQlE?t=34m20s https://youtu.be/8FQhtMrUQlE?t=34m20s
quakeguy 10y ago
Success!
grondilu 10y ago
I've noticed that during the webcast they talked much more about their planetary colonisation project than they usually do. I guess it makes sense since today is the first time they actually implement the re-usability plan they believe is the key to this colonisation. But frankly, is the cost of going to mars really that important for its colonisation? I mean, I wouldn't move to mars even if going there was free. For one, there's no breathable air, for Pete's sake. They are talking about building a city on a place where there isn't even breathable air. That's insane. This whole thing is very conflicting to me. On one hand I can appreciate the technological achievement and I acknowledge that re-usability will be extremely useful for space exploration, but on the other hand I can't help thinking that those people who get excited about building a city on mars are completely delusional.
- dkonofalski 10y ago
  > They are talking about building a city on a place where there isn't even breathable air. Yet. As far as I know, the plan is to create some generators and a basic colony that can terraform the land to try and create an atmosphere on the planet. It's not unlike what they were planning in "Total Recall" but, at least in this case, there's more science to it than fantasy.
- hayd 10y ago
  > I can't help thinking that those people who get excited > about building a city on mars are completely delusional. That's what they once said about walking on the moon.
  - grondilu 10y ago
    Well, there is probably a reason why nobody thought it was worth doing it again ever since. More seriously though, just because many projects were wrongly considered foolish in the past, does not mean one can not point at a new one and call it foolish. History tends to remember those who turned out to be brilliant, and forget all those who genuinely were foolish. The example I like is Franz Reichelt [1]. People around him were watching as he prepared to meet his death. Nobody said "don't do that, you'll kill yourself". Why? I guess because they were not sure, and they did not want to be the person who dissed someone who might be remembered as say the Wright brothers were. I guess I'm not comfortable being the guy who says nothing as he watches people being foolish or delusional. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN3xfGrx_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN3xfGrx_U
Someone 10y ago
I understand the enthusiasm, but I don't see enough hard data to convince me this will be a commercial success. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He..., SpaceX has launched and landed about 10 of these rockets, and has so far reused one. That rocket was first used about a year ago. Factors that might prevent this from making this economically superior to 'just' ramping up production are: - the fraction of launches that can be reused. - the amount of effort needed to prepare a rocket for reuse relative to that needed to produce a new rocket. They will have been extra cautious this time, but from the above, the answers _could_ be "about 10%" and "almost one year, taking way more effort than building a new one does". I would think the real answers are a bit better and will get even better over time, but I also don't think they already are at "close to 100%" and "a couple of weeks", because, if they were, I think they would have launched a used rocket earlier. I also am not convinced they can get there. That's mostly guessing, though, as I'm not a rocket scientist and can't find hard information on this. Does anybody have that?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- going_to_800 10y ago
  http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/ http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-... Of course the first missions won't that effective for cost savings, but the future ones will be.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Osmium 10y ago
  > That's mostly guessing, though, as I'm not a rocket scientist and can't find hard information on this. Yeah, my understanding is that you're wrong on this, though I too am not a rocket scientist. But a few points: > SpaceX has launched and landed about 10 of these rockets, and has so far reused one. That rocket was first used about a year ago. While this is factually correct, extrapolating from this will not give any useful insight. > the amount of effort needed to prepare a rocket for reuse relative to that needed to produce a new rocket It may be somewhat counter-intuitive, but an already-flown rocket is easier to fly a second time than it is the first time: it's already been "flight-proven." For example, a lot of defects on a microscopic scale simply cannot be detected ahead of time, and the only way to truly detect them is to test the rocket. This is why there are static fires ahead of launch. And it is also why there is a lot of over-engineering (in many things, not just rockets, but airplanes etc.) The important thing here is that they land the rocket without too many additional stresses. It's not like the Space Shuttle boosters which were dumped into the ocean and had to deal with a lot of refurbishment. > if they were, I think they would have launched a used rocket earlier. The first one will always take longer. They're also finalizing the design, and had an accident investigation last year that was a big burden. > I understand the enthusiasm, but I'm not sure you do, but I hope I may have convinced you otherwise ;) The answers to your questions could really be "close to 100%" and "a few weeks to months" (more optimistic people will say "days or hours" to that last question). What they've managed today is a huge milestone, and they're iterating on an astonishing timeframe. They hadn't even landed a single rocket a few years ago, and that was the truly difficult part. It's incredible how fast their progress has been, especially in the context of the space industry generally.
artursapek 10y ago
This man inspires me more than anyone else ever has. Historic day.
mr_overalls 10y ago
The obvious question: how much cheaper will a reusable rocket make it, per pound, to put a payload in orbit?
- RivieraKid 10y ago
  30%
  - tdy721 10y ago
    As dictated by the market monopoly holder.
    - nickik 10y ago
      What? Prices are only dictated if you dictate to somebody else. They are just setting there own price. Also, there is no monopoly situation.
      - Tepix 10y ago
        They have a monopoly on reusable orbit-class rockets (for now).
        nickik 10y ago
        Fortunately the market is about putting stuff into orbit, not about putting stuff into orbit with reusable rocket. ULA also has monopoly in Hydolox rockets. That however is not relevant and its not a useful use of the word monopoly.
        Robotbeat 10y ago
        You're missing the point. It's perfectly relevant to point out that SpaceX is now able to charge much more for reuse than the marginal cost, effectively being able to charge monopoly rent for being the only player on the field with a reuse capability. Of course, it's not a total monopoly on launch period, but that's missing the point. A 30% reduction in price doesn't represent the ultimate lowest cost of reuse because currently there's no competition for reuse.
aeleos 10y ago
What a great time to be alive, to be able to witness such revolutions in rocket technology.
synaesthesisx 10y ago
Truly incredible. I applaud the SpaceX team for making history.
firefoxd 10y ago
I was very confused by the 'of course i still love you' statements. Until i realized it was the name of the landing platform.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Player_of_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Player_of_Games
  - dalanmiller 10y ago
    One of my favorite books of all time.
  - johnnydoe9 10y ago
    I was about to search what it meant too, thanks I gotta read this now.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      You won't regret it.
nradov 10y ago
