
SES-10 Mission - traviswingo
http://www.spacex.com/webcast#travis
======
jacquesm
History was being made today. Super, congratulations to all of SpaceX. Now
let's see the landing :)

STUCK THE LANDING :) :) :)

Apologies to my neighbors who I surely woke up.

Hah :) Incredible! Now, will they fly this one again?

~~~
hwillis
That cut to black nearly gave me a damn heart attack haha. Satellite
connection lost because rocket exhaust is basically a giant ionized cloud of
noise.

Elon looks like he hasn't been getting enough sleep or showers, and like he's
about to back flip and start happy crying.

~~~
david-given
My heart attack moment was during the launch when I started seeing flame
flickering around the tops of the engines... and then I thought to look at the
altitude indicator, and realised they were at about 10km, and it was just the
plume expanding as the atmospheric pressure dropped.

~~~
tdy721
The flames around the top of the engines is normal, it's the exhaust from the
turbo pumps feeding the main engines.

Check this page, the Merlin uses an open cycle, where fuel/oxidizer used to
fuel the pumps is just dumped overboard.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-
generator_cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-generator_cycle)

This picture clearly shows both exhausts:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_\(rocket_engine_family\)#/media/File:SpaceX_Testing_Merlin_1D_Engine_In_Texas.jpg)

~~~
lutorm
Yeah, it's normal, and it usually ends up getting sucked backward, presumably
due to the turbulent airflow in the space between the end of the vehicle and
the engine nozzles:

Echostar:
[https://youtu.be/zEfEBJfD_RE?t=18m23s](https://youtu.be/zEfEBJfD_RE?t=18m23s)

JCSAT:
[https://youtu.be/QZTCEO0gvLo?t=17m38s](https://youtu.be/QZTCEO0gvLo?t=17m38s)

CRS-9:
[https://youtu.be/ThIdCuSsJh8?t=17m45s](https://youtu.be/ThIdCuSsJh8?t=17m45s)

------
braymundo
Fantastic!!! Being able to watch a reusable rocket land perfecty, from my
mobile phone while casting to a TV, over a computer network​, while located in
southern Brazil makes me SO PROUD to be human!

~~~
eliaspro
It just depresses me seeing how many people don't have the slightest clue why
this is something incredibly remarkable - the complexity behind each and every
component, process, research and engineering making this possible - and then
start bitching about the new Emoji set on their smartphone

~~~
Cyph0n
And when, say, an amazing archeological artifact is uncovered, we probably
won't appreciate the complexity that went into that, and the folks at
ArcheologistNews will be pissed.

There are so many fields and so many complex processes. I can assure you that
any one of: the world of power transmission, or offshore oil drilling rigs, or
commercial shipping, or chemical process design and optimization, or tons of
other stuff, is enough to warrant an entire "HN".

So don't expect people to appreciate it all. But what we can appreciate is the
fact that you and I don't need to understand archeology to contribute to
society ;)

~~~
gallerdude
I've always pondered that I'd love to read in on these other fields, see what
they find interesting and new.

~~~
Joeri
You should read the pleasures and sorrows of work by alain de botton. He does
a deep dive in several industries to understand what drives the people there.

------
ufmace
Amazing! I genuinely think that this is a bigger deal than the moon landings.

The moon landings were pretty awesome in their own way, but at the end of the
day, with the way they were done, it was basically a stunt. None of it put any
infrastructure for the long-term access of space into place, or anything to
make future moon landings easier.

This paves the way for the costs of space flight to be cut in half, or even a
little further. This has the potential to set off an exponential chain of
growth of space travel. The further they cut prices, the more customers and
launches there are. The more customers there are, the more profit they make,
to be plowed back into better, more reliable, and more reusable rockets. And
the more incentive their competitors have to come up with their own reusable
rockets. The more reusable they are, the further they can bring prices down.
Every step reinforces the next, and in 30-50 years, the price of a launch may
well be a tenth of what it is today. Maybe closer to a hundredth.

