Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
atelier morgan
Mar 11, 2003

super-scientific, ultra-gay

Lipstick Apathy
Musk's marketable skill is being a conman, which is the most prestigious and well-paid skill available in 2018

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

comedyblissoption
Mar 15, 2006

Improbable Lobster posted:

his fans are people that think science is like in movies where one great man throws around a bunch of holograms or whatever and then boom, there's world saving technology
they also importantly think the problems of society are technology not realizing that we'd still have a hell on earth with star trek technology with our current system

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

by Azathoth
Is space-x good? Or is it really lovely, but since they have more budget then NASA and very little oversight, they are just able to do cool stuff?

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Is space-x good? Or is it really lovely, but since they have more budget then NASA and very little oversight, they are just able to do cool stuff?

they have some actually talented engineers and have mostly limited musk to just being the money-man instead of having active involvement, so overall they're probably alright

apparently the working conditions are kind of lovely though

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Is space-x good? Or is it really lovely, but since they have more budget then NASA and very little oversight, they are just able to do cool stuff?

they have a few unique technologies that put them ahead but they all trace their roots back to NASA projects and technology transfers, and a huge chunk of their money (something like 60% iirc) is literally just money NASA gives them. internally it's got a turbo-lovely toxic corporate culture according to people who used to work there. from what my dad's seen they do everything "correctly" (though they have their own dumb way of doing everything of course) and it sounds like it's a less dysfunctional tesla factory. however recently they stopped letting him eat at the employee restaurant for free so his opinion of the place has soured :v:

bob dobbs is dead
Oct 8, 2017

I love peeps
Nap Ghost

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Is space-x good? Or is it really lovely, but since they have more budget then NASA and very little oversight, they are just able to do cool stuff?

shotwell and t. mueller successfully got musk to gently caress off and do tesla things so it is good as hell, and was good as hell by fuckin tesla over

spacex has budget of 1 billion/yr about, nasa has 18 billion. but nasa has all sorts of insane congressional meddling like "make stuff in as many states as possible for pork" and "give nontechnical congresspeeps decision making over anything at all"

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

Jabor posted:

they have some actually talented engineers and have mostly limited musk to just being the money-man instead of having active involvement, so overall they're probably alright

apparently the working conditions are kind of lovely though

musk has lots of active but intermittent involvement actually - he comes in and goes "ok stop what you're doing everyone's gonna do things this way now" because he read some article or whatever, and then everything's in chaos for a week or two because musk wanted to try putting the rocket together different or whatever and they have to make it work.

Bhodi
Dec 9, 2007

Oh, it's just a cat.
Pillbug
It's just lovely in a regular old capitalism sort of way. It's hard to get mad at them overworking employees when they tell you up front in the interview and there's an endless line of people lined up to work there

ol' musky is fairly limited in the damage he can do because every single process is examined and signed off of ahead of time and can't be altered by a guy kramering in

infernal machines
Oct 11, 2012

we have sealed ourselves away behind our money, growing inward, generating a seamless universe of self.
has anyone figured out if they're actually saving money by reusing the first stage?

how many payloads do they have to lose before they're not any more?

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

bob dobbs is dead posted:

shotwell successfully got musk to gently caress off and do tesla things so it is good as hell, and was good as hell by fuckin tesla over

that's not what i hear but ok :shrug:

bob dobbs is dead posted:

spacex has budget of 1 billion/yr about, nasa has 18 billion. but nasa has all sorts of insane congressional meddling like "make stuff in as many states as possible for pork" and "give nontechnical congresspeeps decision making over anything at all"

tbf nasa also like, operates satellites and does things other than "sell launch vehicles" but yes there's a ton of poo poo bogging it down and every little thing has to go in front of congress so someone can grandstand about it costing too much

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

actually thinking about it my knowledge of musk fiddling with spacex's internal workings is like 6 months out of date so it's entirely possible he's so obsessed with tesla he's mostly ignoring it now, he sure seems that way on twitter

bob dobbs is dead
Oct 8, 2017

I love peeps
Nap Ghost
good as hell technically i meant

hellhole laborwise

they save about 40% reusing the first stage, cut prices by 10-20%, shove most the remainder into more r&d

Improbable Lobster
Jan 6, 2012

What is the Matrix 🌐? We just don't know 😎.