The launch video is amazing! How are they able to get clear video with stable tracking of a rocket >10km away? What sort of lens and camera makes that possible?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Something like this: http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/telescopes/images/24inchMilitary_VAFB_02.jpg http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/telescopes/images/24inchMili...
  - rblatz 10y ago
    As an untrained person my first response to that picture was "yeah that looks like it would do the trick"
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      As an amateur photographer, my first response was "what in the fuck is that?"
- olegkikin 10y ago
  While they probably use something much more serious, you could technically use something like Nikon P900, which is 2000mm equivalent, and is very affordable.
  - bergie 10y ago
    Could actually be one of those. SpaceX uses lots of off-the-shelf hardware. For example, the cameras mounted on the rocket are (at least mostly?) GoPros
    - mstade 10y ago
      Do you have a source for this? I own a GoPro and I love the little thing, but I had no idea they were able to withstand this kind of stress.
nialv7 10y ago
Anyone noticed that LD said "Go for age of reflight"?
jen729w 10y ago
Well it took me about an hour to upvote every comment on this page but it was worth it. ;-)
- pferde 10y ago
  Next time, just spend 15 minutes to automate it. :)
  - rayboy1995 10y ago
    Then 2 hours maintaining and improving it.
    - gargarplex 10y ago
      1) Add this as a bookmarklet called "Inject jQuery". Then click "Inject jQuery" javascript:void((function(doc)%7Bif(typeof jQuery%3D%3D%27undefined%27)%7Bvar script_jQuery%3Ddocument.createElement(%27script%27)%3Bscript_jQuery.setAttribute(%27src%27,%27//code.jquery.com/jquery-latest.min.js%27)%3Bdocument.body.appendChild(script_jQuery)%3Bconsole.log(%27jQuery included %5E_%5E%27)%3B%7Delse%7Bconsole.log(%27jQuery already included ...%27)%3B%7D%7D)(document))%3B 2) Type this in console: copy(jQuery("a").filter(function(idx,el) { return jQuery(el).attr('href').indexOf('vote')!==-1; }).map(function(idx,el) { return 'https://news.ycombinator.com/' + jQuery(el).attr('href'); }).toArray()) 3) Install this Chrome extension and paste the contents of your clipboard https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bulk-url-opener-extension/hgenngnjgfkdggambccohomebieocekm?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bulk-url-opener-ex...
ufmace 10y ago
Amazing! I genuinely think that this is a bigger deal than the moon landings. The moon landings were pretty awesome in their own way, but at the end of the day, with the way they were done, it was basically a stunt. None of it put any infrastructure for the long-term access of space into place, or anything to make future moon landings easier. This paves the way for the costs of space flight to be cut in half, or even a little further. This has the potential to set off an exponential chain of growth of space travel. The further they cut prices, the more customers and launches there are. The more customers there are, the more profit they make, to be plowed back into better, more reliable, and more reusable rockets. And the more incentive their competitors have to come up with their own reusable rockets. The more reusable they are, the further they can bring prices down. Every step reinforces the next, and in 30-50 years, the price of a launch may well be a tenth of what it is today. Maybe closer to a hundredth. What will we build when access to space costs 1% of what it does today? Maybe a huge space station, or a moon colony, or asteroid mining, or all of the above. The more traffic we have to space, the more infrastructure we build, and the cheaper and more reliable it all gets. Off-world colonies might become about as practical as a trip to and colony in Antarctica is today - still tough and hazardous, but well within the budget and vision of any developed nation. This is freakin' awesome for the future!
- sidcool 10y ago
  "A small thrust for a rocket, a big boost for mankind" I am super happy for this achievement.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  > The moon landings were pretty awesome in their own way, but at the end of the day, with the way they were done, it was basically a stunt. It was a pissing contest between the superpowers. That doesn't mean there's less merit in that. In fact, what they did in the '60s was a heck of a lot harder, achieving so much with less tech, and hewing a new path through a virgin jungle. It simply means - and explains why - those achievements didn't last. We put in a humongous effort to reach so far, but once the initial impetus died out, we had to scale it down. Well, now we're back.
qaq 10y ago
Without SpaceX and Tesla the world would have been really depressing.
quotemstr 10y ago
I wonder whether we'll see a surge in on-orbit assembly if it becomes a lot cheaper to do two payload-X launches on reusable rockets than it is to do one payload-2X launch on an expendable rocket. Previously, economies of scale have tilted design toward the single-2X-launch approach.
drawkbox 10y ago
SpaceX is an amazing company that is moving innovation forward in leaps and bounds. I love this because it does bring people together and gets humans to look up, above problems and fighting and gets us realizing we are in this together. I still cannot get over the reverse landing on the drone that first time[1] it was almost unreal and took them a while to get there [2]. That image is seared in my brain like the moon landing probably is for people who lived through that. It was about a year ago and SpaceX is already, in less than a year, performed the reverse landing on the drone and successful relaunched. Amazing moment in human history and SpaceX continues to lead the way. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPGUQySBikQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPGUQySBikQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa_mtakPlfw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa_mtakPlfw
narrator 10y ago
Makes up for the rocket they lost. Actually, now they're ahead if you count the insurance payout. People should stop saying we need to spend X trillions to get to Mars. They should instead say we can't get to Mars until technology is good enough that it will cost less than X billions or even millions.
aphextron 10y ago
Watching the raw video stream today, I couldn't help but feel that we're looking at a quantum leap in rocket technology. The intensity of sound and exhaust from the engines was something I have never seen from a rocket that size before. I'm curious how the specific impulse of the newest Merlin compares to what ULA is using, considering a lot of their stuff is either Russian made or designs from the 60's. It's possible they will not only capture the launch market, but the engine market for other manufacturers as well.
ninjamayo 10y ago
They should have had commentary during launch from that guy who made comments during the unveiling of the Mars mission last year. The one who went to Burning Man.
agumonkey 10y ago
Funny that Space-X made people cheer for reuse. -- Sent from my 2nd hand ThinkPad
bambax 10y ago
Flight instructors like to share this quote: a good landing is when nobody gets hurt. A very good landing is when you can re-use the plane. Looks like SpaceX had (yet another) very good landing!!
retrogradeorbit 10y ago
You didn't actually watch it land.
alangibson 10y ago
Congrats and a big "thanks" are also due for SES, for having the brass to put what I'm sure is a spendy piece of hardware on top of Elon's latest comic book science experiment.
valuearb 10y ago
When I was a kid the Shuttle was going to launch every week, but that turned out to be impossible given the amount of rework it required, the most flights it did in a year were 9, and it averaged around 4.5. Forget the 24 hour turnaround. If SpaceX gets to the point where they have weekly launches it will be utterly delightful and amazing. Essentially to do that they have to not only make re-use work well, but also have to pass cost savings to customers to increase demand.
lukemt 10y ago
of course i still love you!