What will we build when access to space costs 1% of what it does today? Maybe
a huge space station, or a moon colony, or asteroid mining, or all of the
above. The more traffic we have to space, the more infrastructure we build,
and the cheaper and more reliable it all gets. Off-world colonies might become
about as practical as a trip to and colony in Antarctica is today - still
tough and hazardous, but well within the budget and vision of any developed
nation. This is freakin' awesome for the future!

~~~
msl
> None of it put any infrastructure for the long-term access of space into
> place, or anything to make future moon landings easier.

This is not entirely fair. The actual landings (which did teach us a lot about
the moon) were just the tip of an iceberg. Consider project Gemini [1] for
example. A dozen missions and several astronaut-weeks of space time to get
hang of such consepts as rendezvous and docking of two spacecraft and extra
vehicular activity, all of utmost importance in modern space exploration. Much
of the hardware developed for the Apollo program was also very versatile, as
demonstrated by, for example, the Skylab program [2]. A lot more mileage could
have been extracted from the investment by means of the Apollo Aplications
Program [3] had it not been killed to make way for the STS (I'm simplifying
the history somewhat on this point).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gemini](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gemini)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program)

~~~
falsedan
Just a note that the USSR space station program completely outpaced the US
with Salyut & had automatic docking procedures for unsupervised unmanned
resupply missions in the 70s. The core module for Mir2 became the core of the
ISS.

~~~
valuearb
Also the Buran could and did fly totally automated. NASA refused to allow the
Shuttle to, because they didn't want it to be used for unmanned missions.

------
SEJeff
I can't wait until I have a talk with my kids when they realize the
significance of this day:

Kid: Daddy, ou mean when you were growing up, they threw away rockets each
time?

Me: Yes

Kid: Doesn't that make them expensive?

Me: Yes.

And then not long after will be the other talk:

Kid: Daddy, you mean people used to be in charge of driving themselves in
cars?

Me: Yes

Kid: Did people ever die?

Me: Millions

Good job Elon and SpaceX, get some rest, and then focus on the Model 3!

Elon: We have proven what can be done, that many said was impossible. _drops
mic after SpaceX lands flawlessly_

~~~
JshWright
>I can't wait until I have a talk with my kids when they realize the
significance of this day

[https://goo.gl/photos/7rT5rxvsP9AxVZxn6](https://goo.gl/photos/7rT5rxvsP9AxVZxn6)

My four year old daughter, watching the launch with rapt attention.

When we watched the Echostar 23 launch two weeks ago, she asked why it didn't
land... Crazy that rockets landing is already totally normal for her.

~~~
Jaruzel
Kudos for Doing Parenting Right.

So many 'parents' dump their kids in front of Cartoon Network, and ignore them
for 18 years.

~~~
JshWright
We are very fortunate to be in a position where we have the opportunity to
invest in our kids. I don't have a commute, and make enough that my wife is
able to focus her efforts on our household full time. However, I am quite
proud of the fact that if someone asks her what she wants to be when she's
older, half the time it's "a ballerina", and the other half it's "a mommy
scientist". If she grows up continuing to believe both of those are valid
courses to pursue, _then_ I'll agree we did something right.

Also, Stavros is right, the twins were playing in the other room with Caspar
Babypants YouTube videos playing. ;)

~~~
ooqr
You sound like you're living the life my wife and I aim for. We'd like to
homeschool full time as well to get the best possible education when we start
having little ones.

I'm still in the very early stage of my career (web developer currently), but
I'm lucky enough to work remotely most of the time and live in a beautiful
forested area of NC. What general field do you work in? If software, where
within that?

~~~
JshWright
I'm a senior developer for Silent Circle.

------
paulsutter
For nostalgia's sake, here's Elon's speech to employees after the first
successful launch of Falcon 1 (flight 4), in 2008 at Kwajalein Atoll:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQhtMrUQlE&t=32m30s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQhtMrUQlE&t=32m30s)

(speech begins at 32:30, in case link doesn't work)

~~~
StavrosK
Why does this video look like it was shot in 1990? Camera quality can't have
been that bad in 2008, can it?

