The yawing motion at the beginning of the video is because they moved the drone ship to avoid stormy seas, so the stage had to thrust sideways to retarget. In calm weather SpaceX positions the ship right along the ballistic path, so the stage only needs to pitch up and "flip."
You can also see the grid fins "pulling up" through the atmosphere to bleed off as much speed as possible. I described the optimization a while back. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14288431
Fantastic job to everyone at SpaceX!
The maneuver is more noticeable with the new titanium grid fins (needed because the old aluminum ones caught fire from aerodynamic heating). Not only are they larger, but they use a "sawtooth" leading edge that increases control authority. New: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/879065552060260352 Old: http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12...
They also happen to be the largest titanium forgings in the world. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.340#...
In this case, it's "given enough initial velocity and control authority, even a brick will glide", but the spirit is the same.
A few years back a group of engineers decided to prove this by attaching a number of solid fuel rocket engines to a port-a-potty and launched it to great applause.
The goal of this maneuver to lengthen the descent path, which in the absence of an atmosphere would be a pure parabola (or more accurately, a suborbital ellipse). Passing through more air means shedding more velocity due to drag, and therefore less fuel is needed to land. Geometrically the best way to do that is to pitch "nose up."
No drawing skills except shitty MSPaint, but that's never stopped me before. https://i.imgur.com/VLYXDOf.jpg
I mean, the company was founded only 15 years ago, they started (with success) launching stuff into space only 10 years ago and now it feels like they are able to launch rockets into space every week. Reusable rockets should we add.
Musk very often sets impossible deadlines, but in this case, even if you take a step back, it's scary to make 10 years predictions based on this company track record !
They really didn't start off with success. Their first 3 launches (on the Falcon 1 platform) were failures. If I remember correctly it nearly bankrupt the company and Musk himself ended up pouring a ton of money into it to keep them afloat.
It was a pretty rocky start for them as a company, and in my mind that makes it an even cooler story. They started with nothing, failed their first 3 attempts at launches but just kept at it, and they are now consitered at the top of the field less than a decade later.
Going forward I'd expect some slowdown.
But yes, very impressive IMO that he won all the necessary investments and contracts. My bet is his buddy Theil (idk not really buddy, but collegue) helped out with that.
Whatever investment the US government have given to SpaceX, they'll get it back very quickly now that competition exists in the launch market.
Slowdown in funding or launch pace?
SpaceX is cutting launch costs significantly. I suspect that many satellite projects that weren't viable before will become viable now, thus increasing launch pace.
“People don’t realize that, for small countries and small companies like us, without SpaceX, there was no way we would ever be able to even think about space."
"With them, it was possible. We got a project. I think, in the future, it’s going to be even more affordable because of reusability.”
Not to take anything away at all, but a large part of the rocket development until now was based on an existing knowledge base from NASA.
Going forward, there's going to be more and more uncharted territory, so things will likely progressively slow down, relative to the astonishingly fast development pace up until this point.
The uncharted territory combined with Musk & Bezos being willing to do audacious things with billions of dollars, is why breakthroughs are about to accelerate again. With scale and greater R&D capabilities, SpaceX will (perhaps along with Blue Origin and others) be responsible for the next great leap forward in space technology - finally.
Whereas the US Government launch platforms, through NASA and ULA, had been extremely stagnant in several areas that SpaceX & Co are operating in, due to eg wild (but typical) Congressional incompetence (constantly shifting goals, setting up the context where ULA was granted a monopoly (again due to Congressional incompetence or worse)). The Space Shuttle was an absurd production in all regards, it set US launch progress back decades due to the hyper bloat / cost that was entirely unnecessary. The Shuttle was the space equivalent of the F35, a boondoggle that isn't really great at anything and costs several times what it should have. Now that the incompetent Congress is much further removed when it comes to deciding which way to go (how to get there, why, etc etc etc), space tech will accelerate again.
Imagen the next Space station after Skylab, they could have launched 4 Saturn V and launch a Skylab size station each time, creating a vastly bigger station then ISS at a minimal cost.
Now they are recreating the capability with SLS and Orion at a cost that is so absurdly high that its hard to even wrap you head around the numbers, specially when compared what the pay for COTS and CommercialCrew.
I'm rooting for them though to keep doing what they're doing.
See "V-2" by Walter Dornberger
The V2 had solved the major problems with scaling up a liquid fueled rocket, such as the turbo-pumps and the boundary layer cooling of the nozzle.
It's also interesting to see how much more apologetic the English Wikipedia article on von Braun is compared to its German counterpart.
