5 ms·
These are only baby steps at the beginning of the adventure.
by DonaldPShimoda 9y ago
These are only baby steps at the beginning of the adventure.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoBut. We are making them! I've almost lost hope around the end of the Space Shuttle program. I thought it will be only satellites, ISS and occasional science probe launches. SpaceX single-handedly restored my faith in the future of space activities again, and with other player on the scene, we now have realistic hope of seeing an actual industry in space within our lifetimes.
- kuschku 9y agoAnd the amazing thing is, even if SpaceX should fail, an entire industry has started to happen. Arianespace has spent years developing new rocket engines specifically for reusability, and has started building prototype rockets. Bezos’ company has mastered landing, and is directly building their mars rocket. In 5 years we’ll likely see at least 3 major companies up there with SpaceX, and true competition in space.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoYes! Moreover, there's lots of companies in every vertical needed for bootstrapping the industry - ground services, satellites, in-space manufacturing, asteroid prospecting & mining... all in the early stage, all betting on cheaper access to space than it was just few years ago. We're in a critical moment where things suddenly start adding up and - I hope - will form something great!
- andygates 9y agoAnd Linkspace in China are making good progress with their scale prototype too (they just posted the first untethered hop video to their twitter). It rather looks as if the tail-landing reusable booster stage is a "steam engine" type of eureka form factor, and everyone's going to be doing it. Yay!
- tomaskafka 9y agoI didn't think I'd say it, but after reading @Pinboard's history of a space shuttle, I'm glad we're moving past politicized too big to fail projects. http://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm http://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm
- snrplfth 9y agoWhich is amusing, because @Pinboard absolutely cannot stand SpaceX and mocks them constantly.
- InclinedPlane 9y agoFalcon Heavy is 1/10th the cost of other heavy lift launchers, and able to launch 10x (or more) often, with a higher payload. This is no baby step.
- avmich 9y agoYes, that's important. Wonder what success of FH would do to works on BFR? If BFR would be as successful as Musk writes, would SpaceX make two rockets - or optimization will lead to just one?
- ncallaway 9y agoIf BFR is as successful as Musk hopes (_especially_ around the reusability aspect), I think BFR would replace the F9 and Falcon Heavy as a lift vehicle. If BFR is actually fully reusable it would be cheaper to launch than the F9 (due to the non-reused second stage).
- spiraldancing 9y agoMusk has actually said that he expects BFR to be cheaper to fly than their original Falcon 1 ... meaning prices in the $5-10M range, as opposed to $60+M for F9.
- ygra 9y agoI think that was referring to cost per kg to orbit, not cost per flight.
- InclinedPlane 9y agoFH success mostly helps BFR in regards to operating a ton of engines simultaneously (27 for Heavy, 31 for BFR) and in operating heavy lift capacity rockets in general. BFR/BFS will come online as a self-competitive offering from SpaceX initially and both lines will be out in the market together (BFR vs. F9/FH). If and when BFR attains sufficient maturity, reliability, and market trust then the Falcon line of rockets will be phased out. BFR will have much greater capabilities (higher payloads, etc.) but will be substantially cheaper because it'll be 100% reusable and the reusability longevity for its parts will be much higher than for F9/FH, so there won't really be much reason to keep Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy around.
- samstave 9y agoYes, but seemingy pioneered by ONE MAN -- so we need to throw the masses at this problem.