Spacex complete's historic launch by putting first stage back on land

[CommandMan7]

Neil deGrass Tyson makes a good emotional plea here:

 

A bit of correction from the video though: JPL (and it's rovers) gets funding from Caltech not NASA.

 

Hah, beat me to it. Nice to know some people still believe in NASA. Although this privatization is great, there's nothing saying we can't expand public sector as well. People need to realize this.

[Dabombinable]

Repost: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/510214-history-was-made-falcon-9-succesfully-lands-at-cape-canaveral/

 

And you need to read the posting guidelines.

[Khajiit Dealer]

NASA inspired the nation and brought a period of growth unlike any other.

 

 

Without adequate funding for NASA, we stopped dreaming. 

 

Educate yourself.

 

 

Again, you're straw manning. I never said that we shouldn't fund scientific research. NASA has been a failure for the past couple of decades, it's good that we've largely defunded it. 

 

I see that I'm talking to a commie who thinks that the military is evil and that the government should own everything. Good day. 

 

 

Emphasis on PAST COUPLE DECADES.

 

It's like some people can't even read...

[CommandMan7]

 

 

 

 

Emphasis on PAST COUPLE DECADES.

 

It's like some people can't even count...

 

 

Also, maybe it was during those past couple decades, because we actually funded NASA back then. We aren't in any direct disagreement - I don't see what your problem is. If the past couple decades were so great, then why don't we restore the NASA budget to the average of 2% of the federal budget during the 1960's?

[Khajiit Dealer]

Also, maybe it was during those past couple decades, because we actually funded NASA back then. We aren't in any direct disagreement - I don't see what your problem is. If the past couple decades were so great, then why don't we restore the NASA budget to the average of 2% of the federal budget during the 1960's?

 

We aren't directly competing with the commies anymore and thus have no need to divert money to things we don't need. In my opinion, the money's better off going to welfare and military spending. Let the private companies give it a go. 

[StackUnderflow]

Why not have both possibilities?  Bell labs was on the bleeding edge in the past, later maybe it was some of the national labs with nuclear energy... and weapons.  Both can be allowed to happen and that is fine.  The knowledge gained is not likely to disappear into the ether just because it is held by a private company, And even if spacex went rogue and tried to take all it's trade secret knowledge and hide it away, knowing something CAN be done is kind of more than half the battle in many cases.  We've now seen that landing the first stage of a rocket is totally possible, this will open the flood gates of competitors both private and governmental who want to create their own fire or be left in the dust.

 

I agree that Bell Labs was on the bleeding edge and their inventions/discoveries shaped the world, not unlike the IBM Zurichs of today (to a lesser scale). To be honest, I've always grouped those institutions with big public sector research institutes in my head, probably because they disclose knowledge in the same way that public institutions do, via scientific journals, but you're right, they are not. But for every Bell Labs, there could be a GM.

 

Knowledge is not likely to disappear (the EV1 is a really outstanding case), but it could create massive crippling monopolies on some future (again I would be concerned if Elon Musk didn't release all Tesla's patents), For example, look at this article (http://www.cnet.com/news/intels-manufacturing-cost-40-per-chip/), I know it's pretty old and the advent of billion dollar fabs probably changed the equation quite a bit, but the principle remains.

 

Another issue is that the research will be shaped towards more return on investment, in a short time scale. That means more talented people working on applied sciences rather than basic research, and stuff like space exploration where a massive upfront investment is required and no "guaranteed" return wont be done. As I mentioned, I'm really happy that Elon Musk got SpaceX together. 

[CommandMan7]

We aren't directly competing with the commies anymore and thus have no need to divert money to things we don't need. In my opinion, the money's better off going to welfare and military spending. Let the private companies give it a go. 

 

I can see what you mean, but there's also the sad reality that as of the most recent statistics I can find (2006) 3.5% of the Federal budget goes straight into the pockets of corporations through corporate welfare. Maybe if we could cut some of that, we could afford a space program. I also am decently sure you didn't watch that video - the whole point is not the direct cost/benefit to the government itself - the benefit is the nationwide increase in science and technology from the inspiration that spaceflight gives us. You can measure the direct impact even today in the technologies that were birthed directly from NASA projects. I'm not saying NASA is going to make the US government money, I'm saying that it will give your children a richer, more educated, technologically advanced country to live in. Yes, I am aware that the feds are in a mountain of debt, but this is worth going into debt over today, so that we can actually start to pay it off tomorrow.

 

Sources:

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-state-how-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_federal_budget

[FireJack]

The reason this even is so historic is that re-usability was deemed uneconomic, it would be cheaper to build new rockets. The only people who could launch rockets were government funded companies launching expendable rockets at prices that were no cheaper than in the 80's. Their every attempts at re-usability failed. This is something that was going to continue for some time.

