
SpaceX Successfully Soft-Landed Booster Rocket in the Atlantic - typpo
http://mashable.com/2014/04/25/elon-musk-spacex-booster-stage-atlantic/
======
BrandonMarc
Equally large news from today's press conference at the National Press Club -
SpaceX is taking on ULA (united launch alliance, a consortium of incumbent
players in the market) and the "block buy" allocation of military / national-
security launches to ULA.

Here's their handout, from one of the reporters there:

[https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/459734785314013184](https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/459734785314013184)

Playing politics a bit, Elon's claiming a ~ 75% reduction in launch costs by
using Falcon 9 rockets instead of the block buys allocated to ULA, so he's
filing a lawsuit to give his company access to this market. He even goes into
details of how some of ULA's engines are manufactured in Russia, and given the
festivities in the Ukraine our legislators would rather be less dependent on
Russia for space access. He even whets the politicians' appetites with his
blurb at the bottom describing how $1B per year could instead pay for
operating a fleet of A-10's, or 15 Marine Corps battalions, or 12 F-16
squadrons ... or it could instead pay for purchasing 10 F-35's, 2 LCS's, or 50
UH-60 Black Hawks.

Politicians (and Beltway reporters) definitely respond to money dangled in
front of their face.

Here's how he arrives at the ~75% reduction, btw:

• ULA annual cost: $3.0-3.5B

• ULA cost per launch: ~$460M

• Falcon 9 cost: "under $100M"

This forum has tons of live-blog style commentary leading up to and during the
press conference.

[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=lsmvrej...](http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=lsmvrej5r2jcakuthchhko36i5&topic=34552.0)

\--------------------

(edited to clarify about ULA engine sourcing; thanks physcab)

~~~
physcab
ULA uses engines manufactured from many different sources. Some rockets fly
with engines manufactured in Russia, and as far as I know these aren't
necessarily new engines but re-used from the 60's. But other programs use
engines manufactured in the US. Atlas V rockets have engines made by Aerojet
Rocketdyne which is based in Sacramento California.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V)

Also to match costs, you have to look at the payloads and the distance to
space.

Falcon 9 - $56M - 4.8 metric tons to GTO

Falcon 9H - $135M - 21 metric tons to GTO

Atlas IV/V - $160M - 7 metric tons to GTO or 21 tonnes to LEO

Ariane V - $200M - ? metric tons to GTO

[http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/007/131124commercial/#.U1q...](http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/007/131124commercial/#.U1qpneZdXig)

These other companies justify the higher price because they have a better
track record. If you're a military customer and your payload _needs_ to get to
space, you probably will choose the "safe" bet. Its a catch-22. SpaceX needs
more flights to prove their record, but they can't get more flights because of
their record.

~~~
kindredlight
All Atlas V first-stage engines (RD-180) are manufactured in Russia. That the
second stage engines are made in the US doesn't change the fact that you're
dependent on Russian supply.

In response to your edits:

>but they can't get more flights because of their record

The Air Force required 3 successful flights in the exact configuration the Air
Force would fly. SpaceX provided the "record" as stipulated by the Air Force,
which nevertheless committed to a large block-buy contract with ULA. By the
Air Force's own standards, the billion-dollar subsidy is not necessary for
their _needs_ -to-get-to-space payloads.

Also, "the other companies" is just a single supplier, ULA.

~~~
BrandonMarc
I've heard it's a common practice in defense contracts to carefully write the
requirements such that you are in effect pre-selecting your desired vendor,
while providing the appearance of impartiality and neutrality.

~~~
tsotha
Yes, it's called "wiring" a contract. When I worked at a company that sold
specialized processors to the government we ran into that all the time.
Usually it was something defensible on its face, at least, like software
compatibility with a previous piece of hardware.

But sometimes we would see unimaginative stuff like a specification of the LED
layout on the front panel or very specific weight restrictions that happened
to fall between our hardware and the preferred vendor.

In the government's defense, though, the system is set up to combat this
tendency, at least for smaller contracts. When I was on the _other_ side
(having left the vendor to work for our civil service customer) we would
routinely get pointed questions from the purchasing people regarding this or
that line of the RFP - was it _really_ required, or were we trying to wire the
contract?

------
cloudwalking
\- Successful soft landing in the Atlantic

\- Seas were too rough for a quick recovery

\- Rocket subsequently destroyed by wave action

\- Will attempt recovery of the next Falcon 9 launch

\- A Falcon 9 recovered on land could be re-used the next day (!)

\- SpaceX is lobbying to allow private competition for National Security
launches (eg GPS satellites)

~~~
redthrowaway
Is "the ocean was wavy" really a justifiable reason for losing the rocket?
Surely sea conditions are something they'd take into account when planning and
executing the mission.

~~~
lutusp
You clearly have not been at sea, close to the water. A cylindrical object,
without a sea anchor, in moderately rough seas, would naturally turn sideways
to the waves and be destroyed very quickly in the breaking waves.

I don't know whether SpaceX has fitted their boosters with sea anchors yet,
but I wouldn't be surprised to see this addition after the present loss. In
windy conditions, a sea anchor provides some drag and keeps the boat (or
booster) pointed perpendicular to the waves, thereby minimizing the force
expended on the object.

> Surely sea conditions are something they'd take into account when planning
> and executing the mission.

