4 ms·

I'm someone who doesn't follow a lot about current aerospace capabilities and technologies. Can someone explain why the work SpaceX is doing is so much more exc

I'm someone who doesn't follow a lot about current aerospace capabilities and technologies. Can someone explain why the work SpaceX is doing is so much more exciting than that of United Launch Alliance or Khrunichev or similar systems?

socceroos 9y ago
Over and above the rocket technology itself, they're pushing the boundaries of what they (SpaceX) and others are capable of constantly - this is because they have a grand vision that they're all working towards that isn't primarily shareholder profits. I think a lot of the excitement, for myself anyway, is that SpaceX represents the only tangible effort to bring us kicking and screaming into the space exploration age.
justin66 9y ago
SpaceX is still the only company to land a real first-stage booster, and the Falcon Heavy was the largest rocket (in terms of payload capacity) to fly since the Saturn V.
- Zardoz84 9y ago
  false! The energia and the N-1 flow before and they was more powerful that the Falcon Heavy.
  - justin66 9y ago
    From the N-1's wikipedia page: Each of the four attempts to launch an N1 failed; during the second launch attempt the N1 rocket crashed back onto its launch pad shortly after liftoff and exploded, resulting in one of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions in human history. Energia's a more interesting comparison, since it's hard to know if its advertised payload was at all accurate, but it did fly. I'd say that if it could have delivered its advertised payload reliably, the design probably would have flown more than twice and would have survived the fall of the Soviet Union. I have no idea what a half-finished Buran weighs...
  - cycrutchfield 9y ago
    Did the N-1 rocket really "fly"?
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      It flew all the way to the scene of the crash.
      - philipwhiuk 9y ago
        Ah, the Chuck Yeager school of flying: "If you can walk away from a landing, it's a good landing. If you use the airplane the next day, it's an outstanding landing"
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    The N-1 never worked properly though. And even one of the two Energia launches was not without issues.
acover 9y ago
SpaceX is making progress to their goal of airline style reusable rocket.
zitterbewegung 9y ago
The exciting innovation that SpaceX promises is lower flight costs by making reusable rockets. This is motivated by the desire to land on mars (which factors into their marketing and recruitment). Many people who work there have issues with work life balance and to work there and the pay is lower than other similar aerospace companies. In contrast ULA is higher cost but is more reliable. A great deal of their technology is older than SpaceX because they are the incumbent launch platform. They don’t really market themselves the same way due to the fact that they are profitable. The pay I believe is average and has better work life balance than SpaceX.
- sigstoat 9y ago
  > Many people who work there have issues with work life balance and to work there and the pay is lower than other similar aerospace companies. which is really saying something, as a lot of aerospace employers prey on the cool factor of doing space stuff to keep folks working absurd hours, for well under what they'd make doing similarly difficult work elsewhere.
rtkwe 9y ago
Partially it's the new hotness, but also the landings are pretty spectacular and if the economics work out long term (ie SpaceX isn't just burning cash to break into the market with subsidies like Uber does) will significantly reduce the cost of launches compared to the expendable rockets produced by ULA, Khrunichev, et al. Their launches are already significantly cheaper than the others on a per kg basis to LEO and GTO.
aidenn0 9y ago
SpaceX is putting a huge focus on pricing. Despite having prices reportedly[1] lower than any newly manufactured rockets[2], they are rapidly approaching parity or superiority on a number of other measurements of quality with other launch organizations. Basically in the 1960s, it was envisioned that space launches would become routine, but they did not (the "Space Shuttle" was so named as an analogy to shuttle buses that have regular round-trip service). SpaceX is the most successful attempt since then to make it routine. 1: most other launch companies don't advertise prices 2: repurposed ICBMs are historically the cheapest way to space, but see also #1
jdietrich 9y ago
SpaceX can reliably deliver payloads to orbit at far lower cost than their competition; as they start to re-use vehicles in earnest, that cost will fall even further. Falcon Heavy is now the most powerful rocket in commercial service by a factor of two. Two years ago they were a highly promising competitor; today, they're the market leader. Khrunichev are out of the game. The old Proton vehicles are cheap, but they're very unreliable due to a barely-modernised 1960s design and poor construction. They flew four launches in 2017, versus SpaceX's eighteen; by all accounts their order book is looking very sparse indeed. Their new Angara vehicle hasn't flown since the first orbital test flight in 2014 and has attracted no real commercial interest. ULA can't even begin to compete on cost. Without the capability and readiness contract from the US government, they'd be out of the game entirely. They didn't even bother to bid for the GPS-III contract. The SLS won't be ready until next year, it'll only have about 10% more payload capacity to LEO than Falcon Heavy and it'll cost at least three times as much, with no possibility of reuse. EADS are attracting a good amount of commercial launches, but their competitive advantage is fading rapidly. Ariane 5 is reportedly 3-4x more expensive than Falcon 9 and has less payload capacity to LEO. The planned Ariane 6 will be considerably cheaper than Ariane 5, but it'll have less payload capacity and still won't be price-competitive with Falcon 9. EADS have not announced plans for a heavy launch vehicle. Blue Origin are chasing SpaceX's tail. The New Glenn vehicle won't begin test flights until 2020, it has less payload capacity than Falcon Heavy, shows no signs of being cheaper and isn't as reusable. Even if everything goes to plan, they'll still be badly trailing behind SpaceX.
0xTJ 9y ago
All my other "real" points have been covered by other users, but one other thing that SpaceX is doing is making space cool again. I've always found it interesting, and the launch vehicles technically incredible, but (as a university student) it's the first time in my life that current space-related events have been at the front of my mind. Various news outlets called the Falcon Heavy launch the most anticipated launch of the last decade, and I'd agree. In the lecture I was in during the launch, everyone was either watching it on their laptop, or looking over the shoulder of the person in front of them. People were shaking from excitement, and nearly tearing up as the FH lifted off.
woodandsteel 9y ago
Perhaps the most important reason people are so excited about SpaceX is they are planning to colonize Mars, and are busy working on the BFR to to make it possible. NASA also wants to go to Mars, but their plans are way smaller and they many years behind SpaceX.