~~~
mrkgnao
Might have been an early mobile phone camera.

~~~
mstade
I don't think the video was shot with a mobile camera, but probably a DV
camera typical of the day – Canon XL1 was pretty popular if I recall. These
days you can record HD video on your cell phone, but a decade ago (and recall,
the original iPhone was released just in the year prior to this video) you had
to get dedicated equipment that would run in the thousands of dollars.

Camera quality has absolutely exploded in the last decade, when compared with
how much they've shrunk, and Apple certainly had a role to play in that
transformation. I'm not at all surprised that video from a decade ago looks so
dated compared with video today.

------
drawkbox
SpaceX is an amazing company that is moving innovation forward in leaps and
bounds. I love this because it does bring people together and gets humans to
look up, above problems and fighting and gets us realizing we are in this
together.

I still cannot get over the reverse landing on the drone that first time[1] it
was almost unreal and took them a while to get there [2]. That image is seared
in my brain like the moon landing probably is for people who lived through
that.

It was about a year ago and SpaceX is already, in less than a year, performed
the reverse landing on the drone and successful relaunched. Amazing moment in
human history and SpaceX continues to lead the way.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPGUQySBikQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPGUQySBikQ)
[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa_mtakPlfw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa_mtakPlfw)

------
nradov
The launch video is amazing! How are they able to get clear video with stable
tracking of a rocket >10km away? What sort of lens and camera makes that
possible?

~~~
jacquesm
Something like this:

[http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/telescopes/images/24inchMili...](http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/telescopes/images/24inchMilitary_VAFB_02.jpg)

~~~
rblatz
As an untrained person my first response to that picture was "yeah that looks
like it would do the trick"

~~~
StavrosK
As an amateur photographer, my first response was "what in the fuck is that?"

------
bambax
Flight instructors like to share this quote: a good landing is when nobody
gets hurt. A very good landing is when you can re-use the plane.

Looks like SpaceX had (yet another) very good landing!!

------
blhack
Technical webcast here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNO571C7Ko](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNO571C7Ko)

Edit: Okay everyone can breathe now!

------
Taniwha
So they are supposed to be trying to recover the two fairing halves this time
around - any news of that?

~~~
rrmm
They apparently did recover the fairings successfully.

~~~
mholt
Not quite:
[https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/847599001746644996](https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/847599001746644996)

~~~
JshWright
It sounds like the test was successful. They weren't planning to catch them,
but wanted to demonstrate soft landing in a targeted area (much like the early
Falcon 9 landing tests).

------
jondishotsky
Don't ever let anyone tell you that something is impossible.

~~~
agumonkey
I have to say that to doctor this afternoon.

------
grondilu
I've noticed that during the webcast they talked much more about their
planetary colonisation project than they usually do. I guess it makes sense
since today is the first time they actually implement the re-usability plan
they believe is the key to this colonisation.

But frankly, is the cost of going to mars really that important for its
colonisation? I mean, I wouldn't move to mars even if going there was free.
For one, there's no breathable air, for Pete's sake. They are talking about
building a city on a place where there isn't even breathable air. That's
insane.

This whole thing is very conflicting to me. On one hand I can appreciate the
technological achievement and I acknowledge that re-usability will be
extremely useful for space exploration, but on the other hand I can't help
thinking that those people who get excited about building a city on mars are
completely delusional.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Its a reach. For comparison, lets start a city on top of Mt Everest? Better
air, better weather, lots easier to get to, and help is only days away instead
of months. Yet we haven't begun to do things even that ambitious yet.

~~~
andrewchambers
If people can get rich from colonizing Mars, it will be attempted. I don't
think there is any financial incentive for mt Everest however.

Interplanetary trade will be a huge business. Think of the old east India
trading companies only bigger.

~~~
grondilu
> Think of the old east India trading companies only bigger.

