12 ms·
This is becoming really astonishing. It's more and more fitting the quote “They did not know it was impossible so they did it” I mean, the company was founded
by TheAlchemist 9y ago
This is becoming really astonishing. It's more and more fitting the quote “They did not know it was impossible so they did it”
I mean, the company was founded only 15 years ago, they started (with success) launching stuff into space only 10 years ago and now it feels like they are able to launch rockets into space every week. Reusable rockets should we add.
Musk very often sets impossible deadlines, but in this case, even if you take a step back, it's scary to make 10 years predictions based on this company track record !
- lettergram 9y agoI mean, NASA helped them a ton based on their previous research to this point. Going forward I'd expect some slowdown. But yes, very impressive IMO that he won all the necessary investments and contracts. My bet is his buddy Theil (idk not really buddy, but collegue) helped out with that.
- ryanmarsh 9y agoGoing forward I'd expect some slowdown Slowdown in funding or launch pace? SpaceX is cutting launch costs significantly. I suspect that many satellite projects that weren't viable before will become viable now, thus increasing launch pace.
- andrewwharton 9y agoSlowdown in development pace I believe. Not to take anything away at all, but a large part of the rocket development until now was based on an existing knowledge base from NASA. Going forward, there's going to be more and more uncharted territory, so things will likely progressively slow down, relative to the astonishingly fast development pace up until this point.
- adventured 9y agoThat premise doesn't inherently follow at all. Quite the opposite. The uncharted territory combined with Musk & Bezos being willing to do audacious things with billions of dollars, is why breakthroughs are about to accelerate again. With scale and greater R&D capabilities, SpaceX will (perhaps along with Blue Origin and others) be responsible for the next great leap forward in space technology - finally. Whereas the US Government launch platforms, through NASA and ULA, had been extremely stagnant in several areas that SpaceX & Co are operating in, due to eg wild (but typical) Congressional incompetence (constantly shifting goals, setting up the context where ULA was granted a monopoly (again due to Congressional incompetence or worse)). The Space Shuttle was an absurd production in all regards, it set US launch progress back decades due to the hyper bloat / cost that was entirely unnecessary. The Shuttle was the space equivalent of the F35, a boondoggle that isn't really great at anything and costs several times what it should have. Now that the incompetent Congress is much further removed when it comes to deciding which way to go (how to get there, why, etc etc etc), space tech will accelerate again.
- nickik 9y agoConsider the capability they had with Saturn V and Apollo. Also, compare how easy it was to make Skylab happen, compared to the ISS. With the Saturn V, a smaller people launcher and Apollo they could have done so much more. Imagen the next Space station after Skylab, they could have launched 4 Saturn V and launch a Skylab size station each time, creating a vastly bigger station then ISS at a minimal cost. Now they are recreating the capability with SLS and Orion at a cost that is so absurdly high that its hard to even wrap you head around the numbers, specially when compared what the pay for COTS and CommercialCrew.
- valuearb 9y agoNot to take anything from NASA, but a large part of their rocket development was based on an existing knowledge base from the Nazis. NASA has done little to make successful reusable space technology, and abandoned any attempts with the SLS.
- justinator 9y agoWell, Germans. I wouldn't necessarily call Wernher von Braun a Nazi.
- pault 9y agoHe _was_ a nazi party member. We don't know if he really _meant_ it though.
- justinator 9y agoWell, the choice was basically, * Become a member of the Nazi Party * Death After WWII he didn't: * Commit Suicide * Exile himself to South America * Face trials for War Crimes He did: * Become a public figure used to sell the space program * Help an Allied power with extremely advanced military and scientific intel * Help put someone on the Moon in a completely unrealistic time frame * Become privy to extremely top secret information I'm going with, "not a Nazi" on this one, personally.