Buglord
i guarentee that the only reason why spacex isn't being dragged in the news constantly like tesla is because they aren't selling a consumer product

Bhodi
Dec 9, 2007

Oh, it's just a cat.
Pillbug

infernal machines posted:

has anyone figured out if they're actually saving money by reusing the first stage?

how many payloads do they have to lose before they're not any more?
not just that specifically but it all adds up to a lot. it's somewhere a little north of half price. sourcing parts inhouse and all sorts of sensible poo poo, plus a rabidly dedicated employee list let them come in like a streamlined wrecking ball to an industry grown fat and bloated over half a lifetime of consistent no-bid government contracts

he absolutely broke the back of domestic rocketry monopoly and it's possibly the only positive contribution he's ever personally made

it also would not have been possible to do it commercially, the only reason it worked is smart rocket scientists and his competitors having a 50%+ profit margin

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

bob dobbs is dead posted:

they save about 40% reusing the first stage, cut prices by 10-20%, shove most the remainder into more r&d

are they actually saving 40% or is that their projected savings? a bunch of their launches still don't even land the stages so it doesn't really seem like it's an operational feature yet...

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.
I sincerely appreciate all of your posts, they all helped, but this:

Rex-Goliath posted:

i’m not talking about actual scientists or ‘nerds’

i’m talking about geeks

...I think this really is helping me grope my way toward connecting the dots for myself. Let me try something.

Muskovites : Elon Musk :: Trump : internet chuds

Does that work? He succeeds due to "merit", so I identify with him (despite being an unimaginable mediocrity), so attacks on him are an attack on me?

Bhodi
Dec 9, 2007

Oh, it's just a cat.
Pillbug

ate all the Oreos posted:

are they actually saving 40% or is that their projected savings? a bunch of their launches still don't even land the stages so it doesn't really seem like it's an operational feature yet...

the flyback is built into the cost of the launch, so launches where it's available are significantly cheaper

and yeah as far as anyone including them can tell they basically dust the engines off, change some seals and send it right back up again. It's significant savings even with two boats and refurbish cost

Bhodi fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Sep 5, 2018

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

Bhodi posted:

it also would not have been possible to do it commercially, the only reason it worked is smart rocket scientists and his competitors having a 50%+ profit margin

the competition is making ULA even more lovely, for example they used to have one ground test / checkout crew per launch site (so one each at vandenberg and the cape) but to cut costs they fired one of the crews and now fly the single remaining crew back and forth across the entire goddamn US for every single launch since i guess that's marginally cheaper :thumbsup:

Bhodi
Dec 9, 2007

Oh, it's just a cat.
Pillbug

ate all the Oreos posted:

the competition is making ULA even more lovely, for example they used to have one ground test / checkout crew per launch site (so one each at vandenberg and the cape) but to cut costs they fired one of the crews and now fly the single remaining crew back and forth across the entire goddamn US for every single launch since i guess that's marginally cheaper :thumbsup:
ULA is turbo hosed and is the poster child for government contractor excess as well as a company dinosaur unable to change when the world shifts underneath them, all they can do is hold tighter to what they still have and try to sabotage what they don't because their executives have lived their entire lives in a no-bid bubble that started in the 60's, they literally do not know how to innovate or compete, they only started designing a reusable rocket in response to spacex and... let's just say it's not going well

they're the rim of rocketry

Bhodi fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Sep 5, 2018

fermun
Nov 4, 2009
where space-x is makes a tradeoff is that they use kerosene/oxygen for everything so that they can use another of the same engine for the second stage with a more optimized nozzle for upper atmosphere/space. it's cheaper and better for a lot of production things to use the same rocket engine for everything, however that does sacrifice 2nd stage efficiency. united launch alliance uses hydrogen/oxygen rockets for second stage instead and those are about 30% more efficient, so if you want to put a payload in medium earth orbit (2000km to geosynchronous at 35,786km) or higher, you may need to pay for an atlas rocket from ula instead.

ula starts their human-rating tests for atlas v in january whereas spacex was able to start in may this year

Improbable Lobster
Jan 6, 2012

What is the Matrix 🌐? We just don't know 😎.