There is no spice on mars. Even if there was, it would not make sense to
transport it to Earth[1]. It's not clear what would be the business model. The
only thing I see is tourism : hotels, casinos, etc. So basically like Las
Vegas, but on mars. Just as in Futurama [2].

Could be cool, but probably not exactly the romantic image Musk's supporters
might have in mind.

1\. "Well, I think any natural resource extraction on Mars would be - the
output would be for Mars. It definitely wouldn't make sense to transport Mars
stuff 200 million miles back to Earth. Honestly, if you had like crack-cocaine
on Mars, in like prepackaged pallets, it still wouldn't make sense to
transport it back here. It's be good times for the Martians, but not back
here. Resources would be for a colony to use."
[http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/elon-musk-at-mits-
aeroast...](http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/elon-musk-at-mits-aeroastro-
centennial-part-5-of-6-2014-10-24)

2\.
[http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Mars_Vegas](http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Mars_Vegas)

~~~
andrewchambers
> There is no spice on mars.

Sounds like zero supply of something a colony might want to pay for. Trade
goes both ways. I never took a guess at time frames this could happen in.

------
remarkEon
Question:

Will future SpaceX clients now _want_ to put their payloads in orbit on a
"flight proven" booster, instead of one that hasn't flown before?

~~~
RivieraKid
If it's cheaper then yes.

~~~
jacquesm
They're not talking about cheaper, they are talking about more reliable.

~~~
quotemstr
Well, you can combine cheapness and reliability by looking at total cost
_after_ launch insurance.

~~~
Rebelgecko
That's not really a fair comparison. The amount of money you lose if something
bad happens is more than just the cost of replacing your payload (which is
what insurance covers)

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
Why wouldn't they obtain insurance for the total cost of the mishap?

~~~
Rebelgecko
Losing a payload can have a domino effect of bad things that insurance doesn't
cover. Kind of like how your car insurance won't pay for your lost income if
you get in an accident and then get fired for missing work. Maybe the car
analogy is a bit of a stretch, but look at Spacecom, whose Amos-6 satellite
blew up during a static fire back in September (this wasn't actually covered
by launch insurance, but Spacecom had separate insurance for anything that
happens before the launch).

Beyond the cost of a new satellite (covered by insurance) and a new launch
(SpaceX is giving them one for free) Spacecom still has to provide coverage
for their customers. The solution is to lease someone else's satellite for 4
years, which cost them $88 million [1]. On top of that, they were in the
middle of selling the company for $285 million. The deal was contingent on the
Amos-6 satellite being fully operational. Supposedly, the buyer only wants to
pay $190 million now. They may also end up backing out.

Someone else's launch going badly can also be bad for your company. The
explosion that took out Amos-6 also damaged the pad and threw off SpaceX's
schedule (which was already oversubscribed). Inmarsat was required by the EU
to start using their spectrum by a given deadline, which they ended up
missing. Theoretically, the EU could take away their spectrum allocation
(although they probably won't). Inmarsat did end up having to buy a launch
with another provider though, which probably cost them a ton of money[3].

[1] [http://spacenews.com/spacecom-begins-service-with-a-
borrowed...](http://spacenews.com/spacecom-begins-service-with-a-borrowed-
satellite-rebranded-amos-7/)

[2] [http://spacenews.com/spacecom-reports-lull-in-talks-with-
chi...](http://spacenews.com/spacecom-reports-lull-in-talks-with-chinese-
buyer/)

[3] [http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/8/13883640/spacex-
satellite-...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/8/13883640/spacex-satellite-
launch-inmarsat-arianespace-schedule-delay)

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
You can likely get car accident coverage that will cover anything you want, if
you're willing to pay whatever premium your insurer decides is appropriate
given your desired coverage amount and probability of a payout. These
companies aren't buying off-the-shelf mass market insurance plans; it's up to
their risk management people to figure out what the true cost of an accident
is and negotiate appropriate coverage if they don't want to eat the risk
themselves.