socceroos 9y ago

Over and above the rocket technology itself, they're pushing the boundaries of what they (SpaceX) and others are capable of constantly - this is because they have a grand vision that they're all working towards that isn't primarily shareholder profits. I think a lot of the excitement, for myself anyway, is that SpaceX represents the only tangible effort to bring us kicking and screaming into the space exploration age.

justin66 9y ago

SpaceX is still the only company to land a real first-stage booster, and the Falcon Heavy was the largest rocket (in terms of payload capacity) to fly since the Saturn V.

Zardoz84 9y ago
false! The energia and the N-1 flow before and they was more powerful that the Falcon Heavy.
- justin66 9y ago
  From the N-1's wikipedia page: Each of the four attempts to launch an N1 failed; during the second launch attempt the N1 rocket crashed back onto its launch pad shortly after liftoff and exploded, resulting in one of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions in human history. Energia's a more interesting comparison, since it's hard to know if its advertised payload was at all accurate, but it did fly. I'd say that if it could have delivered its advertised payload reliably, the design probably would have flown more than twice and would have survived the fall of the Soviet Union. I have no idea what a half-finished Buran weighs...
- cycrutchfield 9y ago
  Did the N-1 rocket really "fly"?
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    It flew all the way to the scene of the crash.
    - philipwhiuk 9y ago
      Ah, the Chuck Yeager school of flying: "If you can walk away from a landing, it's a good landing. If you use the airplane the next day, it's an outstanding landing"
- jacquesm 9y ago
  The N-1 never worked properly though. And even one of the two Energia launches was not without issues.

acover 9y ago

SpaceX is making progress to their goal of airline style reusable rocket.

