Parabolic Arc

Spacex lost a Falcon 9 due to pieces not following certificate performance. https://parabolicarc.com/2015/07/20/spacex-statement-loss-falcon/

"Prizes are useful in bringing credibility to an industry, inspiring entrepreneurs and investors, and attracting new customers to an industry. Both the aviation and space benefited from the Orteig and Ansari X prizes. But, by challenging people to perform what are essentially stunts, they do not always address the fundamental technologies required to truly move a sector forward. And that can have deadly consequences. Lindbergh’s flight greatly boosted an accident-prone commercial aviation industry at a time when efforts to improve its safety had barely begun. The accident and death rates increased. Winning the Ansari X Prize left Rutan and his team over confident in themselves and their technology based on an incomplete flight test program. The result has been four deaths and more than a decade of frustration and broken promises." http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/05/20/tale-prizes/

Not at all. The reason for wanting a tunnel at SpaceX headquarters specifically is to help the employees access their parking structures without being run over crossing the street: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/12/30/video-3-spacex-employees-struck… "A news report about three SpaceX employees who were hit by a car on Dec. 17 after leaving work. The incident occurred at 2:15 a.m. About three hours later, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk posted the following Tweets: @elonmusk Traffic is driving me nuts. Am going to build a tunnel boring machine and just start digging..."

Great article. Even without mention Elon's drunk-tweeting about Catherine the Great. http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/12/30/elon-musk-tweets-on-chinese-spa…

Cubesats etc. are going to lead to a whole lot of new records that don't mean anything over the next bit of time. FWIW, Orb-1 was an ISS resupply, so you could argue that it didn't really deploy those satellites, just shipped them up to the ISS. However, a Dnepr launch back in June carried 37 satellites and deployed them in to orbit (11 of those belonged to my employer, Planet Labs). http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/19/dnepr-launches-37-satellites-in… I just glanced at the PSLV wikipedia page, and it looks like it's mostly for polar orbits. That's pretty cool, as it's quite different from the ISS' 55 degree inclination orbit that the commercial resupplies can get you, and changing inclination is expensive in terms of fuel. As a guy with vested interest in getting more satellites up in orbit, this is great news!

This article (which was posted to HN yesterday but failed to gain traction) discusses the history of the SpaceShipTwo engine in significant detail. It's a worthy follow-up read. http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/10/30/apollo-ansari-hobbling-effects-…

This is exactly the kind of vague, hand-wavy answer that I was hoping wouldn't be the response. It doesn't really show any understanding of the problem. The issue with the "profit motive" as an explanation is that it's so vague it can be used to argue both sides at the same time. The profit motive helps them pay for the best-and-brightest. It also biases them to hiring the least experienced at a cut rate. It incentivizes them to provide the best product. It also incentivizes them to cut corners to save money. It explains why SpaceX has been able to move fast; it also explains why moving fast caused such problems with Boeing's Starliner. So the "profit motive" doesn't really explain anything. Besides, the vast majority of NASA work is done by for-profit contractors and has been since the Apollo era. There's nothing new about it in spaceflight. I'll try to illustrate a more nuanced perspective. It's no secret that NASA levies a lot of tough requirements. For example, contractors must have a robust pressure systems program. This includes managing/certifying systems all the way down do small air compressors in a vehicle maintenance shop. Same goes for software quality and a million other aspects of spaceflight. Contractors hate these types of requirements because they're expensive. Many within NASA hate them, too. Certainly some of this is bureaucratic overreach, but a lot of it is also good, sound engineering practice. There are mechanisms to waive these requirements, but few…

> De-orbiting faster means reserving more propellant for the final de-orbit burn. One new technology is releasing a sail to increase drag. Example: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/08/23/millennium-space-systems-demons…

Don't forget, this is not just billionaires and their toys, it's about Democratizing Space Tourism[0]. You have to admire the billionaires who act as guinea pigs in these endeavors. Soon people with a lot less money than Branson/Bezos will be able to fly to space and see the curvature of the globe, all thanks to the initial experiments by explorers like Branson/Bezos. [0] http://www.parabolicarc.com/2021/05/08/democratizing-space-one-billion…

This is the first I've heard if the ISS holding onto satellites, I thought satellites are deployed by the launch rocket and just put into orbit. It's a commercial service, from Nanoracks.[1] They load cubesats into a container, have them shipped to the ISS, and the satellites are "launched" with a spring. So they're in roughly the same orbit as the ISS. The price just went way up. NASA raised their price on transport to the Space Station from $3,000 per kilogram to $20,000 per kilogram. They also raised the astronaut labor rate to $130,000/hour. NASA was subsidizing the ISS launch scheme. So future cubesats will probably be launched from a Falcon 9 using one of Space-X's resellers. [1] https://nanoracks.com/products/iss-deployment/ [2] http://parabolicarc.com/2021/03/05/nasa-jacks-up-iss-commercial-prices…

