9 ms·

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket seems to be a hit with satellite companies

184 points by okket 8y ago

zaroth 8y ago
What’s amazing to me is when companies do things like this that, for the general public, make perfect sense only in retrospect. Most seemly well-run companies are a total shit-show from the inside. Stupid projects with features that no one wants, that engineering can’t build, destined to never sell. It’s just plain refreshing when you see a company firing on all cylinders (sorry, couldn’t help myself) to the point where a shrewd move that helps capture the market only becomes apparent, even to industry insiders, months or years later. It’s particularly satisfying when the CEO maps it all out in public years ahead of time and then executes on that vision relentlessly for a decade, despite the constant hate and doubt. </Fanboy>
- madeuptempacct 8y ago
  >cylinders You mean capacitors. Ba dum tshhh.
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Actually I’m this case I think he means combustion chambers...
    - Brockenstein 8y ago
      No. I think they're referring to Tesla (and its struggles) seeing that it's a car company and cars classically run on cylinders, but since Tesla's are electric, no cylinders. You know since Elon Musk is a founding member of both SpaceX and Tesla.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - zamadatix 8y ago
        I thought they were referring to SpaceX as well seeing as it's 3 cylinders and the topic at hand.
  - tomp 8y ago
    SpaceX, not Tesla.
    - beatgammit 8y ago
      Do rockets have cylinders?
      - sound1 8y ago
        you mean the white pointy tubes? yes.
- Brockenstein 8y ago
  I don't think I had an opinion beforehand or anything. I mean I was always down with the idea. But I think the problem is that it's such a long process to get from point A to B, and then the market for putting things into orbit is pretty niche that most people just can't see the potential. And lot of people are living from paycheck to paycheck aren't really planning years down the road. It's completely out of their realm of experience or expertise in every possible way. And they would never attempt it so that's get projected onto the world as, "Anyone who attempts this is foolish." Hindsight is 20/20 after all. And vision is only lauded in hindsight. Because a vision that ends in failure gets a big "I told you so." from people who usually have none.
  - darawk 8y ago
    Except that this isn't hindsight being 20/20...this is foresight.
  - ambicapter 8y ago
    > And lot of people are living from paycheck to paycheck aren't really planning years down the road. The average joe had and could have had nothing to do with SpaceX's success. I think OP is referring more to people who could have had an impact, like government entities or aerospace company CEOs.
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    > the market for putting things into orbit is pretty niche It's only niche until the price comes down, like for computers, cars, air travel, aluminum, coffee, etc.
    - tialaramex 8y ago
      Two things: 1. Things can be niche because there just aren't that many people who want them, rather than because you couldn't make them cheaply if there was demand. A good quality Videodisc player for example costs far more now than it did at the height of the format, because only weird retro collectors want one so there's no reason to mass produce them. Videodisc players are niche. 2. We're talking about literal space, it can actually fill up. Some orbits are either so low that everything de-orbits soon enough anyway and needs replacing, or so high that we'd never conceivably fill them, but in between are plenty of useful orbits that are finite, so filling them up with more crap doesn't make any sense even if you could do it for free.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I think it also made sense beforehand. But the main issue is that most companies are extremely risk averse, perhaps even out of necessity. The stock market butchers companies based on their results over 3 month windows. That's really about the most idiotic system imaginable, but it's the one that we have. This is why I think ever more of the companies with big goal driven ideas are staying private. Go public and suddenly everything is about reducing risk and working to min-max on a quarterly cycle, annual in the worst case. This is really distorting progress in our country because while going public may severely impair any longterm revolutionary goals of a company, it'll also make you [the founders] filthy stinking rich.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > The stock market butchers companies based on their results over 3 month windows In the "risk-on" phases of the past few cycles, the stock markets have loved risk takers. The problem, I believe, is in management not wanting to ruin a good thing.
- notjustanymike 8y ago
  Shout-out to Gwynne Shotwell, who is a massive factor in the company's success.
  - gbear605 8y ago
    Gwynne Shotwell :)