1094 points by traviswingo 10y ago

Exciting times. It won't be long until my son is asking me why we used to just drop these things in the ocean after first use.

blhack 10y ago

Technical webcast here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNO571C7Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNO571C7Ko Edit: Okay everyone can breathe now!

vtange 10y ago

Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? Would be a bummer if people decided they were a monopoly of some sort and demanded a break up.

r00fus 10y ago
Does Blue Origin count?
- mijoharas 10y ago
  I believe they are currently doing sub-orbital flights while they are working up to re-usable orbital flights. Please correct me if i misremembered.
  - Eerie 10y ago
    You know there is absolutely no reason for you to "believe" anything about Blue Origin, right? Google, Wikipedia and Blue Origin's own website is 3 seconds away.
  - ncallaway 10y ago
    This is correct. Their current launch stack is and will remain sub-orbital hops above the Kármán line. They are actively working on their next gen launch stack (New Glenn), which is set to have its first launch before 2020. New Glenn will be a reusable launch stack capable of inserting payloads into orbit. It will be roughly similar to the Falcon Heavy in terms of mission capabilities.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  No. Not even close to this.
- ericcumbee 10y ago
  I'm not sure how valid it is, but i read somewhere that Blue Origin and SpaceX are both shooting for the same target, but taking different paths. Blue Origin is doing Reusability first and orbital second. SpaceX went Orbital first and Reusability second. although to me it seems spacex is clearly ahead.
  - vkou 10y ago
    The difference between launching something to space and to orbit is roughly the difference between a bicycle, and a motorcycle. Blue Origin can go to space. They are nowhere close to going to orbit. We've sent things to space and back a long time ago. We call them airplanes. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15
    - ncallaway 10y ago
      Blue Origin isn't as far back as it may seem. They're new engine (BE-4) that will power New Glenn is going through test firings now. Additionally, they're angling to get BE-4 sold into other launch stacks than just their internal hardware. If they are able to get BE-4 out into other launch stacks in the next year or two, it's very possible that New Glenn will launch it's first mission before 2020. New Glenn will be comparable to the Falcon Heavy in terms of lift. The Falcon Heavy won't have it's demo flight until later this year. I'd agree that Blue Origin is behind SpaceX. Still, though, I think they are on a pretty good track to take second place in the reusable launch stack to orbit.
      - yborg 10y ago
        SpaceX Merlin 1C completed its first full duration firing in 2007, a decade ago. Blue Origin is trying to go straight to a large engine with more than twice the thrust of the Merlin 1 AND using a fuel that has never been used in rocketry for an engine this size. I'm impressed that Blue Origin has come this far, but they are most likely 5 years behind SpaceX, and probably more.
- manarth 10y ago
  No: SpaceX is launching satellites into various orbits, which Blue Origin cannot do yet (and cannot do with their current rocket).
- pixelcloud 10y ago
  They are still a ways off from having something comparable to SpaceX. New Glenn might have a test launch in 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
neuronexmachina 10y ago
One could argue whether they're truly private sector, but they still haven't quite displaced ULA. In 2016 there were 12 ULA launches, 8 SpaceX launches, and 2 by Orbital ATK. Looking at other countries, there were 20 Chinese launches, 18 Russian launches, 9 European launches, and 7 Indian launches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight#Orbital_launch_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight#Orbital_la...
- jacquesm 10y ago
  That's why this is so big, dropping the costs significantly could easily pull a significant fraction of those other launches to SpaceX. Pretty soon the ability to re-launch the same booster will be considered a must-have feature if you want to be in the rocket business, unless you fly missions so close the maximum payload or trajectory that recovery is impossible.
  - rrmm 10y ago
    SpaceX would still have to deal with scheduling: making enough upper stages and having limited launch/landing pads they share with NASA/ULA/ATK. So those with less cost-sensitive payloads (governments) would probably still pay a premium to launch their payloads sooner rather than cheaper.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      That doesn't add up: SpaceX will be able to use a chunk of their savings to outbid their competitors for launch capacity. So any premium paid by a competitor would have to be passed on to their customers to stay afloat whereas SpaceX would merely give a slightly lower discount. SpaceX really caused some sleepless nights today with the executives of other rocket companies they are several years away from being able to begin to play catch-up. This was one very long bet SpaceX made and it paid off today and will continue to pay off for years to come.
      - rrmm 10y ago
rrmm 10y ago
They wouldn't have a monopoly since there are plenty of other launch services out there (ULA,Russians,ESA,etc). The fact that SpaceX will probably be able to do it for much cheaper doesn't factor into it.
nickik 10y ago
At least in the US that is not possible anymore. The wild inconsistency (arbitrary enforcement) of Anti-Trust Law has been replaced by a consistent definition thanks to the activities of many judges and legal theorists. The new definition is basically that one needs to prove abuse of consumers to make Anti-Trust law effective. I don't think SpaceX is in danger of being accused of that. They really don't have any competition on price anymore, but they are yet unable to actually do as many flights as they need to. To solve that they are building even more launch sites and thanks to the re-usability they will be able to do more flights without further increasing their engine output.
jccooper 10y ago
Bezos's Blue Origin is on track to have a very similar system in a few years, and perhaps even better eventually with the possibility of a reusable second stage. ULA still has plenty of contracts and could compete if its parent companies wanted to spend the money to do so. Arianespace is vaguely commercial, is currently cost-competitive, and could also choose to develop a reusable vehicle, if its parent companies/countries can stand the expense. There are also plenty of small-launcher outfits currently working that could also scale up given a contract and/or investment, just like SpaceX did from Falcon 1 to F9, were SpaceX to leave any room in the market by overpricing.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Bezos's Blue Origin is on track to have a very similar system in a few years That's on paper, not anything they've flown has come close to what SpaceX is demonstrating as a matter of some routine now. (1) never been to orbit (2) never been to orbit and then back down to a landing (3) 6 flights vs 33 (4) payload < 2 Tonnes vs 5.5 for Falcon 9 re-usable (and 8 expendable). At this point in time Blue Origin to me looks like a slightly more serious version of Armadillo Aerospace and SpaceX looks like the company that will put the majority of tonnage into orbit in the next decade.