------
themgt
It looked like one of the grid fins got toasted. Will they still be able to
stick the landing? _fingers crossed_

edit: and they did it! I was pessimistic for a minute there!

~~~
vermontdevil
Musk has said SpaceX is working to replace the material with titanium and a
new redesign.

~~~
Cogito
Specifically, in the post launch press event, he mentioned titanium cast grid
fins a number of times.

The video I saw [1] didn't have great audio and I was in transit while
watching, but I believe he also said something about how it would be the
largest single titanium cast in production.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3LQFpuzqs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3LQFpuzqs)

------
qaq
Without SpaceX and Tesla the world would have been really depressing.

------
mr_overalls
The obvious question: how much cheaper will a reusable rocket make it, per
pound, to put a payload in orbit?

~~~
ncallaway
Well, if you go to the extreme case (the entire rocket is reusable with _no_
refurbishment) the cost of rocket fuel is $200,000 while the approximate cost
of the hardware is in the range of $60M. So, in the extreme case it would be
_massively_ cheaper. On the order of 99% savings.

At the moment, SpaceX is only reusing a portion of the rocket (the first
stage, not the second stage or the fairings _). And that re-used portion
requires some refurbishment. SpaceX estimates it 's 30% cheaper per launch
right now.

Over the next few years SpaceX will probably bring that cost down (though they
won't necessarily pass that cost on to the consumer — they could very well
just enjoy the extra margins). I'm guessing they can realistically get to
50-70% cost savings per launch over the next few years.

_ though they are working on recovering the fairing, and attempting something
related to that today.

~~~
kilroy123
I honestly don't think they'll _have_ the chance to enjoy the margins. There
will likely be a lot more competition in the future.

The Chinese, Russians, Indians, blue origin, vector space systems, and United
Launch Alliance finally getting their shit together, trying to do a redesign
to better compete.

~~~
ncallaway
Certainly in the long term they won't be able to enjoy their margins.

However, they are already one of the lowest cost launch providers available at
the moment. Others have work to do just to catch up with SpaceX today. And
_nobody_ is just around the corner on reusability. I don't know of any other
provider that will have a reusable launch in the next 3 years.

Even then, those other providers will just be dipping their toes in
reusability.

I suspect, if reusability starts going well for them SpaceX will have 4-6
years to enjoy the benefits of being the only major provider on the market
with a reusable first stage booster. It won't last forever, but there are some
good times coming up for them in the near-term if they can keep things running
smoothly.

~~~
marktangotango
The stakes are colossal too. Ultimately we're talking about owning transport
infrastructure for the solar system. I think Bezos see's it this way too. Musk
is all about settling gravity wells, while Bezo's is about O'Neil type space
colonies. Interesting dichotomy.

------
narrator
Makes up for the rocket they lost. Actually, now they're ahead if you count
the insurance payout. People should stop saying we need to spend X trillions
to get to Mars. They should instead say we can't get to Mars until technology
is good enough that it will cost less than X billions or even millions.

------
vtange
Does SpaceX have any real competitors in the private sector? Would be a bummer
if people decided they were a monopoly of some sort and demanded a break up.

~~~
r00fus
Does Blue Origin count?

~~~
mijoharas
I believe they are currently doing sub-orbital flights while they are working
up to re-usable orbital flights.

Please correct me if i misremembered.

~~~
ncallaway
This is correct. Their current launch stack is and will remain sub-orbital
hops above the Kármán line.

They are actively working on their next gen launch stack (New Glenn), which is
set to have its first launch before 2020. New Glenn will be a reusable launch
stack capable of inserting payloads into orbit. It will be roughly similar to
the Falcon Heavy in terms of mission capabilities.

------
bluecat
What a fantastic achievement, I'm so happy. I love when a problem solved
excites all of humanity.

------
M_Grey
Whatever you think about Musk, or Mars, this aspect of his business is just
amazing. SpaceX is incredibly impressive, and the novel approach to landing
and reusability is really moving things forward.

------
kibwen
The link is to a livestream and I didn't get here in time to watch the landing
live, has a recording of the landing been uploaded anywhere yet?

