10 ms·

September 21, 2012: Grasshopper hops 2m (http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/02/08/grasshopper-takes-its-first-hop http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/02/08/grasshopper

• toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Move Fast. Be so good you don't break things. EDIT: Downvotes? Hello SV echo chamber. SpaceX iterates almost as fast as any tech startup in SV; and how many vehicle losses have they had?
  • GuiA 13y ago
    Well, they've had some failures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_1_launches#Launch_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_1_launches#Launc... But yes, overall they're moving and iterating and learning super fast. To me, it's one of the 21st century's most exciting companies so far.
    • nknighthb 13y ago
      As rocket failures go, SpaceX's have proven very boring. No booms, no light shows, nothing likely to kill a hypothetical human crew. The first one was actually kind of funny in the end. The satellite landed semi-intact in a storage shed... a few feet from its own shipping container[1]. Too bad we don't bother with parachutes on satellites, it probably would have been reusable with little or no repair. [1] http://www.usafa.edu/df/dfas/Papers/20062007/FalconSAT-2%20Launched%20(and%20Recovered)%20-%20France.pdf http://www.usafa.edu/df/dfas/Papers/20062007/FalconSAT-2%20L...
      • ash 13y ago
        Incredible! > For years, cadets have trained falcons (the only performing mascot at NCAA division I football games). FalconSAT-2 showed its excellent homing skills in the launch failure by avoiding the sea and returning to its shipping container so it “could come home to roost.”
  • twelvechairs 13y ago
    you are being down voted because your post lacks content
    • unclebucknasty 13y ago
      Actually, I think it makes a solid point, even if it is concise. Pithy is the word that comes to mind. And I appreciated the pun. We constantly hear the mantra about iterating quickly, changing/breaking things, not worrying about initial quality, etc. But, there's something to be said for investing in quality and striving for excellence every time out of the gate. And from the outside, it's certainly inspirational. Ok, so guess I just signed up to absorb some of the downvotes. Whatevs.
      • toomuchtodo 13y ago
        Thank you.
      • coreyja 13y ago
        I agree that he (and you) shouldn't be getting down voted. But I don't think that "Move Fast and Break Things" necessarily means not striving for excellence every time. To me it or more of, since in Programming there is (usually/almost) no bad side effects of breaking the code, go ahead and try new things. Worst case, revert to your last committed version. And I have to assume that SpaceX has most definitely had ideas that didn't work, or in other words 'broke'. They just hopefully never make it to the actual rocket testing phase! So in my opinion, you can both "Move fast and break things" and strive for excellence every time out of the gate. And to comment on the original video, I think it's really impressive seeing a toy helicopter do stuff like this on it's own. And this is a fucking ROCKET!!
  • stcredzero 13y ago
    Three, if I recall correctly.
  • InclinedPlane 13y ago
    These are good points, and useful lessons for any entrepreneur. The great thing about SpaceX is that they use advanced technology very appropriately and pragmatically. They didn't design a carbon fiber body SSTO RLV or anything like that, they built a 2 stage LOX/Kerosene expendable rocket, a design that's been around since the 1950s. They built a small vehicle and spent a few years building institutional knowledge of building and operating orbital launchers. Then they used that knowledge to build products that were competitive in the market. Now they're continuing to iterate like crazy and building a lot of exiting new things off of what they've already proven: the manned Dragon, Falcon Heavy, Falcon 9 v1.1, and Falcon 9-R. If they continue to put a consistent amount of effort into iterative R&D they'll not only own most of the orbital launch market they'll own a lot of new markets that don't even exist yet. They're just applying common sense and building obvious designs well to compete in a market filled with companies that aren't used to strong competition.
  • ballard 13y ago
    http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html Just ignore it.
• jcampbell1 13y ago
  What is more impressive, spacex is going to do a high altitude test of this system in a few months. I don't know the details, but it sounds like they are going to try a controlled landing into the ocean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Flight_6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Flight_6
  • nkoren 13y ago
    Not in a few months: in three weeks: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html The plan is to do a return-to-launchpad maneuver -- except that not to the actual launchpad, but to a point offshore -- followed by a controlled "landing" on the ocean. Allows them to test the entire flight profile of a Falcon 9-R (reusable) booster, using an off-the-shelf stage, absent the flight-weight landing gear (which still hasn't been tested). If this is successful, then I imagine that a series of flight-weight landing gear tests will be in order, followed by high-altitude testing at White Sands. At the rate they're going, we might see them reusing boosters on commercial missions within 18 months or so.
• captainbenises 13y ago
  It is impressive, but far less impressive than going from a suborbital lob to a moon landing in 9 years.
  • nnethercote 13y ago
    They've still got 8 years on that clock. Not to mention a rather smaller budget.
  • ballard 13y ago
    Nothing seems to speed up progress like a good old-fashioned prize. First team that can send and retrieve two people to each: - $5 Billion USD for the moon - $100 Billion USD for mars
    • dm2 13y ago
      Who is offering that? I know Google has a $30 million prize for putting a rover on the moon.