  - jccooper 10y ago
    It's easy to confuse Blue Origin with other companies with paper plans, but they're the real deal. Besides having demonstrated clear competence with New Shepard (with an LH2 engine no less), the orbital version is well underway. They've leased the pad, are currently building the factory, and are testing the engine. And Bezos definitely has the money. They may not be flying the New Glenn yet, but they will.
    - Robotbeat 10y ago
      Yeah. Blue Origin is probably at least 4 years behind, but Bezos has more money than God and Blue Origin's approach is technically sound, so yeah. I don't think SpaceX will indefinitely be the only reusable launch provider, and I don't think anyone would want that anyway.
hackuser 10y ago
> Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? They do, such as Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, and others I can't think of off the top of my head. However, Musk appears to have a major advantage: At least two major investment banks [0][1][2] and many other observers and investors [3][4] believe a major advantage Musk has over competitors is his relationship with President Trump. They claim it has greatly increased investment in Tesla (and investment indeed has greatly increased since Musk embraced Trump after the election, but of course the cause is impossible to prove and U.S. stocks in general have rallied). If you doubt this is an issue, not only see the cites but search a news index for "musk trump" - it is widespread outside HN. I don't know about the effect on SpaceX (are they public?), but the space business is highly dependent on government contracts, project funding, and regulation; you can imagine what the appearances are. Compare that with competitor Jeff Bezos, for example, who owns a major newspaper that regularly criticizes Trump; will the competition for government contracts and other benefits be free and fair? It would be bad for the space industry, the economy, the U.S. as a nation, and the fight for the free market and against corruption if that relationship decided or even appeared to decide the winner in this competition. Appearances are reality on the public stage; if people merely perceive corruption helped him, the (many) unscrupulous people will try to use that tactics themselves and many others will doubt Musk's legitimacy. I think he has what it takes to win on his own; the other stuff could undermine him unnecessarily, and be bad for everyone else. ---- [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/elon-musk-donald-trump-wall-street.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/elon-musk-donald... [1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/technology/elon-musk-trump/ http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/technology/elon-musk-trump/ [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/ubs-analyst-says-he-cant-understand-why-tesla-shares-are-up-so-much.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/ubs-analyst-says-he-cant-und... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-26/musk-s-surprising-rapport-with-trump-yields-40-rally-for-tesla https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-26/musk-s-su... [4] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/elon-musk-is-all-in-on-donald-trump/515562/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/elon-... [Mods: Last time I mentioned Musk's relationship with Trump, you objected but the problem wasn't clear to me; I responded and asked, but probably too late to for you to see it. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13880838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13880838 ) If this post is somehow objectionable, please tell me the problem so that I can avoid it in the future. This seems like many other posts on HN, except its content criticizes a very popular figure and includes a controversial one; hopefully popularity doesn't preclude criticism and the POTUS can be discussed. I am speaking plainly and documenting it very well.]
InclinedPlane 10y ago
Arianespace is their biggest competitor, they are the de facto rulers of the commercial launch market, with SpaceX hot on their heels. The Ariane 5 launches twin payloads about 7 times a year, for a total of about 14 total spacecraft launches per year. SpaceX is about at a similar cadence but has yet to hit the overall schedule and mission reliability figures that Arianespace has achieved so it's still a bit of a race. Launching on Ariane is the easy, safe choice. Launching on the Falcon 9 is still considered to be a little bit risky, more so from a schedule perspective (which is still a big deal in the industry). SpaceX is increasing its launch cadence and reducing its prices substantially (through reusability) so they are becoming more competitive by leaps and bounds every moment. If they can follow through on their cadence increases (right now they are around an average of 3 weeks between launches and a minimum of 2 weeks) and cost reductions (see recent flight) no one else will be able to keep up with them. Their internal cost reductions on reuse are unknown but their current price reductions are around 30%, which is off of their already incredibly aggressive low launch prices. If SpaceX can provide launches at around $45 mil and can launch often enough to satisfy demand reasonably then they'll end up with the majority of the commercial launch business eventually. If you can put your satellite in orbit reliably and save on the order of $50 million then you'd be insane not to do so. There's a bit of an insurance premium with launching on SpaceX currently but that should even out after a while and the huge cost reductions swamp that difference regardless (even if, for example, SpaceX were to blow up another rocket tomorrow). The only realistic competitor for SpaceX in the near term is Blue Origin, once they develop their orbital launcher which will also have VTVL first stage reusability. The timeline on that is sometime before 2020, but that's likely to be the soonest any real competition for SpaceX's business model shows up. Once it becomes commonplace for launches to involve first stage reuse (which will probably happen over the next 5 years or so) I'd expect a lot of the other rocket companies (like Boeing and LockMart) to come out with similar designs (or go out of business or be relegated to national payloads only). It's a lot easier to put forward some hypothetical "better" design for your next generation rocket when everything is on paper, it's a lot harder to pretend your rocket is still better when you're getting your face pushed in by the competition on price by huge margins on a regular basis. Once SpaceX has the Falcon Heavy running (which will be even more reusable since the upper stage is a smaller proportion of the rocket) they'll be able to launch nearly anything anyone else can, and at dramatically lower costs. Once they're able to launch GPS satellites (which they've already got orders for) as well as the big national security birds (on the FH) for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars less than ULA then almost all of that business is going to flow to them and LockMart/Boeing are going to have some tough times.
kilroy123 10y ago
The Russians are doing more private launches with Soyuz and the Indians are also likely to do the same.
- Robotbeat 10y ago
  From what I can tell, that's not true. Last year, SpaceX did 5 commercial launches (i.e. non-government) with Falcon 9 while Soyuz only did 2 or 3 (depending on how you count "commercial").