 

Then Elon Musk comes along and creates a privately run company that put the old guard to shame.  Now if Nasa can launch a science experiment into space for like 20 million vs 100 million or more that they used to, they now have 80 million more to spend on other things. This also makes space accessible to a lot of people and could be a significant game changer. 

[StackUnderflow]

I can see what you mean, but there's also the sad reality that as of the most recent statistics I can find (2006) 3.5% of the Federal budget goes straight into the pockets of corporations through corporate welfare. Maybe if we could cut some of that, we could afford a space program. I also am decently sure you didn't watch that video - the whole point is not the direct cost/benefit to the government itself - the benefit is the nationwide increase in science and technology from the inspiration that spaceflight gives us. You can measure the direct impact even today in the technologies that were birthed directly from NASA projects. I'm not saying NASA is going to make the US government money, I'm saying that it will give your children a richer, more educated, technologically advanced country to live in. Yes, I am aware that the feds are in a mountain of debt, but this is worth going into debt over today, so that we can actually start to pay it off tomorrow.

 

Sources:

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-state-how-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_federal_budget

 

You don't need to appeal to the sense of "future", simply look at the past. The amount of tech advancements stemming from the space program is massive. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies)

 

The reason this even is so historic is that re-usability was deemed uneconomic, it would be cheaper to build new rockets. The only people who could launch rockets were government funded companies launching expendable rockets at prices that were no cheaper than in the 80's. Their every attempts at re-usability failed. This is something that was going to continue for some time.

 

Then Elon Musk comes along and creates a privately run company that put the old guard to shame.  Now if Nasa can launch a science experiment into space for like 20 million vs 100 million or more that they used to, they now have 80 million more to spend on other things. This also makes space accessible to a lot of people and could be a significant game changer. 

 

I absolutely agree that private companies are great at optimization. However, someone still needed to make the initial investment to make all the technology that Elon is building off of possible. I'm just afraid that the public sector will be so defunded that it won't be able to do all the things that requires a massive upfront investment, doesn't make short term financial sense, but could potentially have a massive effect to the technological advancement of our species as a whole.

[Sammael]

You don't need to appeal to the sense of "future", simply look at the past. The amount of tech advancements stemming from the space program is massive. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies)

 

 

I absolutely agree that private companies are great at optimization. However, someone still needed to make the initial investment to make all the technology that Elon is building off of possible. I'm just afraid that the public sector will be so defunded that it won't be able to do all the things that requires a massive upfront investment, doesn't make short term financial sense, but could potentially have a massive effect to the technological advancement of our species as a whole.

 

 

Even Elon has stated publicly that Nasa support and expertise has been invaluable to them.  I think a hybrid approach should be fine, leave the breaking new ground aspects to entities like Nasa, and the optimizations to the private sector if they can get it cheaper.  That leaves more money for everyone to get more done.  This is a universal net positive.  One recent budget even increased nasas funding, not decreased it, part of that was to spend more on commercial space, but that will eventually mean less money spent on getting things into orbit.

[StackUnderflow]

Even Elon has stated publicly that Nasa support and expertise has been invaluable to them.  I think a hybrid approach should be fine, leave the breaking new ground aspects to entities like Nasa, and the optimizations to the private sector if they can get it cheaper.  That leaves more money for everyone to get more done.  This is a universal net positive.  One recent budget even increased nasas funding, not decreased it, part of that was to spend more on commercial space, but that will eventually mean less money spent on getting things into orbit.

 

I agree.

 

One little tidbit on the NASA funding bill though, they snuck in CISA, so I'm happy for NASA, but sad for the future of the internet privacy...

[Mo_z_Art]

Glad I'm so good at calculating time ^^

[RagnarokDel]

It was determined that making the second stage reusable was not economical.  I think the cost to build the second stage isn't enough to save it. Maybe someday now that they can save the first stage.

Make a space station called "the foundry" send second stages there so that they can be recycled into spaceships, profit.

[Miguel Batista]

I knew I'd miss something. To add to this the event will be livestreamed at http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

What is significant about this launch is that (if successful) spacex will do what every other rocket company said was impossible, to launch a reusable rocket economically. There is no one who is even close to matching what spacex could do.

I just can't imagine being an investor in something like European Space Agency (ESA) and seeing that not only is their current rocket inferior in every way their future rocket design (Ariane 6) is already obsolete. Anyone working at the ESA with half a brain will look at spacex and say "okay guys, spacex is going to launch their falcon heavy in may, if it succeeds, we have no reason to exist." Even NASA's future SLS is under fire for being an expensive (around 500 mill a launch) and inferior especially if the Mars colonial transporter works out.