zitterbewegung 9y ago

The exciting innovation that SpaceX promises is lower flight costs by making reusable rockets. This is motivated by the desire to land on mars (which factors into their marketing and recruitment). Many people who work there have issues with work life balance and to work there and the pay is lower than other similar aerospace companies. In contrast ULA is higher cost but is more reliable. A great deal of their technology is older than SpaceX because they are the incumbent launch platform. They don’t really market themselves the same way due to the fact that they are profitable. The pay I believe is average and has better work life balance than SpaceX.

sigstoat 9y ago
> Many people who work there have issues with work life balance and to work there and the pay is lower than other similar aerospace companies. which is really saying something, as a lot of aerospace employers prey on the cool factor of doing space stuff to keep folks working absurd hours, for well under what they'd make doing similarly difficult work elsewhere.

rtkwe 9y ago

Partially it's the new hotness, but also the landings are pretty spectacular and if the economics work out long term (ie SpaceX isn't just burning cash to break into the market with subsidies like Uber does) will significantly reduce the cost of launches compared to the expendable rockets produced by ULA, Khrunichev, et al. Their launches are already significantly cheaper than the others on a per kg basis to LEO and GTO.

aidenn0 9y ago

SpaceX is putting a huge focus on pricing. Despite having prices reportedly[1] lower than any newly manufactured rockets[2], they are rapidly approaching parity or superiority on a number of other measurements of quality with other launch organizations. Basically in the 1960s, it was envisioned that space launches would become routine, but they did not (the "Space Shuttle" was so named as an analogy to shuttle buses that have regular round-trip service). SpaceX is the most successful attempt since then to make it routine. 1: most other launch companies don't advertise prices 2: repurposed ICBMs are historically the cheapest way to space, but see also #1

jdietrich 9y ago

SpaceX can reliably deliver payloads to orbit at far lower cost than their competition; as they start to re-use vehicles in earnest, that cost will fall even further. Falcon Heavy is now the most powerful rocket in commercial service by a factor of two. Two years ago they were a highly promising competitor; today, they're the market leader. Khrunichev are out of the game. The old Proton vehicles are cheap, but they're very unreliable due to a barely-modernised 1960s design and poor construction. They flew four launches in 2017, versus SpaceX's eighteen; by all accounts their order book is looking very sparse indeed. Their new Angara vehicle hasn't flown since the first orbital test flight in 2014 and has attracted no real commercial interest. ULA can't even begin to compete on cost. Without the capability and readiness contract from the US government, they'd be out of the game entirely. They didn't even bother to bid for the GPS-III contract. The SLS won't be ready until next year, it'll only have about 10% more payload capacity to LEO than Falcon Heavy and it'll cost at least three times as much, with no possibility of reuse. EADS are attracting a good amount of commercial launches, but their competitive advantage is fading rapidly. Ariane 5 is reportedly 3-4x more expensive than Falcon 9 and has less payload capacity to LEO. The planned Ariane 6 will be considerably cheaper than Ariane 5, but it'll have less payload capacity and still won't be price-competitive with Falcon 9. EADS have not announced plans for a heavy launch vehicle. Blue Origin are chasing SpaceX's tail. The New Glenn vehicle won't begin test flights until 2020, it has less payload capacity than Falcon Heavy, shows no signs of being cheaper and isn't as reusable. Even if everything goes to plan, they'll still be badly trailing behind SpaceX.

0xTJ 9y ago

All my other "real" points have been covered by other users, but one other thing that SpaceX is doing is making space cool again. I've always found it interesting, and the launch vehicles technically incredible, but (as a university student) it's the first time in my life that current space-related events have been at the front of my mind. Various news outlets called the Falcon Heavy launch the most anticipated launch of the last decade, and I'd agree. In the lecture I was in during the launch, everyone was either watching it on their laptop, or looking over the shoulder of the person in front of them. People were shaking from excitement, and nearly tearing up as the FH lifted off.

woodandsteel 9y ago

Perhaps the most important reason people are so excited about SpaceX is they are planning to colonize Mars, and are busy working on the BFR to to make it possible. NASA also wants to go to Mars, but their plans are way smaller and they many years behind SpaceX.