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 10y ago

History was being made today. Super, congratulations to all of SpaceX. Now let's see the landing :) STUCK THE LANDING :) :) :) Apologies to my neighbors who I surely woke up. Hah :) Incredible! Now, will they fly this one again?

birken 10y ago
And they caught it again. Truly amazing.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Sitting here smiling ear to ear :) Also interesting how many references there were to the Mars mission in the lead up to the launch.
- mpetrovich 10y ago
  Amazing. But the video seemed to cut out right before landing.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    They warned that would happen, the real time coverage is a good show of confidence.
  - Coincoin 10y ago
    It always happen right after you can barely see the fire reflecting on the barge. The vibrations from the rocket screws with the satellite connection. We don't have the technology yet to have internet in the middle of the ocean without satellites.
    - derekp7 10y ago
      Why not have a small secondary ship parked about a mile away, that can act as a satellite relay? Should be able to maintain a good link over that small distance.

M_Grey 10y ago

Whatever you think about Musk, or Mars, this aspect of his business is just amazing. SpaceX is incredibly impressive, and the novel approach to landing and reusability is really moving things forward.

remarkEon 10y ago

Question: Will future SpaceX clients now want to put their payloads in orbit on a "flight proven" booster, instead of one that hasn't flown before?

RivieraKid 10y ago
If it's cheaper then yes.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  They're not talking about cheaper, they are talking about more reliable.
  - quotemstr 10y ago
    Well, you can combine cheapness and reliability by looking at total cost after launch insurance.
    - Rebelgecko 10y ago
      That's not really a fair comparison. The amount of money you lose if something bad happens is more than just the cost of replacing your payload (which is what insurance covers)
      - BHSPitMonkey 10y ago
        Why wouldn't they obtain insurance for the total cost of the mishap?
        Rebelgecko 10y ago
        Losing a payload can have a domino effect of bad things that insurance doesn't cover. Kind of like how your car insurance won't pay for your lost income if you get in an accident and then get fired for missing work. Maybe the car analogy is a bit of a stretch, but look at Spacecom, whose Amos-6 satellite blew up during a static fire back in September (this wasn't actually covered by launch insurance, but Spacecom had separate insurance for anything that happens before the launch). Beyond the cost of a new satellite (covered by insurance) and a new launch (SpaceX is giving them one for free) Spacecom still has to provide coverage for their customers. The solution is to lease someone else's satellite for 4 years, which cost them $88 million [1]. On top of that, they were in the middle of selling the company for $285 million. The deal was contingent on the Amos-6 satellite being fully operational. Supposedly, the buyer only wants to pay $190 million now. They may also end up backing out. Someone else's launch going badly can also be bad for your company. The explosion that took out Amos-6 also damaged the pad and threw off SpaceX's schedule (which was already oversubscribed). Inmarsat was required by the EU to start using their spectrum by a given deadline, which they ended up missing. Theoretically, the EU could take away their spectrum allocation (although they probably won't). Inmarsat did end up having to buy a launch with another provider though, which probably cost them a ton of money[3]. [1] http://spacenews.com/spacecom-begins-service-with-a-borrowed-satellite-rebranded-amos-7/ http://spacenews.com/spacecom-begins-service-with-a-borrowed... [2] http://spacenews.com/spacecom-reports-lull-in-talks-with-chinese-buyer/ http://spacenews.com/spacecom-reports-lull-in-talks-with-chi... [3] http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/8/13883640/spacex-satellite-launch-inmarsat-arianespace-schedule-delay http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/8/13883640/spacex-satellite-...

themgt 10y ago

It looked like one of the grid fins got toasted. Will they still be able to stick the landing? fingers crossed edit: and they did it! I was pessimistic for a minute there!

cmsimike 10y ago
I saw that! I wonder if it was from the entry burn. I was worried because as I saw the fin get toasted, the video cut out, but that was because stage 1 went trans-sonic.
- JshWright 10y ago
  The video cut out because the stage fell below the horizon (from the perspective of the tracking station on the Cape).
hwillis 10y ago
Someone on reddit said it was an ablative coating. This was also a heavy launch, so it's not surprising they'd be hitting the atmosphere faster.
ygra 10y ago
The grid fins are painted with ablative paint that's supposed to burn away while protecting what's underneath. Same with the legs. But they do suffer damage during re-entry as could be seen on photos of them from previous landed boosters. I'm fairly sure that's all expected and accounted for.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  The legs are only flown once and are replaced in their entirety, they take the brunt of the impact from landing and may suffer non-elastic deformation.
  - ygra 10y ago
    I didn't say the legs were going to be re-used. I just said they were painted in a way that the paint can burn away, just like the grid fins. If you're coming down through your own exhaust you don't want to risk damaging the things you land on a few meters above the ground.

aidos 10y ago

They've landed it too! Amazing!

david-given 10y ago
Although when the technical webcast went black just at the moment when I'd expect the vehicle to come into sight, I was sure that something had gone wrong and they'd pulled the plug.
- karyon 10y ago
  In the hosted webcast they explained that the droneship is on a satellite link and expected to loose connection as soon as the first stage closes in due to vibrations. Edit: someone else here said the exhaust fumes might also disrupt the satellite link.
- mikeash 10y ago
  That's exactly what I thought too. I assumed it went kaboom and they cut the feed. What a nice surprise when they called out a successful landing!
  - david-given 10y ago
    ...one day I'm hoping they'll release all the cut footage from the, um, learning experiences of the early Falcon 1 and 9. I'm sure that they've cleaned up the broken frames and there'll be lots of fascinating fireworks.

wolfram74 10y ago

And they stick the landing!

SubiculumCode 10y ago

CONGRATULATIONS SPACE X!

madamelic 10y ago

That "live" Elon interview seemed really pre-recorded... Did anyone else get that feeling?

stephenitis 10y ago
only that they cut to him as they were counting down... it seemed genuinely teary
andrewwhartion 10y ago
No. If it was pre-recorded, I'd be surprised if he was "lost for words".
- madamelic 10y ago
  Ooooops. Shows me. I turned it off to leave work.
Strom 10y ago
Yeah, everything about that seemed pre-recorded, especially considering how calm everyone in the background was. Understandable though considering how busy Elon is.
- nraynaud 10y ago
  might be people focused on their job, like getting a satellite at the agreed-upon position :) (but I agree, forget this satellite stuff, show me where the trash landed, and tell us where the fairings are!)
- madamelic 10y ago
  Oh absolutely. I didn't mean it as a negative. It was just an observation
traviswingo 10y ago
Maybe they tried a couple times...probably because he was choking up. :)

dougmwne 10y ago

History made, their biggest public accomplishment since the first landing!

chapati23 10y ago

YES!!!

bborud 10y ago

Nailed it!