- nikcub 9y ago> Well, the choice was basically, > * Become a member of the Nazi Party > * Death No it wasn't. This is what Nazi's say to excuse their decisions and behavior. There were millions of people in Germany in both industry and the military who were not Nazi's and survived just fine. Note that unlike Von Braun many other Germany scientists and weapon designers were not members of the Nazi party (let alone enthusiastic members) Becoming a Nazi and joining the party is what a person consciously did either because they believed in the ideology or they wanted to collaborate to further their careers. Van Braun being washed of his Nazi part is a conscious part of a US government propaganda campaign as Von Braun having safe haven in the USA in the 1950s was very controversial at the time. It's as simple as the USA overlooking his Nazi past and excusing it (and actively covering it up) because the cold war necessitated it. edit: forgot to mention, Von Braun wasn't just a member of the Nazi party - he was a member of the SS - there is zero feasible explanation for becoming an SS member. There is also the small matter of the war crimes he took part in with the enslaved labor at his factory in Peenemünde.
- agildehaus 9y agoA quote from BulgariaSat (launched 2 days ago): “People don’t realize that, for small countries and small companies like us, without SpaceX, there was no way we would ever be able to even think about space." "With them, it was possible. We got a project. I think, in the future, it’s going to be even more affordable because of reusability.”
- gozur88 9y agoThat's kind of odd, to me, since the Russians aren't that much more expensive than SpaceX, and the pricey bit is usually the payload.
- simonh 9y agoThe Russians are only at that price point due to the competition from SpaceX, but the big problem with Proton is the high insurance premiums due to their reliability issues.
- greglindahl 9y agoDoes anyone know what Proton insurance costs these days?
- ygra 9y agoPerhaps it was a combination of low price (even lower since they got a re-used first stage) as well as the option to go rather soon (again, due to the re-used first stage). Don't know how full other launch providers' manifests are at this point.
- boznz 9y agoSpaceX have several thousand of their own satellites to launch in the coming years, if anything it will speed up.
- hyperbovine 9y agoThis--there's a reason they are headquartered where they are. What they've managed to accomplish in such a short time is amazing but let's not forget that it was massive US gov't investment in NASA and SpaceX's neighbors Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, etc. that made this all possible.
- mabbo 9y agoThe US military is currently spending $400m per launch with ULA. Now with SpaceX, they pay around $100m per launch. Whatever investment the US government have given to SpaceX, they'll get it back very quickly now that competition exists in the launch market.
- averagewall 9y agoIsn't half of that 400 million a kind of retainer to keep ULA available? I thought they're still paying that, so it's not much cheaper yet. And they might still need to pay it to someone.
- valuearb 9y agoYes it's a retainer but still a cost and hopefully ending shortly.
- m_mueller 9y agoI think the point is that the 400-to-100 figure is not Apples to Apples. Imagine 20 years from now SpaceX' ITS has failed to finance and their Falcon Heavy is a loss leader because too few payloads need it and the rest has moved on to a new rocket. This is like the USGov paying them a few billions a year to keep Falcon Heavy around because it's the only rocket with some specific capabilities. IMO depending on the specifics this is not so unreasonable. It's still great that SpaceX has achieved a factor of 2 improvement already for the base price compared to ULA, which doesn't yet include reusability, but one shouldn't overstate how much ahead they are.
- gozur88 9y ago>I mean, NASA helped them a ton based on their previous research to this point. I'm not sure that's true. What did NASA help them with, exactly?
- lmm 9y agoIIRC NASA basically gave SpaceX the patents and designs for the turbopumps that the Merlin engine is built around. They also committed to some contracts very early and funded Dragon development at a time when no commercial operation would have trusted SpaceX with a contract of that size.
- le-mark 9y agoIIRC there was also at least one DoD contract in the Falcon 1 era that surely helped as well. I recall reading a few references to it and remarking how odd it was. Some real invisible hand stuff. Since then I've noticed one other project was sustained by military contracts. EMC2 (polywell fusion) got several years of support from the US Navy via small (few $million) contracts. Last I read, they had validated the physics and were looking for civilian investors to fund a large machine.
- greglindahl 9y agoThe US government has pots of money they use to buy flights on unproven rockets, that's how SpaceX got a contract for STP-2 as the 2nd flight of Falcon Heavy. Falcon 1's first two flights got some revenue from DARPA and the Air Force ORS, and flight 3 from NASA. (All failed.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launch_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launch_history
- greglindahl 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family) "The SpaceX turbopump was an entirely new, clean sheet design contracted to Barber-Nichols, Inc. in 2002 who performed all design, engineering analysis, and construction; the company had previously worked on turbopumps for the RS-88 (Bantam) and NASA Fastrac engine programs."