    - notjustanymike 8y ago
      Dang it. Fixed.
  - TrainedMonkey 8y ago
    +1 for that, Elon might have the vision, but without adult supervision SpaceX would have folded a while ago.
    - leesec 8y ago
      Lol hyperbole much?
    - api 8y ago
      I'm not sure I'd put it that strongly, but it is quite clear that Shotwell has been a huge factor in SpaceX and the absence of someone like her is part of why Tesla is comparatively less healthy. She deserves a lot more credit.
      - Numberwang 8y ago
        Where are you people getting this information?
      - notasexist 8y ago
        What exactly is wrong with Tesla? You are comparing apples to oranges here and Tesla are doing fine regardless. Didn't they just post a profitable quarter after meeting production goals on the model 3 and virtually the entire market betting against them? Both companies are fine, and Shotwell is an industry veteran who is no doubt valuable to SpaceX, but don't be ridiculous to think either company would be anywhere without Elon at the helm.
- lmm 8y ago
  Eh, the Falcon 9 Heavy was years later than what the CEO "mapped out" and is missing an major feature of the original design (crossfeed). They may have done better than their competitors but SpaceX have had their share of mishaps along the way like anyone else. A lot of the "hate and doubt" was justified; certainly the people who said there was no way Falcon 9 Heavy would be flying in 2013 like Musk was claiming turned out to be... 100% correct.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    If Wikipedia is pointing at the right numbers, the final Falcon Heavy has 20% more payload to LEO than the initial proposal with crossfeed. Late? Yes. More capable than projected? Yes. Low R&D budget? At $500mm, amazingly so, especially for being late.
    - lmm 8y ago
      > the final Falcon Heavy has 20% more payload to LEO than the initial proposal with crossfeed. They met the payload goals thanks to unanticipated improvements to Falcon 9 performance. But it rather gives the lie to the "the CEO made a plan and they executed that plan" narrative; actually a substantial part of the CEO's plan was a blind alley and they wasted a lot of time chasing it.
jonesdc 8y ago
Anyone else enjoy the PDF-like presentation of the webpage? This design is so clean. I initially thought OP submitted a document.
- sand500 8y ago
  > This design is so clean. Does that include the giant video ad at the top? https://imgur.com/a/4QvQO3W https://imgur.com/a/4QvQO3W
isostatic 8y ago
There's a really good comment about why reigniting an engine after a long time in space is difficult. I hadn't even considered that the fuel will just be floating in the tank with no forwards pressure #ThingsKSPdoesn'tTeachYou
- gpm 8y ago
  If you watch some of the old webcasts you can see shots of the LOX tank in 0g transitioning to firing. The trick is to use another source of thrust (e.g. cold gas thrusters) to accelerate the rocket slightly and settle the fuel.
  - tomp 8y ago
    I've always wondered if you couldn't do the same thing by spinning the rocket, and a spiral in the tank. Advantage: doesn't require any reaction mass. Disadvantages: requires a reaction wheel (might be complicated engineering), and spiral in the tank might impact fuel pumping/flowing performance.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      Spinning the rocket sends the liquid to the sides, not the bottom where the pumps are.
      - tomp 8y ago
        That's why you have the spiral inside the tank, so that it "scoops" the fuel to the bottom.
      - outworlder 8y ago
        That doesn't sound right. I would expect that the centripetal force will send the fuel to the end of the rocket (or ends, depending on where the pivot point is).
      - aw1621107 8y ago
        Not if you spin the rocket end-over-end
ChuckMcM 8y ago
That is a pretty big advantage if you save all of that fuel on the satellite. It translates directly into extra years on station and so longer payoff period.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Sure, if you have already built the satellite, and it shares fuel between orbit raising and station keeping, it can be a big win. ULA convinced the US to do that with GOES-16, recently. But if you're designing from scratch, building a bigger satellite and staging earlier gets more mass to GEO. That's called a "subsync" orbit and SpaceX has talked 2 customers into doing that with 3 satellites so far: Telstar 19V, Telstar 18V, and Hispasat 30W-6. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/launches/gto_performance https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/launches/gto_performanc... In these latter 3 examples, the customer saved ~ $30mm on the launch by staying within the reusable F9 mass limit.
formatkaka 8y ago
Elon Musk's biography is no less than a thriller :) Short Story : He once took Tesla Model S (not fully developed) to his home from tesla HQ. The next morning, he came back with more 40 changes to be made. And yes, he remembered all those changes after more than 12+ hrs.