~~~
midwestcode
YouTube link of the event:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8)

------
thefalcon
Exciting times. It won't be long until my son is asking me why we used to just
drop these things in the ocean after first use.

------
aphextron
Watching the raw video stream today, I couldn't help but feel that we're
looking at a quantum leap in rocket technology. The intensity of sound and
exhaust from the engines was something I have never seen from a rocket that
size before. I'm curious how the specific impulse of the newest Merlin
compares to what ULA is using, considering a lot of their stuff is either
Russian made or designs from the 60's. It's possible they will not only
capture the launch market, but the engine market for other manufacturers as
well.

------
valuearb
When I was a kid the Shuttle was going to launch every week, but that turned
out to be impossible given the amount of rework it required, the most flights
it did in a year were 9, and it averaged around 4.5.

Forget the 24 hour turnaround. If SpaceX gets to the point where they have
weekly launches it will be utterly delightful and amazing. Essentially to do
that they have to not only make re-use work well, but also have to pass cost
savings to customers to increase demand.

------
dougmwne
History made, their biggest public accomplishment since the first landing!

------
aidos
They've landed it too! Amazing!

~~~
david-given
Although when the technical webcast went black just at the moment when I'd
expect the vehicle to come into sight, I was sure that something had gone
wrong and they'd pulled the plug.

~~~
mikeash
That's exactly what I thought too. I assumed it went kaboom and they cut the
feed. What a nice surprise when they called out a successful landing!

~~~
david-given
...one day I'm hoping they'll release all the cut footage from the, um,
learning experiences of the early Falcon 1 and 9. I'm sure that they've
cleaned up the broken frames and there'll be lots of fascinating fireworks.

------
nialv7
Anyone noticed that LD said "Go for age of reflight"?

------
ninjamayo
They should have had commentary during launch from that guy who made comments
during the unveiling of the Mars mission last year. The one who went to
Burning Man.

------
firefoxd
I was very confused by the 'of course i still love you' statements. Until i
realized it was the name of the landing platform.

~~~
jacquesm
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Player_of_Games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Player_of_Games)

~~~
johnnydoe9
I was about to search what it meant too, thanks I gotta read this now.

~~~
jacquesm
You won't regret it.

------
ninjamayo
YIPPEE!!! That was amazing SpaceX. Thanks Elon!

------
quotemstr
I wonder whether we'll see a surge in on-orbit assembly if it becomes a lot
cheaper to do two payload-X launches on reusable rockets than it is to do one
payload-2X launch on an expendable rocket. Previously, economies of scale have
tilted design toward the single-2X-launch approach.

------
alangibson
Congrats and a big "thanks" are also due for SES, for having the brass to put
what I'm sure is a spendy piece of hardware on top of Elon's latest comic book
science experiment.

------
jen729w
Well it took me about an hour to upvote every comment on this page but it was
worth it. ;-)

~~~
pferde
Next time, just spend 15 minutes to automate it. :)

~~~
rayboy1995
Then 2 hours maintaining and improving it.

~~~
gargarplex
1) Add this as a bookmarklet called "Inject jQuery". Then click "Inject
jQuery"

    
    
         javascript:void((function(doc)%7Bif(typeof jQuery%3D%3D%27undefined%27)%7Bvar script_jQuery%3Ddocument.createElement(%27script%27)%3Bscript_jQuery.setAttribute(%27src%27,%27//code.jquery.com/jquery-latest.min.js%27)%3Bdocument.body.appendChild(script_jQuery)%3Bconsole.log(%27jQuery included %5E_%5E%27)%3B%7Delse%7Bconsole.log(%27jQuery already included ...%27)%3B%7D%7D)(document))%3B
    
    

2) Type this in console:

    
    
        copy(jQuery("a").filter(function(idx,el) {  return jQuery(el).attr('href').indexOf('vote')!==-1; }).map(function(idx,el) { return 'https://news.ycombinator.com/' + jQuery(el).attr('href'); }).toArray())
    

3) Install this Chrome extension and paste the contents of your clipboard

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bulk-url-opener-
ex...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bulk-url-opener-
extension/hgenngnjgfkdggambccohomebieocekm?hl=en)

------
aeleos
What a great time to be alive, to be able to witness such revolutions in
rocket technology.

------
wolfram74
And they stick the landing!

------
agumonkey
Funny that Space-X made people cheer for reuse.

\-- Sent from my 2nd hand ThinkPad

------
SubiculumCode
CONGRATULATIONS SPACE X!

------
synaesthesisx
Truly incredible. I applaud the SpaceX team for making history.

------
retrogradeorbit
You didn't actually watch it land.

------
quakeguy
Success!

------
artursapek
This man inspires me more than anyone else ever has. Historic day.

------
lukemt
of course i still love you!

------
bborud
Nailed it!

------
chapati23
YES!!!

------
madamelic
That "live" Elon interview seemed really pre-recorded... Did anyone else get
that feeling?