- oxymoron 9y agoThiel ousted Musk from Paypal, and even though they don't seem to be antagonostic these days, I don't see them doing each other a lot of favors.
- njarboe 9y agoI would disagree. Founders Fund (Peter Thiel one of 3 founding partners) was the first major outside funder of SpaceX with a $20 million investment after the 3rd Falcon 1 failure and before the successful fourth launch. This investment was critical and risky for Founders Fund. It would have allowed SpaceX try few more launches, if the fourth had failed.
- sillysaurus3 9y agoThis perception will change the moment one of the rockets explodes, though. It's ~impossible to ride an explosion into space hundreds of times without a catastrophic failure, so I'm just hoping the consequences won't be too bad.
- Armisael16 9y agoOne of 'em already has. Look up Amos-6.
- JshWright 9y agoTwo of them. AMOS-6 and CRS-7.
- tcheard 9y agoAnd CRS-7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-7)
- sillysaurus3 9y agoRight, and both of those had some consequences regarding PR. I meant to call attention to the fact that we're doing manned missions soon. It's a bit different having an unmanned rocket explode. Hopefully it won't matter at all. The world might be ready for a "Well, that sucked. Let's move on" type mindset.
- manicdee 9y agoWhen the inevitable human fatalities are realised, we will see that everyone involved had done their best: SpaceX doing everything they can to make their rockets more reliable, a launch escape system that works all the way to orbit, and dozens of successful launches on the same hardware.
- babyrainbow 9y ago> When the inevitable human fatalities are realised, we will see that everyone involved had done their best: Have you seen the movie called "the challenger disaster". If not, you should see it. It might helps to gain a bit of perspective about these things.
- Klathmon 9y ago>they started (with success) launching stuff into space only 10 years ago They really didn't start off with success. Their first 3 launches (on the Falcon 1 platform) were failures. If I remember correctly it nearly bankrupt the company and Musk himself ended up pouring a ton of money into it to keep them afloat. It was a pretty rocky start for them as a company, and in my mind that makes it an even cooler story. They started with nothing, failed their first 3 attempts at launches but just kept at it, and they are now consitered at the top of the field less than a decade later.
- TheAlchemist 9y agoYeah they actually started a bit sooner (2006) but the first 3 launches failed. And yeah - it makes it an even cooler story in my mind too.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- AH4oFVbPT4f8 9y agoIt reminds me of how close to the edge Fedex was before the Vegas trip to save the company. http://www.businessinsider.com/fedex-saved-from-bankruptcy-with-blackjack-winnings-2014-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/fedex-saved-from-bankruptcy-w...
- kiba 9y agoThis is becoming really astonishing. It's more and more fitting the quote “They did not know it was impossible so they did it” More like, they know it is possible so they did it.
- TheAlchemist 9y agoIndeed, given how Musk operates, you're right. (however, there's no quote in that sense :) )
- TeMPOraL 9y agoSomebody had to, no one would SpaceX tried to do the best they could
- babyrainbow 9y agoActually, No.. https://www.quora.com/Havent-other-space-companies-thought-of-reusable-rockets/answer/Robert-Frost-1 https://www.quora.com/Havent-other-space-companies-thought-o...
- babyrainbow 9y ago>It feels like they are able to launch rockets into space every.. Not it doesn't. Stop trying to spread false impressions. This site is a discussion platform, not an advertising one...
- smsx 9y agoAre you saying that his opinion was a false impression? Seemed like he was discussing the topic at hand.
- babyrainbow 9y agoThose are not mutually exclusive..
- Ajedi32 9y agoThey've been doing about 2 rockets a month now for the past 2 months, and there's [plenty of indication][1] that they're going to maintain that cadence well into August. The idea of them stepping that up to 1/week sounds pretty plausible to me, especially once they have a few more pads available to launch from. [1]: https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/