184 points by okket 8y ago

What’s amazing to me is when companies do things like this that, for the general public, make perfect sense only in retrospect. Most seemly well-run companies are a total shit-show from the inside. Stupid projects with features that no one wants, that engineering can’t build, destined to never sell. It’s just plain refreshing when you see a company firing on all cylinders (sorry, couldn’t help myself) to the point where a shrewd move that helps capture the market only becomes apparent, even to industry insiders, months or years later. It’s particularly satisfying when the CEO maps it all out in public years ahead of time and then executes on that vision relentlessly for a decade, despite the constant hate and doubt. </Fanboy>

madeuptempacct 8y ago
>cylinders You mean capacitors. Ba dum tshhh.
- garmaine 8y ago
  Actually I’m this case I think he means combustion chambers...
  - Brockenstein 8y ago
    No. I think they're referring to Tesla (and its struggles) seeing that it's a car company and cars classically run on cylinders, but since Tesla's are electric, no cylinders. You know since Elon Musk is a founding member of both SpaceX and Tesla.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - zamadatix 8y ago
      I thought they were referring to SpaceX as well seeing as it's 3 cylinders and the topic at hand.
- tomp 8y ago
  SpaceX, not Tesla.
  - beatgammit 8y ago
    Do rockets have cylinders?
    - sound1 8y ago
      you mean the white pointy tubes? yes.
Brockenstein 8y ago
I don't think I had an opinion beforehand or anything. I mean I was always down with the idea. But I think the problem is that it's such a long process to get from point A to B, and then the market for putting things into orbit is pretty niche that most people just can't see the potential. And lot of people are living from paycheck to paycheck aren't really planning years down the road. It's completely out of their realm of experience or expertise in every possible way. And they would never attempt it so that's get projected onto the world as, "Anyone who attempts this is foolish." Hindsight is 20/20 after all. And vision is only lauded in hindsight. Because a vision that ends in failure gets a big "I told you so." from people who usually have none.
- darawk 8y ago
  Except that this isn't hindsight being 20/20...this is foresight.
- ambicapter 8y ago
  > And lot of people are living from paycheck to paycheck aren't really planning years down the road. The average joe had and could have had nothing to do with SpaceX's success. I think OP is referring more to people who could have had an impact, like government entities or aerospace company CEOs.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  > the market for putting things into orbit is pretty niche It's only niche until the price comes down, like for computers, cars, air travel, aluminum, coffee, etc.
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    Two things: 1. Things can be niche because there just aren't that many people who want them, rather than because you couldn't make them cheaply if there was demand. A good quality Videodisc player for example costs far more now than it did at the height of the format, because only weird retro collectors want one so there's no reason to mass produce them. Videodisc players are niche. 2. We're talking about literal space, it can actually fill up. Some orbits are either so low that everything de-orbits soon enough anyway and needs replacing, or so high that we'd never conceivably fill them, but in between are plenty of useful orbits that are finite, so filling them up with more crap doesn't make any sense even if you could do it for free.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I think it also made sense beforehand. But the main issue is that most companies are extremely risk averse, perhaps even out of necessity. The stock market butchers companies based on their results over 3 month windows. That's really about the most idiotic system imaginable, but it's the one that we have. This is why I think ever more of the companies with big goal driven ideas are staying private. Go public and suddenly everything is about reducing risk and working to min-max on a quarterly cycle, annual in the worst case. This is really distorting progress in our country because while going public may severely impair any longterm revolutionary goals of a company, it'll also make you [the founders] filthy stinking rich.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > The stock market butchers companies based on their results over 3 month windows In the "risk-on" phases of the past few cycles, the stock markets have loved risk takers. The problem, I believe, is in management not wanting to ruin a good thing.
notjustanymike 8y ago
Shout-out to Gwynne Shotwell, who is a massive factor in the company's success.
- gbear605 8y ago
  Gwynne Shotwell :)
  - notjustanymike 8y ago
    Dang it. Fixed.
- TrainedMonkey 8y ago
  +1 for that, Elon might have the vision, but without adult supervision SpaceX would have folded a while ago.
  - leesec 8y ago
    Lol hyperbole much?
  - api 8y ago
    I'm not sure I'd put it that strongly, but it is quite clear that Shotwell has been a huge factor in SpaceX and the absence of someone like her is part of why Tesla is comparatively less healthy. She deserves a lot more credit.
    - Numberwang 8y ago
      Where are you people getting this information?
    - notasexist 8y ago
      What exactly is wrong with Tesla? You are comparing apples to oranges here and Tesla are doing fine regardless. Didn't they just post a profitable quarter after meeting production goals on the model 3 and virtually the entire market betting against them? Both companies are fine, and Shotwell is an industry veteran who is no doubt valuable to SpaceX, but don't be ridiculous to think either company would be anywhere without Elon at the helm.
lmm 8y ago
Eh, the Falcon 9 Heavy was years later than what the CEO "mapped out" and is missing an major feature of the original design (crossfeed). They may have done better than their competitors but SpaceX have had their share of mishaps along the way like anyone else. A lot of the "hate and doubt" was justified; certainly the people who said there was no way Falcon 9 Heavy would be flying in 2013 like Musk was claiming turned out to be... 100% correct.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  If Wikipedia is pointing at the right numbers, the final Falcon Heavy has 20% more payload to LEO than the initial proposal with crossfeed. Late? Yes. More capable than projected? Yes. Low R&D budget? At $500mm, amazingly so, especially for being late.
  - lmm 8y ago
    > the final Falcon Heavy has 20% more payload to LEO than the initial proposal with crossfeed. They met the payload goals thanks to unanticipated improvements to Falcon 9 performance. But it rather gives the lie to the "the CEO made a plan and they executed that plan" narrative; actually a substantial part of the CEO's plan was a blind alley and they wasted a lot of time chasing it.

