• Jimmy S. Overly

    This was super good! Watching F9R tip over and explode was my favorite. Thanks, SpaceX.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Better to use the full hi-res one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

  • How can you not love this company?

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    If you look carefully after the CRS-6 crash you can see a COPV spinning around as it vents it’s contents.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Yes, Blue should step up and show off the video of the “lost” BE-4 powerhead (Once the fire up BE-4 successfully). There is the most recent dance across the water/deck for a successful landing omitted from the video too. More the look forward to down the road I guess.

  • Jimmy S. Overly

    I gotta give props to John Carmack and Armadillo being the gold standard of transparency early on. John posted everything. It was great.

  • savuporo

    By noticing the downright silly “factor of 100” claim right there in this tweet. There is no general relativity in economics that you can apply here

  • redneck

    The factor of 100 seems seriously far fetched to me as well this early in the technology. Probably happen eventually, but I don’t see it from this system.

  • savuporo

    The other side of this is EM has been claiming radical cost savings in launch for about 15 years now. First it was Falcon 1, then 9, then the F9R. In reality however, customers have seen maybe 10-20% reductions at most vs previous Proton deals. At about the same reliability

  • therealdmt

    Woah, cool. The Grasshopper one was the best!

  • publiusr

    Seeing the landed rocket skitter across the deck during heavy chop is what made me wince the most.

  • publiusr

    Folks find a way:
    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/09/ron-paul-in-the-pocket-of-united-launch-attacks-defense-dept-and-spacex.html

    I’m an old-spacer–I support SLS. But seeing Ron Paul go after spaceX just made me hate libertarians like him and Stossel even more.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Never claimed the 100 fold from this system. The ITSy/Mini BFR comes to this at high volume, zero touch, full reuse. If next year the block 5 can demonstrate gas and go booster, that is another feather in his cap.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    He has been claiming the path for sure. This is the problem with Musk critics, is SpaceX moving too quick or too slow? Everytime I turn around they have the other side of the argument. Hell they are just in the early stages of booster reflight, third one coming up in a few weeks. Already lessons learned incorporated into future blocks.

    Lets face it, 10-20 percent lower than Proton in the US is amazing. ULA would not be building Vulcan and Arianespace would not be doing A 6 without SpaceX clubbing them into it. That is amazing too. I feel like no one can step back in perspective given how historically unprecedented this is, for this industry in particular.

  • windbourne

    That was not an LP move. There is little doubt that Paul was paid some major bucks to lie like that.

  • windbourne

    Cool. So EM is claiming radical costs savings longer than company has been around? Seriously?

    As to same reliability, I would offer that every new launch group, except for BO, has a much worse rating for their first 10 years.

    And as to costs, he now has about 70% of the world commercial launches, and has no need to lower until others can come close. In the mean time, he is investing into safer, cheaper, and larger systems.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Paul and Stossel can throw the baby out with the bathwater a bunch.

  • savuporo

    It appears you are severely math challenged. SpaceX was founded in 2002. And no, not even close on 70%, more like 30% as of last count

  • IamGrimalkin

    Yes he did. He’s talking about second stage reuse, not second stage reuse + a big and no-so-dumb booster. Unless otherwise stated, that means the falcon heavy.

    Also, how do you know this about ITSy? No details about it have been announced except its diameter.

  • IamGrimalkin

    The Falcon 9 isn’t a cheaper system to GTO on a per-kg basis than the Proton if you factor in the fact that the Russians define GTO differently from the Americans.

  • Mr Snarky Answer

    Which would matter a whole lot more if launches were purchased like cold cuts…but they aren’t so it doesn’t.

  • IamGrimalkin

    It’s true, they aren’t.

    But that also means that SpaceX’s price next to certain other launch providers doesn’t matter as much as certain people imply, either.

  • Spambot1

    BO has lost 2/3 of its N Shepard fleet so far. First one in 2011 on ascent, then the first one of the newer generation in the April (obvs didn’t land) before the fully successful flight in November of 2015.

  • windbourne

    and spacex was promising radical costs savings in its first year?
    Nope.
    Not until around 2008-9.

    As to launch schedules:
    https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

    I just went through this and simply added up the commercial sats that each launch group is putting up:

    Russia: 2 sats with 2 launchs
    Ariane Space: 3 with 2 launches
    China: 1 with 1 launch
    OATK: 6 with 1 launch
    SpaceX: 37 sats with 9 launches.

    30%?
    They have 37 sats vs TOTAL 12 sats for all others;
    and 9 launches vs 6 launches for all others.

    Not even close to 30%.
    Go back to school, and learn some math as well as manners.

  • windbourne

    Was not aware that it was so high. Of course , SX was not so great with F1 either.

  • IamGrimalkin

    I think he was talking about total launches. The total world launches in a year is usually about 70-90.

    But if you want to go by satellites put up, the PSLV put up over 100 in one launch.

  • windbourne

    Yes, except that I stated that musk has around 70% of COMMERCIAL launches, and he said 30%. Iow, none gov launches.
    And yup, I showed both # of commercial sats and launches. Since India is not included in that page, I could not count them

  • windbourne

    True, but FH will be, assuming they get it going.

  • IamGrimalkin

    Actually looking at that page, that’s a launch schedule, which is irrelevant because not all future launches have been announced with dates yet and the ones that have may not necessarily happen on schedule/at all. (And of course ignoring all IRSO launches is a pretty major omission). A much better indicator is a list of all mission that have happened within some set time period.

    Also, 3 of the 9 “commercial” SpaceX missions I assume you were referencing are not commercial at all: the NASA TESS satellite is not commercial, neither is the BTRC Bangabandhu 1 or the KT Corporation KoreaSat 5A. Just because it isn’t part of commercial crew/resupply doesn’t mean it is a non-government launch.

  • windbourne

    Did not include NASA Tess. It was gov. BUT the other 2 are absolutely commercial in that their gov do not have launch capabilities so has to pick others to launch them.

    What I did not include was gov that have launch capabilities since, other than America, all others require that they use indigenous launch system ( America is just plain stupid when it has NASA paying other nations to launch our sats; thankfully, that does not happen much anymore, but it still happens ).

  • IamGrimalkin

    South Korea does have launch capabilities, they are just pausing for now while they upgrade from the Naro-1 to the Naro-2.

    I assume the ninth commercial launch comes from arabsat (which I didn’t include because I forgot to ctrl-f falcon heavy), the arab league QUANGO?

  • Spambot1

    Falcon 1 was Orbital 2-Stage, BO-NS was one stage Sub-Orbital. Fair Comparison?

  • windbourne

    Yup on the FH.

    At this time, SX owns the commercial market. And it will only get more once they have 3 main pads going ( with 1/month, tx will not add much ).

    Of course, once BO gets NG going in 2-3 years, I think he will have to cut prices even more.

  • windbourne

    Sure it is. Basically the issue was about accidents during initial start-up. Originally, I was thinking BO had few, but it was pointed out, correctly, that BO had their fair share. Yeah, it is sub-orbital, but he has tested avionics, landing, separation with capsule, etc. In fact, I would not be surprised to see him develop a small 2nd stage to put small cargo in space in LEO, but use that for testing of true stage separation before NG.