Taniwha 10y ago

So they are supposed to be trying to recover the two fairing halves this time around - any news of that?

rrmm 10y ago
I haven't heard anything about it. They were also going to be testing the 'Roomba' robot contraption on the recovery ship. Best place I know of for news is probably the reddit r/SpaceX subredit.
rrmm 10y ago
They apparently did recover the fairings successfully.
- mholt 10y ago
  Not quite: https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/847599001746644996 https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/847599001746644996
  - JshWright 10y ago
    It sounds like the test was successful. They weren't planning to catch them, but wanted to demonstrate soft landing in a targeted area (much like the early Falcon 9 landing tests).

braymundo 10y ago

Fantastic!!! Being able to watch a reusable rocket land perfecty, from my mobile phone while casting to a TV, over a computer network, while located in southern Brazil makes me SO PROUD to be human!

eliaspro 10y ago
It just depresses me seeing how many people don't have the slightest clue why this is something incredibly remarkable - the complexity behind each and every component, process, research and engineering making this possible - and then start bitching about the new Emoji set on their smartphone
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  And when, say, an amazing archeological artifact is uncovered, we probably won't appreciate the complexity that went into that, and the folks at ArcheologistNews will be pissed. There are so many fields and so many complex processes. I can assure you that any one of: the world of power transmission, or offshore oil drilling rigs, or commercial shipping, or chemical process design and optimization, or tons of other stuff, is enough to warrant an entire "HN". So don't expect people to appreciate it all. But what we can appreciate is the fact that you and I don't need to understand archeology to contribute to society ;)
  - gallerdude 10y ago
    I've always pondered that I'd love to read in on these other fields, see what they find interesting and new.
    - pilsetnieks 10y ago
      Yeah, I think it's not that you're focused on your one field, just that some people have the curiosity to look into things and appreciate the work being done; some people have that for their field only; and some people just don't give a crap at all about things that don't directly affect them.

ninjamayo 10y ago

YIPPEE!!! That was amazing SpaceX. Thanks Elon!

bluecat 10y ago

What a fantastic achievement, I'm so happy. I love when a problem solved excites all of humanity.

jondishotsky 10y ago

Don't ever let anyone tell you that something is impossible.

sidcool 10y ago
Yep! Never tell me the odds! Great moment in human history.
agumonkey 10y ago
I have to say that to doctor this afternoon.

SEJeff 10y ago

I can't wait until I have a talk with my kids when they realize the significance of this day: Kid: Daddy, ou mean when you were growing up, they threw away rockets each time? Me: Yes Kid: Doesn't that make them expensive? Me: Yes. And then not long after will be the other talk: Kid: Daddy, you mean people used to be in charge of driving themselves in cars? Me: Yes Kid: Did people ever die? Me: Millions Good job Elon and SpaceX, get some rest, and then focus on the Model 3! Elon: We have proven what can be done, that many said was impossible. drops mic after SpaceX lands flawlessly

Flame 10y ago
The real-time streaming made me really excited for the future. Elon is truly a genius... SpaceX will save so much money. I can't wait to see what comes next. Honestly, the rate at which technology is growing is truly absurd if you think about it.
- beamatronic 10y ago
  I think a lot of it comes from the fact that (almost) every literate human being can communicate (almost) instantly around the planet with (almost) every other literate human being, and the fact that with machine translation, language is less of a barrier all the time.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Illiterate people can too using Skype and such. Instant planetwide communication between any party of humans sharing a common language is now pretty much a given.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      While you are correct for the most part, I would point out that text services have wider distribution even if only for bandwidth reasons. But there are other reasons, there are good (enough) and widely distributed text standards (SMS), but not yet for video. But maybe we are both over thinking it, does the old voice network reach even further?

kibwen 10y ago

The link is to a livestream and I didn't get here in time to watch the landing live, has a recording of the landing been uploaded anywhere yet?

softawre 10y ago
Just click back in the video on the linked page.
azernik 10y ago
Should be in YouTube - they were streaming it there too, and YT streams are watchable after the fact. Look at the SpaceX channel.
soperj 10y ago
You can just go back on the live stream.
midwestcode 10y ago
YouTube link of the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8

paulsutter 10y ago

For nostalgia's sake, here's Elon's speech to employees after the first successful launch of Falcon 1 (flight 4), in 2008 at Kwajalein Atoll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQhtMrUQlE&t=32m30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQhtMrUQlE&t=32m30s (speech begins at 32:30, in case link doesn't work)

StavrosK 10y ago
Why does this video look like it was shot in 1990? Camera quality can't have been that bad in 2008, can it?
- mrkgnao 10y ago
  Might have been an early mobile phone camera.
  - mstade 10y ago
    I don't think the video was shot with a mobile camera, but probably a DV camera typical of the day – Canon XL1 was pretty popular if I recall. These days you can record HD video on your cell phone, but a decade ago (and recall, the original iPhone was released just in the year prior to this video) you had to get dedicated equipment that would run in the thousands of dollars. Camera quality has absolutely exploded in the last decade, when compared with how much they've shrunk, and Apple certainly had a role to play in that transformation. I'm not at all surprised that video from a decade ago looks so dated compared with video today.
mrkgnao 10y ago
He's definitely matured a ton as a speaker. I mean, he isn't smooooth now, but there are far fewer pauses, to the point where it's just another striking feature about him instead of making his words hard to follow. Also, the kid being held aloft at 34:20 was a very cute touch. https://youtu.be/8FQhtMrUQlE?t=34m20s https://youtu.be/8FQhtMrUQlE?t=34m20s

quakeguy 10y ago

Success!

grondilu 10y ago

I've noticed that during the webcast they talked much more about their planetary colonisation project than they usually do. I guess it makes sense since today is the first time they actually implement the re-usability plan they believe is the key to this colonisation. But frankly, is the cost of going to mars really that important for its colonisation? I mean, I wouldn't move to mars even if going there was free. For one, there's no breathable air, for Pete's sake. They are talking about building a city on a place where there isn't even breathable air. That's insane. This whole thing is very conflicting to me. On one hand I can appreciate the technological achievement and I acknowledge that re-usability will be extremely useful for space exploration, but on the other hand I can't help thinking that those people who get excited about building a city on mars are completely delusional.