~~~
Strom
Yeah, everything about that seemed pre-recorded, especially considering how
calm everyone in the background was. Understandable though considering how
busy Elon is.

~~~
nraynaud
might be people focused on their job, like getting a satellite at the agreed-
upon position :)

(but I agree, forget this satellite stuff, show me where the trash landed, and
tell us where the fairings are!)

------
Someone
I understand the enthusiasm, but I don't see enough hard data to convince me
this will be a commercial success.

Looking at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches),
SpaceX has launched and landed about 10 of these rockets, and has so far
reused one. That rocket was first used about a year ago.

Factors that might prevent this from making this economically superior to
'just' ramping up production are:

\- the fraction of launches that can be reused.

\- the amount of effort needed to prepare a rocket for reuse relative to that
needed to produce a new rocket.

They will have been extra cautious this time, but from the above, the answers
_could_ be "about 10%" and "almost one year, taking way more effort than
building a new one does".

I would think the real answers are a bit better and will get even better over
time, but I also don't think they already are at "close to 100%" and "a couple
of weeks", because, if they were, I think they would have launched a used
rocket earlier. I also am not convinced they can get there.

That's mostly guessing, though, as I'm not a rocket scientist and can't find
hard information on this. Does anybody have that?

~~~
Osmium
> That's mostly guessing, though, as I'm not a rocket scientist and can't find
> hard information on this.

Yeah, my understanding is that you're wrong on this, though I too am not a
rocket scientist. But a few points:

> SpaceX has launched and landed about 10 of these rockets, and has so far
> reused one. That rocket was first used about a year ago.

While this is factually correct, extrapolating from this will not give any
useful insight.

> the amount of effort needed to prepare a rocket for reuse relative to that
> needed to produce a new rocket

It may be somewhat counter-intuitive, but an already-flown rocket is easier to
fly a second time than it is the first time: it's already been "flight-
proven." For example, a lot of defects on a microscopic scale simply cannot be
detected ahead of time, and the only way to truly detect them is to test the
rocket. This is why there are static fires ahead of launch. And it is also why
there is a lot of over-engineering (in many things, not just rockets, but
airplanes etc.)

The important thing here is that they land the rocket without too many
additional stresses. It's not like the Space Shuttle boosters which were
dumped into the ocean and had to deal with a lot of refurbishment.

> if they were, I think they would have launched a used rocket earlier.

The first one will always take longer. They're also finalizing the design, and
had an accident investigation last year that was a big burden.

> I understand the enthusiasm, but

I'm not sure you do, but I hope I may have convinced you otherwise ;) The
answers to your questions could really be "close to 100%" and "a few weeks to
months" (more optimistic people will say "days or hours" to that last
question).

What they've managed today is a huge milestone, and they're iterating on an
astonishing timeframe. They hadn't even landed a single rocket a few years
ago, and that was the truly difficult part. It's incredible how fast their
progress has been, especially in the context of the space industry generally.

~~~
mmalone
> especially in the context of the space industry generally.

You mean the industry that landed a man on the moon inside of ten years?