jonesdc 8y ago

Anyone else enjoy the PDF-like presentation of the webpage? This design is so clean. I initially thought OP submitted a document.

sand500 8y ago
> This design is so clean. Does that include the giant video ad at the top? https://imgur.com/a/4QvQO3W https://imgur.com/a/4QvQO3W

isostatic 8y ago

There's a really good comment about why reigniting an engine after a long time in space is difficult. I hadn't even considered that the fuel will just be floating in the tank with no forwards pressure #ThingsKSPdoesn'tTeachYou

gpm 8y ago
If you watch some of the old webcasts you can see shots of the LOX tank in 0g transitioning to firing. The trick is to use another source of thrust (e.g. cold gas thrusters) to accelerate the rocket slightly and settle the fuel.
- tomp 8y ago
  I've always wondered if you couldn't do the same thing by spinning the rocket, and a spiral in the tank. Advantage: doesn't require any reaction mass. Disadvantages: requires a reaction wheel (might be complicated engineering), and spiral in the tank might impact fuel pumping/flowing performance.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    Spinning the rocket sends the liquid to the sides, not the bottom where the pumps are.
    - tomp 8y ago
      That's why you have the spiral inside the tank, so that it "scoops" the fuel to the bottom.
    - outworlder 8y ago
      That doesn't sound right. I would expect that the centripetal force will send the fuel to the end of the rocket (or ends, depending on where the pivot point is).
    - aw1621107 8y ago
      Not if you spin the rocket end-over-end

ChuckMcM 8y ago

That is a pretty big advantage if you save all of that fuel on the satellite. It translates directly into extra years on station and so longer payoff period.

greglindahl 8y ago
Sure, if you have already built the satellite, and it shares fuel between orbit raising and station keeping, it can be a big win. ULA convinced the US to do that with GOES-16, recently. But if you're designing from scratch, building a bigger satellite and staging earlier gets more mass to GEO. That's called a "subsync" orbit and SpaceX has talked 2 customers into doing that with 3 satellites so far: Telstar 19V, Telstar 18V, and Hispasat 30W-6. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/launches/gto_performance https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/launches/gto_performanc... In these latter 3 examples, the customer saved ~ $30mm on the launch by staying within the reusable F9 mass limit.

formatkaka 8y ago

Elon Musk's biography is no less than a thriller :) Short Story : He once took Tesla Model S (not fully developed) to his home from tesla HQ. The next morning, he came back with more 40 changes to be made. And yes, he remembered all those changes after more than 12+ hrs.