dkonofalski 10y ago
> They are talking about building a city on a place where there isn't even breathable air. Yet. As far as I know, the plan is to create some generators and a basic colony that can terraform the land to try and create an atmosphere on the planet. It's not unlike what they were planning in "Total Recall" but, at least in this case, there's more science to it than fantasy.
hayd 10y ago
> I can't help thinking that those people who get excited > about building a city on mars are completely delusional. That's what they once said about walking on the moon.
- grondilu 10y ago
  Well, there is probably a reason why nobody thought it was worth doing it again ever since. More seriously though, just because many projects were wrongly considered foolish in the past, does not mean one can not point at a new one and call it foolish. History tends to remember those who turned out to be brilliant, and forget all those who genuinely were foolish. The example I like is Franz Reichelt [1]. People around him were watching as he prepared to meet his death. Nobody said "don't do that, you'll kill yourself". Why? I guess because they were not sure, and they did not want to be the person who dissed someone who might be remembered as say the Wright brothers were. I guess I'm not comfortable being the guy who says nothing as he watches people being foolish or delusional. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN3xfGrx_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN3xfGrx_U

Someone 10y ago

I understand the enthusiasm, but I don't see enough hard data to convince me this will be a commercial success. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He..., SpaceX has launched and landed about 10 of these rockets, and has so far reused one. That rocket was first used about a year ago. Factors that might prevent this from making this economically superior to 'just' ramping up production are: - the fraction of launches that can be reused. - the amount of effort needed to prepare a rocket for reuse relative to that needed to produce a new rocket. They will have been extra cautious this time, but from the above, the answers _could_ be "about 10%" and "almost one year, taking way more effort than building a new one does". I would think the real answers are a bit better and will get even better over time, but I also don't think they already are at "close to 100%" and "a couple of weeks", because, if they were, I think they would have launched a used rocket earlier. I also am not convinced they can get there. That's mostly guessing, though, as I'm not a rocket scientist and can't find hard information on this. Does anybody have that?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
going_to_800 10y ago
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/ http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-... Of course the first missions won't that effective for cost savings, but the future ones will be.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Osmium 10y ago
> That's mostly guessing, though, as I'm not a rocket scientist and can't find hard information on this. Yeah, my understanding is that you're wrong on this, though I too am not a rocket scientist. But a few points: > SpaceX has launched and landed about 10 of these rockets, and has so far reused one. That rocket was first used about a year ago. While this is factually correct, extrapolating from this will not give any useful insight. > the amount of effort needed to prepare a rocket for reuse relative to that needed to produce a new rocket It may be somewhat counter-intuitive, but an already-flown rocket is easier to fly a second time than it is the first time: it's already been "flight-proven." For example, a lot of defects on a microscopic scale simply cannot be detected ahead of time, and the only way to truly detect them is to test the rocket. This is why there are static fires ahead of launch. And it is also why there is a lot of over-engineering (in many things, not just rockets, but airplanes etc.) The important thing here is that they land the rocket without too many additional stresses. It's not like the Space Shuttle boosters which were dumped into the ocean and had to deal with a lot of refurbishment. > if they were, I think they would have launched a used rocket earlier. The first one will always take longer. They're also finalizing the design, and had an accident investigation last year that was a big burden. > I understand the enthusiasm, but I'm not sure you do, but I hope I may have convinced you otherwise ;) The answers to your questions could really be "close to 100%" and "a few weeks to months" (more optimistic people will say "days or hours" to that last question). What they've managed today is a huge milestone, and they're iterating on an astonishing timeframe. They hadn't even landed a single rocket a few years ago, and that was the truly difficult part. It's incredible how fast their progress has been, especially in the context of the space industry generally.

artursapek 10y ago

This man inspires me more than anyone else ever has. Historic day.

mr_overalls 10y ago

The obvious question: how much cheaper will a reusable rocket make it, per pound, to put a payload in orbit?

RivieraKid 10y ago
30%
- tdy721 10y ago
  As dictated by the market monopoly holder.
  - nickik 10y ago
    What? Prices are only dictated if you dictate to somebody else. They are just setting there own price. Also, there is no monopoly situation.
    - Tepix 10y ago
      They have a monopoly on reusable orbit-class rockets (for now).
      - nickik 10y ago
        Fortunately the market is about putting stuff into orbit, not about putting stuff into orbit with reusable rocket. ULA also has monopoly in Hydolox rockets. That however is not relevant and its not a useful use of the word monopoly.
        Robotbeat 10y ago
        You're missing the point. It's perfectly relevant to point out that SpaceX is now able to charge much more for reuse than the marginal cost, effectively being able to charge monopoly rent for being the only player on the field with a reuse capability. Of course, it's not a total monopoly on launch period, but that's missing the point. A 30% reduction in price doesn't represent the ultimate lowest cost of reuse because currently there's no competition for reuse.

aeleos 10y ago

What a great time to be alive, to be able to witness such revolutions in rocket technology.

synaesthesisx 10y ago

Truly incredible. I applaud the SpaceX team for making history.

firefoxd 10y ago

I was very confused by the 'of course i still love you' statements. Until i realized it was the name of the landing platform.

jacquesm 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Player_of_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Player_of_Games
- dalanmiller 10y ago
  One of my favorite books of all time.
- johnnydoe9 10y ago
  I was about to search what it meant too, thanks I gotta read this now.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    You won't regret it.

nradov 10y ago

The launch video is amazing! How are they able to get clear video with stable tracking of a rocket >10km away? What sort of lens and camera makes that possible?

jacquesm 10y ago
Something like this: http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/telescopes/images/24inchMilitary_VAFB_02.jpg http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/telescopes/images/24inchMili...
- rblatz 10y ago
  As an untrained person my first response to that picture was "yeah that looks like it would do the trick"
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    As an amateur photographer, my first response was "what in the fuck is that?"
olegkikin 10y ago
While they probably use something much more serious, you could technically use something like Nikon P900, which is 2000mm equivalent, and is very affordable.
- bergie 10y ago
  Could actually be one of those. SpaceX uses lots of off-the-shelf hardware. For example, the cameras mounted on the rocket are (at least mostly?) GoPros
  - mstade 10y ago
    Do you have a source for this? I own a GoPro and I love the little thing, but I had no idea they were able to withstand this kind of stress.