Buglord

Discendo Vox posted:

I sincerely appreciate all of your posts, they all helped, but this:


...I think this really is helping me grope my way toward connecting the dots for myself. Let me try something.

Muskovites : Elon Musk :: Trump : internet chuds

Does that work? He succeeds due to "merit", so I identify with him (despite being an unimaginable mediocrity), so attacks on him are an attack on me?

that's usually how internet hero worship works. hell, i'm sure i've done the same thing for something dumb like a movie or candy corn

Bhodi
Dec 9, 2007

Oh, it's just a cat.
Pillbug

fermun posted:

where space-x is makes a tradeoff is that they use kerosene/oxygen for everything so that they can use another of the same engine for the second stage with a more optimized nozzle for upper atmosphere/space. it's cheaper and better for a lot of production things to use the same rocket engine for everything, however that does sacrifice 2nd stage efficiency. united launch alliance uses hydrogen/oxygen rockets for second stage instead and those are about 30% more efficient, so if you want to put a payload in medium earth orbit (2000km to geosynchronous at 35,786km) or higher, you may need to pay for an atlas rocket from ula instead.

ula starts their human-rating tests for atlas v in january whereas spacex was able to start in may this year
haven't been super keeping up with it but last i read they can't even come close to price parity with their best case reuse option (parachutes, not powered descent) and were really, really hoping nasa would just deny spacex a human flight cert or just refocus their efforts on parts of the market that the falcon literally can not reach

Bhodi fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Sep 5, 2018

iospace
Jan 19, 2038


The thing about SpaceX is a lot of the heavy lifting, including reusable engines, was done by NASA (and Russia). Orbital mechanics and launch profiles were well established by that point. The only development they really can lay claim to was a usable first stage, but you could argue that the shuttle was mostly reusable except the external tank.

But that also landed a different way and wasn't as cool as landing a rocket on a boat.

Bhodi
Dec 9, 2007

Oh, it's just a cat.
Pillbug

iospace posted:

The thing about SpaceX is a lot of the heavy lifting, including reusable engines, was done by NASA (and Russia). Orbital mechanics and launch profiles were well established by that point. The only development they really can lay claim to was a usable first stage, but you could argue that the shuttle was mostly reusable except the external tank.
the SSME refirb cost was essentially the same as building a new engine from scratch. It was the most finally tuned piece of equipment humanity has ever created and is likely the most efficient rocket motor that will ever exist, but reusable it was not

iospace
Jan 19, 2038


Bhodi posted:

the SSME refirb cost was essentially the same as building a new engine from scratch. It was the most finally tuned piece of equipment humanity has ever created and is likely the most efficient rocket motor that will ever exist, but reusable it was not

Let me have my narrative :saddowns:

Bhodi
Dec 9, 2007

Oh, it's just a cat.
Pillbug

iospace posted:

Let me have my narrative :saddowns:
I think they replaced more than half the engine by weight

SardonicTyrant
Feb 26, 2016

BTICH IM A NEWT
熱くなれ夢みた明日を
必ずいつかつかまえる
走り出せ振り向くことなく
&



Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

he can't run a business. he's not a fuckin' engineer. his web code skills are, what, twenty years out of date now?


the gently caress can lonny actually do?
Stamp license plates.

For Honda Leafs.



(Not actually sure which company Leafs are from)

infernal machines
Oct 11, 2012

we have sealed ourselves away behind our money, growing inward, generating a seamless universe of self.

Bhodi posted:

the SSME refirb cost was essentially the same as building a new engine from scratch. It was the most finally tuned piece of equipment humanity has ever created and is likely the most efficient rocket motor that will ever exist, but reusable it was not

this is why i was asking about the profitability of space-x's version. i imagine them not bouncing off the ocean probably saves significantly on refurb costs, but i wasn't sure what the tradeoff was for return fuel and general refurb

infernal machines
Oct 11, 2012

we have sealed ourselves away behind our money, growing inward, generating a seamless universe of self.