Ocean experts are constantly preparing for extreme conditions, then
discovering they didn't prepare for conditions that were extreme enough.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave)

~~~
keehun
How much weight would be such an anchor to hold down something as large as a
rocket? Wouldn't you have to launch that into space, too?

~~~
ericcumbee
Probably not going to happen since the ultimate goal is return to launch site.

~~~
lutusp
Yes, that's the goal, a descent to land instead of water. One hopes SpaceX
will be granted permission to move ahead with that scheme instead of having to
perform more tests into water.

I'm sure there are safety concerns that have prevented this until now. The
successful retro-file to zero velocity over water may help resolve those
concerns.

------
001sky
_(1) Telsa CEO Elon Musk announced a major breakthrough in spaceflight on
Friday

(2) Musk revealed the potentially "revolutionary" news on Friday during a
hastily organized press conference

(3) "What SpaceX has done thus far is evolutionary, not revolutionary," Musk
said.

(4) "If we can recover the booster stage, the chance is there for
revolutionary."_

What was announded today was a critical first step. But there is nothing
seemingly new in the press conference report, beyond what Elon had tweeted on
the day of the soft-landing itself. The only new news is that the vehicle was
lost, which doesn't really seem to be a "breakthrough" in the context of
Musk's own explanation.

The bigger step here will be getting the recovery because the need to confirm
empirically what kind of shape the engineered pieces come back in. Many
problemes like the icing on the shuttle (which de-laminated and caused
projectile damage) are not going to be discovered without such an inspection.

------
arsey
I am glad I read this article because it alerted me to the existence of NASA's
robot astronaut named Robonaut [0].

[0]
[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/robonaut.html](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/robonaut.html)

------
paul_f
This may be a dumb question, but why are they test landing in the ocean
instead of on land? Flight paths preclude it?

~~~
iliis
The seas are huge and empty. Keep in mind that this was just an experiment
which could easily have gone wrong. You probably don't want to have to explain
why you made a rocket-shaped hole in somebody's roof ;)

Also: Chances are higher that you're able to recover useful wreckage (like
data loggers) when you crash into water.

------
dfc
It is absurd that a citizen must pay to view the decision from his previous
case against Boeing.

[https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.cacd.179146](https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.cacd.179146)

~~~
cvbncvbncgbc
Are you sure?

[https://ia600706.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.1...](https://ia600706.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.179146/gov.uscourts.cacd.179146.docket.html)

~~~
dfc
Yes I am sure that this is how PACER works and furthermore I am also sure that
the RECAP project does not have anything for this case. Did you notice the
link you provided is merely a list of 71 case related documents? Do you know
how many of those 71 documents have nothing listed in the "upload date"
column?

------
biscotti
At the NPC conference Elon confirmed a choppy video feed from the booster.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_rnija1nOA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_rnija1nOA)

------
Patrick_Devine
Is it SpaceX's intention at some point to forgo the launch tower and launch
directly off of the landing legs grasshopper style? I realize it's not really
necessary, but it might make it easier to get a rocket off of Mars instead of
having to build a tower. Although, presumably if you can refine rocket fuel on
Mars, maybe building a launch tower is no big deal.

Anyways, kudos again to Musk and SpaceX.

~~~
aschampion
The strongback does a lot more than legs ever would: resistance to winds when
awaiting the launch window, fueling, data connections, etc. Not to mention you
need some sort of tower to lift the rocket upright after payload integration
and servicing -- unless you do vertical integration, which they will need to
do to win USAF contracts. But then you need a crane, anyway.

~~~
amatix
Genuinely curious, why would USAF (or anyone) need vertical integration?

~~~
rst
These requirements seem to apply mostly to "national security" payloads (e.g.,
spysats), so the exact nature of the requirements is classified. It's easy to
come up with a plausible guess about what the requirements might be (optics
going out of alignment if you tip the spysat on its side?), but those who know
don't say --- and those willing to venture a guess, like me, are showing they
don't actually know.

------
BrandonMarc
Wait ... did Elon mention building a spaceport in Brownsville, TX? I can see
how that would work well for GEO and GTO launches. That's an interesting
breakdown for launch manifests:

\- FL, 39a: the NASA launches

\- FL, 40a: the DoD launches

\- TX: the GEO launches

\- CA: the polar launches (Vandenberg)

It is interesting, that by bringing the lawsuit, Elon is essentially saying
"hey! how come the block buy deal magically appeared only now that a viable
competitor exists?"

~~~
mikeyouse
Yep, they've been seeking environmental approvals for a little while. They've
leased a site off shore on an island in the Laguna Madre.

[http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_1e5...](http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_1e58c04a-75ba-11e3-a5f7-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=jqm)

------
yazaddaruvala
Where would the booster have landed?

What if the Russian tug boat, that was chilling outside of Florida, stole the
booster? That would be an interesting turn of events.

------
wolf550e
video and transcript of the session:
[http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-press-
conference-a...](http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-press-conference-
at-the-national-press-club-2014-04-25)

------
JimmaDaRustla
"Telsa" \- and I stopped reading...

Edit: For the record, www.telsamotors.com redirects to www.teslamotors.com

~~~
anarchy8
Why?

~~~
vitno
because it's "Tesla"

~~~
mercury888
He probably thought it was still r/technology