* Become a member of the Nazi Party
After WWII he didn't:
* Commit Suicide
* Exile himself to South America
* Face trials for War Crimes
* Become a public figure used to sell the space program
* Help an Allied power with extremely advanced military and scientific intel
* Help put someone on the Moon in a completely unrealistic time frame
* Become privy to extremely top secret information
I'm going with, "not a Nazi" on this one, personally.
No it wasn't. This is what Nazi's say to excuse their decisions and behavior. There were millions of people in Germany in both industry and the military who were not Nazi's and survived just fine.
Note that unlike Von Braun many other Germany scientists and weapon designers were not members of the Nazi party (let alone enthusiastic members)
Becoming a Nazi and joining the party is what a person consciously did either because they believed in the ideology or they wanted to collaborate to further their careers.
Van Braun being washed of his Nazi part is a conscious part of a US government propaganda campaign as Von Braun having safe haven in the USA in the 1950s was very controversial at the time. It's as simple as the USA overlooking his Nazi past and excusing it (and actively covering it up) because the cold war necessitated it.
edit: forgot to mention, Von Braun wasn't just a member of the Nazi party - he was a member of the SS - there is zero feasible explanation for becoming an SS member. There is also the small matter of the war crimes he took part in with the enslaved labor at his factory in Peenemünde.
I honestly thought this was common knowledge amongst people who know who Von Braun was.
He was a Nazi collaborator and party member in full blood. As you noted, explaining his actions with the camps he ran would be an interesting exercise for any apologist.
Well, let's talk about that. How many of those millions who were both in both industry and the military AND ALSO were rocket scientists?
> Note that unlike Von Braun many other Germany scientists and weapon designers were not members of the Nazi party (let alone enthusiastic members)
For example? I'm not here to post up your argument.
> Becoming a Nazi and joining the party is what a person consciously did either because they
> believed in the ideology or they wanted to collaborate to further their careers.
It's not apocryphal to say that full German citizens not persecuted for the racial background joined the Nazi party to escape suspicion of infidelity to the Führer's master plan of Aryan takeover, especially if you were an intellectual. Let's bring up another member of the Nazi party: Oskar Schindler. Tell me your criticism of Mr. Schindler. Was he acting in a purely selfish way?
> There is also the small matter of the war crimes he took part in with the enslaved labor at his factory in Peenemünde.
OK, let's talk about another German with the scientific mind whose knowledge and genius was enough to kill thousands of people: Albert Einstein. Do we blame him for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Cold War, and the tens of thousands of live nuclear warheads? His choice was similar: Death (as a Jew in Germany), or help make the A Bomb. Should he have chosen, "Death"?
Easy as looking at the other V programs. Fritz Gosslau was the designer of the V1 - not a Nazi. August Coenders was the chief designer of the V3 - also not a Nazi. Robert Lusser worked on engines - not a Nazi (ended up at NASA). Hans von Ohain, designer of the jet engine and worked on the ME232 - not a Nazi. Walter Thiel was the head of the research lab at Peenemünde - not a nazi. Klaus Riedel worked on the rocket with Von Braun - not a Nazi.
All of Von Braun's deputies also weren't Nazi's (at least in the research part, I think it is fair to say that his subordinates in the SS were Nazi's).
It would actually be easier to list those of the Wehrmacht and in science / industry who were Nazi's (or were sympathetic to them) - since most certainly were not. Most famously that would be Albert Spier, the Krupp family, Erich Schumann of the nuclear program, Göring, etc.
Most of the military high command weren't Nazi's (or technically, sympathetic to the Nazi's since it was illegal to be both in the military and a member of a political party). They despised Hitler, as they despised Bizmark before him - because the German military had always been famously independent of civilian leadership and its own organization. Hitler taking the reigns of military strategy was the antithesis of how these guys had been bought up and trained.
> Tell me your criticism of Mr. Schindler.
He was a Nazi, until he changed sides. He assisted the takeover of the Sudetenland with his spying.
Schindler regretted his actions and worked against the Nazi's. Von Braun never did that - he just tried to minimize his role. Plus even Schindler never joined the SS.
And Von Braun ended up being arrested by the Gestapo for perceived disloyalty. Hitler only approved his release after Speers entreaties that Von Braun was indespensable.
Acceptable uses of the apostrophe:
disambiguation in transliterations
This is simply false, as the other poster has given you many examples of. This is once again straight out of propaganda and an attempt to normalize Nazi war crimes.
>OK, let's talk about another German with the scientific mind whose knowledge and genius was enough to kill thousands of people: Albert Einstein. Do we blame him for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Cold War, and the tens of thousands of live nuclear warheads? His choice was similar: Death (as a Jew in Germany), or help make the A Bomb. Should he have chosen, "Death"?
Huh? What are you talking about? Albert Einstein was not forced to help J. Robert Oppenheimer. He returned to the US in 1933 and stayed there as a professor after his property was seized by the Nazis in Germany and they put a death mark on his head. Six years later in 1939 he agreed with Hungarian scientists to warn the US of German atomic weaponization research, and he himself made these choices, leaning on diplomatic favor to do so.
It was only a year before his death that he admitted it was a great mistake; but felt justified in the time he made the decision given the alternative of the Germans developing the weapon first.
I really have no idea where you are getting your alternative history facts, but they are not only incorrect but often run counter to what actually occurred.
Well, no. He had nothing to do with any of those things, except for signing a letter that someone else wrote, telling Roosevelt about the possibilities of nuclear fission. He didn't discover fission, and was never part of the Manhattan Project, or post-war and cold war nuclear weapons research and development.
First I've ever heard of that. Do you have any proof of that? If it was very controversial, there's sure to be articles and discussions about it, right?
By the mid-50s his history had been all washed over and forgotten, and it wasn't until the 90s that the issue was broached again.
There is no reason for the coverup to continue today or for anybody to still believe it - there is a lot of testimony about Von Braun overseeing hangings and the deaths of thousands of slave workers. Had he not been useful for other purposes it is almost certain that he would have hung at Nuremberg.
>Well, the choice was basically,
> * Become a member of the Nazi Party
> * Death
Of course joining the party is always your ticket to wealth and power in a totalitarian system, so it's not surprising an administrator like von Braun would be a party member even if he was completely disinterested in the party ideology. It's also not surprising he joined the SS when pressured directly by Himmler to do so. Himmler wasn't the kind of guy you said "no" to.
To all accounts he supported the party in the '30s because the Nazis were promising to reverse the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles. And he probably soured on the party by the time he was arrested and accused of sabotaging the program he was running (for which he could have been shot).
Clearly he knew what was going in in Mittelwerk. How much culpability you assign is an open question.
And it's not surprising he didn't off himself or hide after the war. He had something very valuable to offer whomever took him in, so that's not very dispositive as evidence of innocence.
Uh. Others below disagree with the "or death" part and back up with citations, but ignoring that, the statement is not particularly logical on its own terms.
I'm not sure that's true. What did NASA help them with, exactly?
"The SpaceX turbopump was an entirely new, clean sheet design contracted to Barber-Nichols, Inc. in 2002 who performed all design, engineering analysis, and construction; the company had previously worked on turbopumps for the RS-88 (Bantam) and NASA Fastrac engine programs."
But in terms of actual technology... not the turbopumps, certainly, unless your logic is "the contractor SpaceX used to design its turbopump developed expertise on NASA (and other) contracts".
More like, they know it is possible so they did it.
Somebody had to, no one would
SpaceX tried to do the best they could
Not it doesn't. Stop trying to spread false impressions. This site is a discussion platform, not an advertising one...
Each did diminish their reputation, but they have kept going. They can weather more failures, and every launch is still pretty nerve-wracking.
The stakes will be higher when they start carrying people, perhaps next year.
I meant to call attention to the fact that we're doing manned missions soon. It's a bit different having an unmanned rocket explode.
Hopefully it won't matter at all. The world might be ready for a "Well, that sucked. Let's move on" type mindset.
Certainly manned missions have an added element of concern due to the risk to human life, but even unmanned failures have consequences beyond bad PR for those involved in the launch. This isn't specific to SpaceX, I'm sure it's the same for anyone involved in the launch industry, and there's no way to sugar coat it, but its an extremely shitty feeling to work on a piece of flight hardware for weeks/months at a time, see it go through build, test, certification, and then see it fail during launch.
In many ways it's even worse when you realize that your rocket is carrying a payload that many other people worked just as hard on, often over even longer periods of time, and in the case of some scientific payloads may not have the ability to relaunch due to budget/time constraints, and they have entrusted you to get this payload to orbit and you have failed them. I wish I had a more sophisticated way of describing it, but its overall just a very shitty feeling.
Not sure if this will help that shitty feeling when things go wrong, but SpaceX has given me an AMAZING feeling that I was a little worried humanity as a whole wouldn't feel again. All the hard work is appreciated!
I wouldn't sell yourself short though, rocket launches tend to make for good press, and often make the front page of HN, but anyone who works hard at a job is worthy of respect whether they're building web apps, or spaceships, or anything else.
Maybe a song would do?
I mean, there is some relatively obscure but otherwise great music praising the dream of space and the work of people involved. See e.g.:
- https://youtu.be/6zotaRLROtw - A Toast For Unknown Heroes
- https://youtu.be/GbL3oNEDvJ0 - The Ballad of Apollo XIII
- https://youtu.be/ab_mH8R0KTM - One Way to Go (possibly the single work of art I ever found that plausibly praises capitalism)
(lyrics googlable by song title)
Also see pretty much all the work of Leslie Fish and Julia Ecklar.
I feel that now might be a time to start developing songs for the coming second Space Age - and hopefully to reinforce the dream this way. If anyone here does music / songwriting (or knows someone who does), I urge you to try (or suggest it). We need it :).
Also, to lighten the mood:
(This verse is dedicated to the management of Morton Thiokol.)
So first let's pray to Vulcan, ugly god of forge and flame,
And also wise Minerva, now we glorify your name,
May you aid our ship's designers now and find it in your hearts
To please help the lowest bidders who've constructed all her parts!
So pray to great green Mother Earth and the grim old god of Space,
And the gods of flame and metal whom we've summoned to this place.
Oh you gods of flight and physics, now you have us in your care;
We hope that you will listen to a rocket rider's prayer.
What technological breakthrough of recent times has made this sort of quick inspection and reuse possible, that was not possible earlier?
1. I'm not nearly knowledgable enough about the overall refurb process to give you an in depth answer. The best answer I could probably point you towards is this article quoting our President Gwynne Shotwell. It won't give you the specifics you're looking for, but it will give you an idea of the costs in relation to a new build. Seeing as labor is a fairly large cost component of the rocket overall, this gives you some idea of the potential extent of refurbishment vs building a new rocket.
2. Even if I did have the requisite knowledge to answer your question, those kinds of internal procedures aren't something I could share. My apologies.
As to what breakthroughs make this sort of inspection and reuse possible, and I'm not saying this to be pithy, the biggest component is simply that the stage lands on a solid base rather than being dunked, or slammed into to be more accurate, highly corrosive salt water. Reusability isn't so much a function of any huge advancement in inspection so much as the ability to execute a controlled landing of the first stage. Although there are quite a few advancements in metallurgy and materials science, not to mention NDT procedures, that do increase the life span of components.
I know this probably does a very poor job of answering your questions but it's the best I can do.
Pardon me if I am wrong here. But it seems to me that you are suggesting that most of the damage that a rocket sustains, that makes it not fit for reuse, does not happen during the launch and re-entry, but during landing and salt water?
But if that is so, why was this the case with space shuttles?
> Although the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) were reusable and going to be used on the SLS rocket, NASA doesn't plan to reuse them. The refurbishing and recertification costs make reuse more expensive than manufacturing new engines.
With regards to the SSME, the SSME is an engineering marvel, but it is significantly more complex than the Merlins you’ll find on Falcon, both in initial build as well as refurb. I know a few techs here who used to work on them at Rocketdyne. Raptor will be more analogous to the SSME but there have been significant advancements in metallurgy and materials science since the introduction of the SSME, which should hopefully lead to easier reuse. Also, it should be noted that the SSME were in fact refurbed and reused when they were part of the Shuttle program.
As to your quote from Quora, I find it somewhat ambiguous. Again, the SSME was routinely refurbed and reflown as part of the Shuttle Orbiter. I’m no expert on the SLS program, although I do keep up with things space related, but I’ve yet to see any cost breakdowns of refurb vs new build in regards to SSME specifically. That quote makes it unclear to me whether NASA found that reusing the SSME as part of the SLS program is cost prohibitive, or whether making the first stage of the SLS reusable, which happens to use the SSME, is cost prohibitive. It should be noted that the SSME and RS-25 are largely the same engine, and later flights of SLS will switch to a cheaper non-reusable version of the RS-25. In any case, the first stage of the SLS is going to end up in a giant pond of salt water, along with the attached SSME/RS-25s. SLS was never designed for propulsive landing, and can not be made to do so now, so those engines are ending up in the ocean no matter what. Perhaps the poster means that NASA found the refurb costs of the SSME to be prohibitive after they have been dunked in salt water, again, since this is the only possible outcome with SLS. Obviously if the first stage of SLS landed on solid ground, or a ship at sea, the refrub cost of the SSME would be completely different.
For the SSMEs, it was just plain use which damaged them. The SSMEs were engineering marvels, but the ludicrous nature of the Shuttle demanded extreme performance, which meant that they ran on razor thin margins. By the time they finished a ~8 minute burn, they had taken enough of a beating to need a lot of refurbishment. SpaceX's Merlins, on the other hand, are much lower performance and built more for robustness.
Think of it like an F1 race car, which needs a lot of work after every race and a new engine several times a season, versus a daily driver which can probably go 50,000 miles without ever opening the hood. (Not that this is recommended.)
In your race car example, you can differentiate it from a daily driver that the F1 car has to endure tremendous accelerations, cornering and down forces acting on it and an engine that reaches insane rpm's that puts tremendous amount of stress on all the critical engine components..
Can you differentiate between these rocket engines in that way?
The main thing that the SSME has to do that's different from the Merlins is quite simply generate more thrust and a higher specific impulse. The SSME is a much higher performing engine. It achieves this performance through fuel choice and design, namely by using liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen vs using RP-1(which is basically kerosene) and by being a staged combustion rather than gas gen cycle engine. While it has much higher performance than Merlin, that performance comes at significantly greater overall complexity, particularly in the turbomachinery and pre-burner components.
The difference in efficiency is striking. The SSME's specific impulse (the closest equivalent to MPG in a car) is 452 in vacuum and 366 at sea level. Merlin's is 311/282 for the sea level version, and 348 for the vacuum version.
Of course, this is not a criticism of Merlin, just a comparison. By being less efficient, they're able to optimize for other stuff like cheapness and robustness.
I think the Space Shuttle engines would have been capable of more direct relights. They test fired them quite a bit and the were reusable. NASA was just taking a now risk approach and did not really push the technology forward.
Boeing has just received a contract for a first stage with wings that should fly 10 times in 10 days and it essentially uses a SSME. So they seem to believe that they don't need to do that much to make it work.
Have you seen the movie called "the challenger disaster". If not, you should see it. It might helps to gain a bit of perspective about these things.
Also, I'm always a sucker for a good space related movie, was it any good? I'm not sure which one you're talking about but these are the two I was able to find:
The Challenger Disaster(2013) : Factual drama exploring the truth behind the space shuttle Challenger's 1986 disintegration.
Your comment reminded, specifically this part " When the inevitable human fatalities are realized, we will see that everyone involved had done their best:" reminded me of the speech given by someone in charge of the investigation at the start of it..
>I appreciate you all coming together at short notice.
We have a huge, vital task ahead of us,
upon which might depend the future
of manned space flight in this country.
Now, I intend for this investigation
to follow an orderly and proper procedure.
We are not going to conduct it in a manner that is in any way
unfairly critical of NASA.
Because we believe, and certainly I believe,
that NASA has done an excellent job.
And I believe that the American people think so too.
Of course, it turned out to be not so pretty...
Thank you for clarifying your previous post as this is what I was thinking you meant, but I didn't want to say anything without being sure. With that being said, and at the risk of sounding overly defensive, I do find it somewhat unkind to call into question the ethics and professionalism of those who work at SpaceX based on a movie about a completely different set of organizations and corporations. This of course isn't to say that there aren't valuable lessons to be learned from those past events, or that we are somehow immune from making similar mistakes, but implying that if such an event befell a SpaceX launch it would immediately be due to a lack of people giving it their best seems somewhat premature.
I do have a well read and marked up copy of both the Rogers Commission Report as well as the CAIB report on my bookshelf, so I can assure you that I and many others do take the lessons learned from those events very seriously. Thanks for the movie recommendation, I'll add it to my to-watch list.
"Well, that sucked (that people are dead)?, but let us move on (like nothing has ever happened?)", is that the mindset you want the world to adopt?
We don't want to be careless with human lives, but it's also not helpful to play a finger-pointing blame game every time there's an accident.
It sure is helpful if it can prevent loss of human life in the future, even it slows down the "progress" a bit and some company loses some of its valuation and business...
You should see this movie
Funny that very few people see this and instead are already cheering them for doing the "impossible"...
The new grid fins undergo the same amount of heating, they're just better able to cope with the heat. The reduced heat in this case was due to the much lower energy entry profile (the partial boostback burn killed a large chunk of the stage's velocity prior to reentry, combined with the fact that it was a lower energy orbit in the first place).
Cast and cut titanium. They are about 4x5 feet and some of the largest (if not the largest) titanium castings in the world.
Titanium is an amazing material that is super hard to work with (special furnaces), and has its own sets of risks (titanium fire any one). I would love to see what goes into making those things because it simply has to be impressive.
1 - Most industrial DMLS/EBM systems have a build envelope far too small for this. A system like the Norsk Merke IV might have the required size, but parts built that that process still require post-machining.
2 - Tolerances. Casting -> Machining still offers greater control over the final geometry than additive processes, especially at that scale.
3 - Casting is a bit more design-agnostic than additive processes.
4 - QC processes for casting + machining are far more defined than for additive processes.
None of these are insurmountable challenges, so I'm sure in the future a laser-sintered/EBM/plasma-deposition process will be used or at least heavily-considered.
This is OK for the average power drill in your house. It isn't critical, and they can compensate for the porosity with extra materials.
If we were replacing a steel part with at TI one, then sintering might make sense, the extra strength, and lowered weight would compensate for the differences in materials.
They make extensive use of laser sintering in the SuperDraco engine (including the combustion chamber, which experiences tremendously high temperatures and pressures).
That being said, laser sintering is great for parts with weird geometries and structures that are hard to machine. A grid fin is really straightforward from a milling perspective, and would take advantage of the strengths of laser sintering.
As a business, that's been SpaceX's biggest problem. Customers like the pricing but not the long delays. Finally, SpaceX seems to be getting past that.
Getting pad time at Canaveral is a bottleneck. SpaceX is still building their own launch site at Brownsville,, TX, but that's going slowly. All SpaceX has there right now is some fill that's settling (the location is on sand maybe 2m above sea level) and a dish antenna. Next to be built, the fire station. First launch is now supposed to be no earlier than 2018.
It's still around a two-week turnaround to get a launch pad ready in Canaveral.
Now there are other considerations. SpaceX has a number of good PR reasons to want to be upfront about their costs (their competition is regularly accused of cheating the government every election cycle). If you sell retail your customers will ignore you if you don't have pricing information.
The competition aspect is pretty commonly worked around - basically every B2B company I know has no compunctions against calling up a competitor, posing as a potential customer, and getting a price quote for competitive research. Or if they have slightly more compunctions, they'll call up a market research firm, hand over some money, and the market research firm will call up all the competitors in the industry, pose as a potential customer, and sell that information back to all the competitors in the market.
I suspect that SpaceX's published price tag is really there to motivate the employees. It's a reminder that Elon's goal is to make spaceflight a mass-market product that an ordinary middle-class citizen can afford, and so he wants that number to go down over time. In many B2B markets without price transparency, there's a tendency towards lazyness on the engineering side; when your revenue comes from how effective your salespeople are at jacking up the price, there's little incentive to focus on small efficiencies that keep the overall price down. Elon wants to keep the focus on small efficiencies so that the price gets low enough that it becomes an everyday thing.
I used to work for a company that had a single product and sure we've lost a few customers to our competitors because of our pricing, but judging by what they chose instead I don't envy them.
(Granted, SpaceX did it first)
ULA's insurance rates are not significantly different from SpaceX, btw.
... and import it to Stellarium
P.S.: Stellarium 0.16.0 released few days ago!
edit Corrected "TWR > 0" to "TWR > 1".
Probable wind gust right before landing.
Yesterday's "jump" for the last few feet was probably due to the ship going up and down with the waves and the rocket not expecting it
I'm pretty sure they already flood the ballast tanks for stability.
If Elon can, I need to, as his protege (again metaphorical)
It's sounds crazy to me, but so did a rocket launching, splitting in half, then landing 1/2 on a barge in the ocean to be reused while the other half goes to a GTO orbit.
The upgrades of Block 5 later this year will improve reusability and performance, though, so more missions can be RTLS.
Edit: no. Falcon Heavy has more than one stage.
How about London to NY?
So, no, I don't see anything like that coming. Based purely on speculation and observation, of course.
The US has the best train infrastructure in the world. What is lacking is passenger rail, which gives the false impressions that the infrastructure is bad. Trains are not a very good fit for moving people for the most part. Other countries have stretched those limits to the max which means that they can give the impressions of good train infrastructure.
So basically very little.
So considering that, SpaceX has not proved anything, yet. Because the impossible or hard part is not launching and landing rockets. Hard part is to do it..
1. With same or more reliability than using completely new rockets.
2. Launch with enough frequency to justify the reusing procedure..
So yea. A couple of launches and reuses does not prove anything. It is a start, sure. But they have not yet proved others who didn't attempt this yet..