SardonicTyrant posted:

Stamp license plates.

For Honda Leafs.



(Not actually sure which company Leafs are from)

nissan

Bhodi
Dec 9, 2007

Oh, it's just a cat.
Pillbug

infernal machines posted:

this is why i was asking about the profitability of space-x's version. i imagine them not bouncing off the ocean probably saves significantly on refurb costs, but i wasn't sure what the tradeoff was for return fuel and general refurb

I'm phone posting or I'd find the article but to answer your question i think they break even after 1 reuse, everything added together and as far as I'm aware there's no technical limit on engine reuses though they said they'd retire an engine after i think 5? And of course discount launches with them and nothing critical goes up with them, it's all actuary tables and negotiated cost, wear offset somewhat by proven working engine

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012

Bhodi posted:

I think they replaced more than half the engine by weight

that is still significantly more reusable than most other space rocket engines

fermun
Nov 4, 2009

Bhodi posted:

haven't been super keeping up with it but last i read they can't even come close to price parity with their best case reuse option (parachutes, not powered descent) and were really, really hoping nasa would just deny spacex a human flight cert

price-wise, atlas v can't keep up with the falcon 9 for human-rated launches because it's much more expensive to start with and they are making atlas v human rated with the only place human rated flights need to go are the area where the falcon 9 is most efficient. they are going to be about 2.2x the cost of a falcon 9 launch.

ula is developing a new rocket to compete with the falcon 9 and that one is expected to be about 1.2x the cost of a human-rated falcon 9.

ula is going to mostly become a backup option for a lot of stuff, it looks like. they do still genuinely outperform spacex at medium earth orbit and especially interplanetary and additionally have a much larger volume inside their fairings. so for example if bigelow aerospace's inflatable space station module thing were to take off, they would have demand on that, since it's too big for a falcon 9, but we aren't exactly building a new space station right now.

Munkeymon
Aug 14, 2003

Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.



Bhodi posted:

I think they replaced more than half the engine by weight

remember in the final years of the program when the dude with really good (corrected?) vision noticed cracks that nobody else had before then and they started replacing even more parts?

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

Bhodi posted:

I'm phone posting or I'd find the article but to answer your question i think they break even after 1 reuse, everything added together and as far as I'm aware there's no technical limit on engine reuses though they said they'd retire an engine after i think 5? And of course discount launches with them and nothing critical goes up with them, it's all actuary tables and negotiated cost, wear offset somewhat by proven working engine

i don't quite buy the "no technical limit" bit, thermal cycling and vibration are a bitch. i mean i don't doubt that reusing the first stage is a good idea, or that they're saving money on the whole thing, i'm just real suspicious because i don't trust musk or spacex to tell the whole story on, well, anything really. hell even their launch footage is really strictly controlled and edited down, more so than even commercial atlas / delta launches. there's quite a bit the public doesn't get to see, it's weird

infernal machines
Oct 11, 2012

we have sealed ourselves away behind our money, growing inward, generating a seamless universe of self.

fermun posted:

but we aren't exactly building a new space station ever again.

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

fermun posted:

ula is developing a new rocket to compete with the falcon 9 and that one is expected to be about 1.2x the cost of a human-rated falcon 9.

also it's going to use engines from jeff bezos because techlord scum has to be involved in everything now i guess

infernal machines
Oct 11, 2012

we have sealed ourselves away behind our money, growing inward, generating a seamless universe of self.
they're the 21st century railway barons, what do you expect?

Schadenboner
Aug 15, 2011

by Shine

ate all the Oreos posted:

however recently they stopped letting him eat at the employee restaurant for free

:sherman::hf::sever:

H.P. Hovercraft
Jan 12, 2004

one thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse
Slippery Tilde

Roosevelt posted:

he personally designed a metal death tube out of rocket parts :razz: and dropped it off at the cave where he wasn't welcome. hes a lovely rich rear end in a top hat who thinks he's smart.

he was straightup attacking a research scientist lady a few weeks ago because she had “nano” in her twitter bio



guess what field she’s in

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ellie Crabcakes
Feb 1, 2008

Stop emailing my boyfriend Gay Crungus

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply