I agree with the point that many a times when a person sends in a pull request , that might be their first time doing so and their experience with you might be how they would perceive the whole open source community in the time to come
The pace of progress seems to have been faster than even SpaceX anticipated. Within the next year we'll see very significant tests of core components of the system and flight profile (for the first stage at least).
The very next Falcon 9 flight (out of Vandenberg) will use the performance overhead provided by the v1.1 upgrade to do a controlled reentry of the 1st stage and then after it has reached terminal velocity it will slow down to a hover out over some remote part of the ocean, then splash down. This is a good and cheap test of a huge part of the flight profile. Meanwhile, the Grasshopper 2 will be more of a full-up Falcon 9 (v1.1) first stage, with 9 engines and will include retractable landing gear. Instead of testing controlled hovering and precision landing it'll go up to supersonic speeds and potentially up to 90km altitude. Essentially testing the return to launch site flight profile in a more realistic setting with more realistic hardware.
And then if that proves fruitful they will essentially just stick that hardware into the Falcon 9 stack and do a full up orbital launch with a flyback 1st stage. Possibly within the next few years even. If that works it'll be rather amazing, since much of the cost of a launch is in the manufacture of those 9 engines on that first stage. Even if a reusable stage costs 3x as much as a regular stage and halves the payload capacity if they can get just 6 flights out of each one it'll break even, and if the numbers are more favorable they'll drop the floor out of the orbital launch market and then own it, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year in revenue (a feat they are already on their way to doing with their current lineup of rockets). Perhaps more profoundly it'll hasten the day when it will be conceivable to use kickstarter to fund an interplanetary science mission.
If you don't mind me asking - where did you find all this out? I've been looking for a good source of SpaceX news. The official website/g+/facebook/etc just posts short updates whenever a mission occurs. I'm looking for news about what is on the horizon and more detailed analysis.
I second that recommendation. This is the successor to a site called "Hobbyspace" which was the best clearinghouse for all commercial space news since the mid-1990s. Although it was just a hobbyist's website, I have reason to believe that its comprehensive reporting and very clear-headed analysis actually bears some of the credit for catalysing the entire Newspace movement (eg., Elon Musk was a following and commenting there since before he founded SpaceX...).
Oh wow - is there any way to find his old posts. It would be really interesting to see some of his comments and thoughts given everything that has happened since.
I am also interested in this. I know where I can get detailed news and analysis in the Tech industry, but I haven't come across too many good resources for the space industry. If I could find great news sites or podcasts or similar I'd consume them like you wouldn't believe.
That is where you will find the best info for the space industry more than likely. A lot of the info is in the forums though and you will have to kind of hunt it down. They also have a private section of the site that you can pay to gain access that has a lot of insider info.
newspacewatch.com is probably the best overall resource. spaceflightnow.com is decent for news of what's happening right now in space. Otherwise there isn't any single source for everything. It helps to run to wikipedia for any new thing you read about and then spend time poking around any other websites you run across.
Do you have more information on the "water landing" planned for the next Falcon 9 flight? Why won't the SpaceX team attempt to land it on some sort of floating platform?
Seems to me that this would yield an even better test "for free" and even provide the possibility of recovering the first stage for analysis.
They'd have to add flight worthy landing gear, which hasn't been tested yet and would add weight. This test just uses a straight up stock Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage, so it's super low overhead. Also, they're not sure it'll work. But if it doesn't it just means they end up with what they were expecting, broken up first stage bits in the ocean.
They do plan on retrieving the stage if possible, it should float.
I'm pretty optimistic about the future. The information age is young yet and only recently starting to come into its first full stage of maturity. And there are a ton of very hopeful signs out there, especially in terms of long term trends. I think the chances that things will turn out well are actually higher than not doing so.
Don't get me wrong, I'm optimistic myself. I'm just a bit concerned about how some poorly defined cohort of 'people who don't read HN' are going to fare; not all of those trends are looking super rosy.
Oh, certainly. There are a lot of scary trends right now, but there are also a lot of very positive trends. Personally I think the forces behind the latter are more powerful, but it's not exactly a sure thing necessarily. If someone told me that in 2070 the developed world was basically neo-feudalist with strong class divisions amidst an effectively world-wide police state I could easily believe it.
I think there are a few major, mostly technological, developments which haven't happened yet but are essentially inevitable which will tend to tip things even stronger toward the "good" side. I should probably write about that at some point.
> The very next Falcon 9 flight (out of Vandenberg) will use the performance overhead provided by the v1.1 upgrade to do a controlled reentry of the 1st stage and then after it has reached terminal velocity it will slow down to a hover out over some remote part of the ocean, then splash down. This is a good and cheap test of a huge part of the flight profile.
Could you explain the first part a bit more, or point me somewhere? How was is the first stage going? Does it need a heat shield?
EDIT: Ha, looks like a lot of people had the same question at the same time.
