No one has done it before so I'd say it's pretty groundbreaking.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The Perpetual MEGA Space Thread
- Thread starter OscarMyers
- Start date
It's not just the performance gain from omitting the legs, but also the reduction in turnaround time, thus improved reusability.
I agree it's fundamentally not that ground breaking, but it's incrementally more impressive. I'm not an engineer, so perhaps I just impress easily.
I agree it's fundamentally not that ground breaking, but it's incrementally more impressive. I'm not an engineer, so perhaps I just impress easily.
I wonder if at shareholder meetings for the big public companies (Lockmart, McBoeing), shareholders might be saying, "Why aren't we taking some big risks for big gains?"
Probably because taking big engineering risk for gains is, in general, something that is only done by new companies trying to break into an existing market. Large and very old corporations don't have the motivation to do it since they are already big players in that market.
Not saying its correct that those companies aren't trying large risks, just that the perceived gain isn't as big to them as it is to SpaceX which is not a legacy space company. Tesla is similar, no way to break into the consumer car market with an ICE product because you have nothing to set yourself apart from legacy companies to gain market share, so you do something that the legacy companies aren't currently doing with electric cars.
The engineering and development feats of SpaceX should be credited to the engineers that proposed these solutions and worked to bring it to fruition, although im sure they will remain nameless as Musk has positioned himself as the owner of these ideas.
While Musk wanted to start a company to reduce cost of rocket launches and was willing to acquire and provide the funding, I find it hard to believe the specific solution that SpaceX has wasn't proposed to him by some engineer(s) familiar with the industry that had this idea and just needed someone to invest in it. It kind of seems like the things that are often just wild ideas that some university researchers come up with and could demonstrate in theory.
That sounds like how the world works…I don’t recall reading about Mr Apollo or Mr Gemini either, but I know several engineers worked to make it happen.
+1 on that Griz!
But defining what is possible, setting goals, putting capital behind those goals - and having a mind that is singular in the understanding of engineering - those ora the super powers of Elon Musk.
His mind is also one of an autistic person, lacking normal social standards of self control and self awareness. Mainstream folks interpret this as being a dick, asshole, duche, etc.
I think the man is changing the world for the better. No one else even comes close. Electrification of the planet, moving away from breaking carbon chains to produce energy, doubling down on AI and the power of software, compute, and hugely scalable networks, getting humanity out of the low-earth orbit space travel, tapping human brain energy-connectivity with technology and AI, etc.
What an amazing time we live in and so much to look forward to!
It is a bit more than that. SpaceX has very much broken into the market now. They launch more rockets and cargo than anybody. They are also a massive company now. The difference is SpaceX is actually devoted to advancing space technology, not just using space as a way to make money from the government (taxpayer). A major goal is to get to Mars in terms of a manned mission, in addition to reducing costs. They operate on a fixed-price contract basis, which means the price is fixed and the contractor bears the risk of any cost overruns and delays. Most of Big Aerospace has used cost-plus contracts, in which any cost overruns are paid for by the government. Musk rightly recognized that such contracts destroy any incentive for efficiency by the contractors.
SpaceX also designs and builds a lot of its parts in-house because of how overpriced so many subcontractors are. In one example, a subcontractor wanted $100,000 for the part. SpaceX balked and Musk determined the part should be no more than $5000. He tasked an engineer with $5000 to design it. The engineer came back with a design slightly more than $5000 along with a detailed report explaining why. This kind of thing has apparently happened hundreds of times with SpaceX. And then of course they don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. They design workable hardware, build and actually test it, and get real world data to then fix what was wrong. If they blow up a few rockets in the process, no big deal. Their entire family of rockets has been designed, for less money than the Space Launch System (SLS) of NASA and legacy aerospace (SLS cost $25 billion, Starship so far $5 billion to develop).
Musk was himself the one who came up with the idea for how to do a reusable rocket. Originally he sought to purchase rockets from the Russians. The Russians said no, and on the flight back, Musk says to one of his chief engineers, "Hey guys, I think we can do this ourselves." His engineer was skeptical, but upon looking at the plan, was unable to refute it. SpaceX built its own rockets from scratch and it took three launches to get a working rocket, with the first two blowing up.
SpaceX has also benefited from having access to the NASA technical archive, but legacy aerospace has had the same access.
I think that's probably the big difference between SpaceX and legacy companies and is what allows SpaceX to do work in a way that allows it to achieve as much as it has. I think it is a characteristic of younger companies that are still run by the guy who created it who has skin in the game because it's his name on everything. Boeing is not really an "engineering" company anymore and isn't devoted to advancing technology, its devoted to shareholder value which makes it risk averse. SpaceX is much more willing to take risk and sacrifice potential profit margin for the benefit of its products and to successfully establish itself in as a major player in space.
For legacy companies, there's no reason to take FFP contracts if you don't have to because its a risk that you lose money on it. For SpaceX, taking FFP contracts is a part of the strategy of expanding its space business because its a big bargaining chip to win contracts if the other competitors are only willing to do Cost+. It is good that SpaceX is having success under that model because it might force the legacy companies back to FFP to be able to win contracts. I wonder if the legacy companies can realistically transition back to an approach that allowed them to succeed under FFP contracts or if they will just start divesting from space.
The iterative approaches to the engines has been eye opening as well. To the point that the president of ULA tweeted about the release of the Raptor 3, basically saying "you made your point, you don't need to show a partially assembled engine" to which Gwyenne Shotwell (President of SpaceX) posted a picture of the engine firing on the stand with no added hardware, wiring, etc...
I'm not the biggest Musk fan but the stuff SpaceX has done in the last 10 years compared to legacy launch companies is astounding.
Chuck is going to need to do laundry after soiling all his skivvies. Jesus Christ, Chuck.
One that can’t get intercepted is better!
Isn't the point is a missile to destroy itself? (By crashing into the target or detonating very close?)
He had written:
The iterative approaches to the engines has been eye opening as well. To the point that the president of ULA tweeted about the release of the Raptor 3, basically saying "you made your point, you don't need to show a partially assembled engine" to which Gwyenne Shotwell (President of SpaceX) posted a picture of the engine firing on the stand with no added hardware, wiring, etc...
I'm not the biggest Musk fan but the stuff SpaceX has done in the last 10 years compared to legacy launch companies is astounding.
They have done an excellent job making the assembly simpler and more producible. So, there is no need to exaggerate this by showing a partially assembled engine without controllers, fluid management, or TVC systems, then comparing it to fully assembled engines that do.
Whoops. After getting corrected, he posted, "Congratulations."