> Do you think planes were falling out of the sky left and right before those air safety laws came into effect? No. That is exactly what was happening. In 1924, prior to the introduction of the first federal aircraft safety regulations in 1926, there was 1 fatality per 13,500 miles for commercial flights. Between 2000 and 2010, the average was 0.2 fatalities per 10 billion passenger miles. http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/03/03/early-aviation-safety/

Not OP but: This is the 2019 raise they were referring to [1]. I don't know much about SEC regulations - they're required to file info about who has invested in the first 15 days - and rumours used that to say they couldn't sell all they offered. Other rumours said that they don't have to file to say they sold it all. Would appreciate clarity from someone who knows SEC regulations. [1] http://www.parabolicarc.com/2019/04/17/spacex-embarks-funding-raise-40… Edit: you've found the discussion I read a bit ago. Good.

Url changed from http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/10/24/spacex-drone-ship-damaged-after… which points to this.

the truth is that the crew dragon has significant issues still: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/04/spacex-crew-dragon-challenges-w…

Looks like it'll be more like $5-6 million per launch. http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/01/14/shotwell/

Here are some primary sources - I wrote this up yesterday, it's pretty cool but still very early. The whole cannibalizing old satellites thing is a long ways off, this is more a field test of the modular unit: >http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/12/prweb12381214.htm >http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/12/09/54124/novawurks_conformal_block… >http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Phoenix.aspx >http://www.novawurks.com/applications/darpa-phoenix/

I hadn't heard about that, thanks for the info. I dug up this article: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/10/08/work-continues-hybrid-rubber-en…

As the article surmised, one of the engines did indeed fail and the craft corrected for the failure. "Falcon 9 detected an anomaly on one of the nine engines and shut it down. As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in realtime to reach the target orbit…" http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/10/07/falcon-9-suffers-engine-anomoly…

Don't forget the US DOD who spent $300 million per satellite for 10 geostationary communication satellites that each have 2.4 Gbit/s of capacity [0]. That's $3 billion dollars on just the satellites and Starlink is being designed to have orders of magnitude more capacity (21 Gbit/s per satellite * 12,000 satellites vs 2.4 Gbit/s * 10 satellites), lower latency (LEO vs GEO), and way more redundancy. They've also already awarded spacex a $28.7 million dollar contract for "experimentation in the areas of establishing connectivity, operational experimentation, and special purpose experimentation. Experimentation will include connectivity demonstrations to Air Force ground sites and aircraft for experimental purposes" [1] so they are definitely eyeing it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wideband_Global_SATCOM [1]: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2018/12/27/spacex-receives-287-million-usa…

Not really, there are commercial agreements in place between both SpaceX and Boeing, and Nasa, as part of its Commercial Crew Programme. The current estimates are that they will not launch until 2018, three years behind the original schedule: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/01/nasa-oig-report-delays-commerci… I also have customers who have been sold slots for their satellites on Falcon Heavy which is now 4 years behind schedule (the first demo flight was originally meant to be 2012, with the first commercial flight in 2013, as yet nothing has flown, with the current estimate being 2017). It's frustrating for these customers. I point this out here just because HN can have too many credulous website designers saying [to the effect of] 'No but Elon will be on Mars in 10 years so we should just fund private companies' and the reality for everyone in the industry is somewhat different. The Indian Government is currently about the cheapest and most reliable commercial satellite launcher in the world with its PSLV vehicle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle

I just figured that Virgin Galactic doesn't have nearly the resources that SpaceX had or has. Getting stuff into orbit with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend would be easier than getting stuff into sub-orbit with peanuts to spend. But then I checked Wikipedia and: "After a claimed investment by Virgin Group of US$100 million, in 2010 the sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi, Aabar Investments group, acquired a 31.8% stake in Virgin Galactic for US$280 million, receiving exclusive regional rights to launch tourism and scientific research space flights from the United Arab Emirates capital. In July 2011, Aabar invested a further US$100 million...." On the SpaceX side, according to this page, SpaceX spent $390 million developing Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, total: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/05/31/nasa-analysis-falcon-9-cheaper-… I don't know what the difference is. Maybe this is another example of how people should stop trying to use airplanes to get to space.