nialv7 10y ago

Anyone noticed that LD said "Go for age of reflight"?

jen729w 10y ago

Well it took me about an hour to upvote every comment on this page but it was worth it. ;-)

pferde 10y ago
Next time, just spend 15 minutes to automate it. :)
- rayboy1995 10y ago
  Then 2 hours maintaining and improving it.
  - gargarplex 10y ago
    1) Add this as a bookmarklet called "Inject jQuery". Then click "Inject jQuery" javascript:void((function(doc)%7Bif(typeof jQuery%3D%3D%27undefined%27)%7Bvar script_jQuery%3Ddocument.createElement(%27script%27)%3Bscript_jQuery.setAttribute(%27src%27,%27//code.jquery.com/jquery-latest.min.js%27)%3Bdocument.body.appendChild(script_jQuery)%3Bconsole.log(%27jQuery included %5E_%5E%27)%3B%7Delse%7Bconsole.log(%27jQuery already included ...%27)%3B%7D%7D)(document))%3B 2) Type this in console: copy(jQuery("a").filter(function(idx,el) { return jQuery(el).attr('href').indexOf('vote')!==-1; }).map(function(idx,el) { return 'https://news.ycombinator.com/' + jQuery(el).attr('href'); }).toArray()) 3) Install this Chrome extension and paste the contents of your clipboard https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bulk-url-opener-extension/hgenngnjgfkdggambccohomebieocekm?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bulk-url-opener-ex...

ufmace 10y ago

Amazing! I genuinely think that this is a bigger deal than the moon landings. The moon landings were pretty awesome in their own way, but at the end of the day, with the way they were done, it was basically a stunt. None of it put any infrastructure for the long-term access of space into place, or anything to make future moon landings easier. This paves the way for the costs of space flight to be cut in half, or even a little further. This has the potential to set off an exponential chain of growth of space travel. The further they cut prices, the more customers and launches there are. The more customers there are, the more profit they make, to be plowed back into better, more reliable, and more reusable rockets. And the more incentive their competitors have to come up with their own reusable rockets. The more reusable they are, the further they can bring prices down. Every step reinforces the next, and in 30-50 years, the price of a launch may well be a tenth of what it is today. Maybe closer to a hundredth. What will we build when access to space costs 1% of what it does today? Maybe a huge space station, or a moon colony, or asteroid mining, or all of the above. The more traffic we have to space, the more infrastructure we build, and the cheaper and more reliable it all gets. Off-world colonies might become about as practical as a trip to and colony in Antarctica is today - still tough and hazardous, but well within the budget and vision of any developed nation. This is freakin' awesome for the future!

sidcool 10y ago
"A small thrust for a rocket, a big boost for mankind" I am super happy for this achievement.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
> The moon landings were pretty awesome in their own way, but at the end of the day, with the way they were done, it was basically a stunt. It was a pissing contest between the superpowers. That doesn't mean there's less merit in that. In fact, what they did in the '60s was a heck of a lot harder, achieving so much with less tech, and hewing a new path through a virgin jungle. It simply means - and explains why - those achievements didn't last. We put in a humongous effort to reach so far, but once the initial impetus died out, we had to scale it down. Well, now we're back.

qaq 10y ago

Without SpaceX and Tesla the world would have been really depressing.

quotemstr 10y ago

I wonder whether we'll see a surge in on-orbit assembly if it becomes a lot cheaper to do two payload-X launches on reusable rockets than it is to do one payload-2X launch on an expendable rocket. Previously, economies of scale have tilted design toward the single-2X-launch approach.

drawkbox 10y ago

SpaceX is an amazing company that is moving innovation forward in leaps and bounds. I love this because it does bring people together and gets humans to look up, above problems and fighting and gets us realizing we are in this together. I still cannot get over the reverse landing on the drone that first time[1] it was almost unreal and took them a while to get there [2]. That image is seared in my brain like the moon landing probably is for people who lived through that. It was about a year ago and SpaceX is already, in less than a year, performed the reverse landing on the drone and successful relaunched. Amazing moment in human history and SpaceX continues to lead the way. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPGUQySBikQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPGUQySBikQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa_mtakPlfw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa_mtakPlfw

narrator 10y ago

Makes up for the rocket they lost. Actually, now they're ahead if you count the insurance payout. People should stop saying we need to spend X trillions to get to Mars. They should instead say we can't get to Mars until technology is good enough that it will cost less than X billions or even millions.

aphextron 10y ago

Watching the raw video stream today, I couldn't help but feel that we're looking at a quantum leap in rocket technology. The intensity of sound and exhaust from the engines was something I have never seen from a rocket that size before. I'm curious how the specific impulse of the newest Merlin compares to what ULA is using, considering a lot of their stuff is either Russian made or designs from the 60's. It's possible they will not only capture the launch market, but the engine market for other manufacturers as well.

ninjamayo 10y ago

They should have had commentary during launch from that guy who made comments during the unveiling of the Mars mission last year. The one who went to Burning Man.

agumonkey 10y ago

Funny that Space-X made people cheer for reuse. -- Sent from my 2nd hand ThinkPad

bambax 10y ago

Flight instructors like to share this quote: a good landing is when nobody gets hurt. A very good landing is when you can re-use the plane. Looks like SpaceX had (yet another) very good landing!!

retrogradeorbit 10y ago

You didn't actually watch it land.

alangibson 10y ago

Congrats and a big "thanks" are also due for SES, for having the brass to put what I'm sure is a spendy piece of hardware on top of Elon's latest comic book science experiment.

valuearb 10y ago

When I was a kid the Shuttle was going to launch every week, but that turned out to be impossible given the amount of rework it required, the most flights it did in a year were 9, and it averaged around 4.5. Forget the 24 hour turnaround. If SpaceX gets to the point where they have weekly launches it will be utterly delightful and amazing. Essentially to do that they have to not only make re-use work well, but also have to pass cost savings to customers to increase demand.

lukemt 10y ago

of course i still love you!