I believe same thing was done by NASA in the 70s. So not really big step forward in this particular regard.
edit: Can't find it at the moment. So far I've found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X which did what grasshopper and more almost 20 years back. I still believe I've read something earlier though. Will edit when/if I find it.
Nope, aside from the Lunar Excursion Module and its simulators, NASA did nothing like this until the 1990s, with the Delta Clipper. And that wasn't really NASA - it was a BMDO project which later got taken over by NASA. (NASA then crashed the Delta Clipper on their first flight with it, and promptly went back to their preferred innovation strategy: very large contracts which result in absolutely nothing).
>very large contracts which result in absolutely nothing
That's a moderately ironic statement, given the fact that SpaceX wouldn't be doing anything remotely close to what they're doing today without the very large contract they got from NASA.
Actually, no irony at all here. The large contract that SpaceX (and Orbital Sciences) received were for shipping cargo to the space station -- cash-on-delivery. No delivery, no cash. This is profoundly different from the business-as-usual NASA contract which is: give a contractor a billion dollars. Contractor produces a bunch of powerpoint slides. Give the contractor another billion dollars. Contractor goes a further billion dollars over budget, and produces a bunch of powerpoint slides. Rinse & Repeat.
This is how NASA was able to spend over 30 years and $30B trying and failing to develop a new orbital vehicle, where SpaceX was able to do it for under $400M.
Without NASA contracts (to be noted: fixed price contracts predicated on delivery of goods, for the most part) SpaceX would have much less cash on hand and their pace of R&D would be much slowed. But they would still exist and still be pushing the state of the art, just at a slightly slower pace. They have one of the most competitive orbital launchers on the market, they have a ton of commercial business already on the docket, and the next 3 SpaceX launches are, in fact, non-NASA commercial flights (a Canadian weather satellite, a commsat for servicing East Asia and Oceania, and several Orbcomm commsats).
Actually not true, but I suspect if you've been researching this you've discovered that. NASA has of course researched vertical landing techniques from the beginning, both with manned missions (Apollo) and robotic. However, it was "on the list" prior to the great de-funding and generally sat in the 'to be looked at' drawer from then on.
The DC-X program, and others like it were spawned by private industry who were betting on a huge 'single stage to orbit' (or SSTO) model for satellite launches that would be needed for the Reagan 'Star Wars' missile defense program. They died when Star Wars died and NASA briefly assumed control of DC-X when its private backers pulled out but was stretched too thin to give it any real push.
That said, Elon and others will tell you that the current crop of rockets would not be possible without the work that NASA did and has shared. SpaceX also has benefited from computer systems that are 10,000X more powerful than the ones that NASA had available for their use, and materials that are 1/3 to 1/2 the weight and yet stronger than their NASA counterparts. Sensors that are 100x more sensitive and 1/1000th the cost. A six degree of freedom inertial unit was $125,000 in 1970 and resolved differences of .1G. A 9 degree of freedom unit from Sparkfun Electronics [1] is now $125, and reliably resolves 1/4096'th of a G. So I don't doubt that the same engineers at NASA could build what SpaceX is building today, today, but I assure you they didn't have the tools to build it back in the 70's or even in the 90's.
>A six degree of freedom inertial unit was $125,000 in 1970 and resolved differences of .1G. A 9 degree of freedom unit from Sparkfun Electronics [1] is now $125, and reliably resolves 1/4096'th of a G.
And the 1970s one weighed a lot more than 3.52 oz!
No. It was a stated goal of the Space Shuttle project, but it failed. Had the Space Shuttle been a commercial venture it would have been abandoned decades ago; other than the fact that it generally worked (which, to be clear, is saying something, that's not guaranteed), it was an awful design.
Can't edit the parent post anymore, indeed I was wrong, but only about the year. The project I've added however is around 20 years old, so I still don't find Grasshopper revolutionary in this one aspect - reusable VTVL rocket.
Yeah, I was going to mention the DC-X. The video you link below shows what is probably a future grasshopper test, where they take the vehicle off of vertical to show it can really reorient itself.
Are you referring to that neat trick they pulled a half dozen times, where they landed a rocket on its tail in an airless environment with 1/6 gravity? That was still pretty impressive on a bunch of other levels.
No, I'm referring to on-earth tests, such as this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o However I can't find the exact one I had in mind, or perhaps I was off with the date.
No , on the contrary they have updated the Template Editor
This really dims the chance that Blogger will be closing any time soon
Edit: Sorry , misinterpreted you nnq
Google is not anymore a company it used to be. They are now just in the process of streamlining their profits - closing down products that are not creating huge amounts of money , making free products into paid ones , over-promoting their social network and making lives of webmasters into roll-coaster rides by frantically updating their search algorithms .
I suppose Customer Support is the least of their concerns
But ironically enough as you have posted the problem on HN , it will surely be solved very swiftly less in the sense of customer goodwill but more of a PR move. This just reminds me of how are governments work - You have to know somebody from the inside to get the work done - and this is what Google is becoming.