Of course there is the future launch of the falcon heavy, which if it's successful in reusing all 3 first stage engines, will leave spacex without competition

That is why ESA is publicaly funded. Ie, no investors. And lets keep it that way. We accept donations though. I currently need about 150 million if anyone has it lying around. I wish Elon Musk the best since frankly, we have better stuff to do other than send stuff to low Earth orbit. 10 million seems a tad too low though. A normal launch is about 50 million with everything included and most of that is fuel.

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

That is why ESA is publicaly funded. Ie, no investors. And lets keep it that way. We accept donations though. I currently need about 150 million if anyone has it lying around. I wish Elon Musk the best since frankly, we have better stuff to do other than send stuff to low Earth orbit. 10 million seems a tad too low though. A normal launch is about 50 million with everything included and most of that is fuel.

U wot m8? The fuel cost of the Falcon 9 is only about 0.3% of the total launch cost.

[MrDynamicMan]

"The Falcon has landed" lol.

The laundry is in the basket.

[MrDynamicMan]

Make a space station called "the foundry" send second stages there so that they can be recycled into spaceships, profit.

"Profit?"

That genuinely sounds like the most expensive venture I've ever heard. Manufacturing such a complex machine in 0g AND getting disposable 2 stages there...

If we can to that we'd have Elysium established already.

[FireJack]

 

That is why ESA is publicaly funded. Ie, no investors. And lets keep it that way. We accept donations though. I currently need about 150 million if anyone has it lying around. I wish Elon Musk the best since frankly, we have better stuff to do other than send stuff to low Earth orbit.

 

That doesn't make any sense, this just means that the public is the investor and it still doesn't change the fact that they have a rocket no one will want to use. Spacex can do what they can do only much cheaper, potentially at a quarter of the price. This includes putting satellites to GTO which they will do in January.

[steffen_anywhere]

about time they due it, blue origins did it last month, time for me to get an internship there

 

The New Shepard first stage is tiny tho... it should be much easier to land. It also doesn't reach the same sort of velocities as the Falcon 9 first stage. WHat Blue Origin achieved is great, but this is a whole different level of complexity...

 

Very neat that they managed to pull this off.

[TechStyle]

What Blue Origin did was nice but this is completely different.

 

Then again, the community will still cry "uninnovative!" and "copy cats!" towards Musk & Co.

[RagnarokDel]

"Profit?"

That genuinely sounds like the most expensive venture I've ever heard. Manufacturing such a complex machine in 0g AND getting disposable 2 stages there...

If we can to that we'd have Elysium established already.

The profit part was a joke. It's used pretty often on the internet.

[dalekphalm]

What Blue Origin did was nice but this is completely different.

 

Then again, the community will still cry "uninnovative!" and "copy cats!" towards Musk & Co.

They'd still be wrong. SpaceX has done numerous successful suborbital VTOL takeoff and landings via their Grasshopper rocket. They were all test flight missions mind you.

 

The SpaceX mission yesterday was a live delivery mission, with a real payload. Blue Origin didn't really do anything special. They didn't make it into orbit, and it was also still just a test flight.

 

Both are important for the future of the space industry, but Blue Origin didn't "do it first".

[ZetZet]

They'd still be wrong. SpaceX has done numerous successful suborbital VTOL takeoff and landings via their Grasshopper rocket. They were all test flight missions mind you.

 

The SpaceX mission yesterday was a live delivery mission, with a real payload. Blue Origin didn't really do anything special. They didn't make it into orbit, and it was also still just a test flight.

 

Both are important for the future of the space industry, but Blue Origin didn't "do it first".

grasshopper didn't jump that high though. but I agree, Space X just destroyed Blue Origins achievement. 

[FireJack]

The BIG thing now is how did the first stage fair, It looked like it landed more or less intact on landing.

 

How quickly can they turn it around and for how much. It's just been guess work (or considered outright impossible) till now so no one knows. They should have some definitive answers soon and whatever they say will leave every other commercial launcher wondering how they are going to survive.

[Counter-Strike Player]

As someone who watches space launches regularly (did any of you actually see the expedition 46 launch last week?), and while I understand this was SpaceX's return to operation since months, I was surprised at the amount of hype generated for this event. The "experimental landing" (exact quote) wasn't even the primary focus of the mission, but judging by the crowd noise, you'd think that humans landed on Mars or something. Where was all this hoopla during their first 2 attempts on the barge landings? Was this simply a big PR push to prove the recent Jeff Bezos wrong?

 

Do we even know if the 1st stage is anywhere near space-worthy, without major re-fitting? Will space launch insurance (yes, that's a "thing") premiums go up for commercial operators who opt to use "used" 1st stages in their launches for obvious reasons? Serious questions needs to be answered before all this celebration can really be taken seriously. Methinks the SpaceX interns had "one too many" holiday drinks for this kind of night-time party, outside of work hours. Kool-Aid is a holiday drink right?