Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashraymalhotra | Hacker News Reader

> It is worth recalling that SpaceX only flew a "used" booster for the first time in March 2017.

It's amazing this happened just a little over a year ago.

It was a epoch defining change. It does feel like a ton of time ago, and everyone in the industry (most notably ULA, Arianespace and the Chinese) are trying to figure out what they do now that the SpaceX steamroller is in full force.

Indeed. Could be that having a legacy rocket programme is if anything a hindrance in this new world of reusability - Ariane in particular seems to be in danger of becoming mainly an employment scheme that builds rockets on the side. For fairness I guess I should say SLS isn't looking too clever at this point either.

You're missing the point of Ariane. Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price, and as insurance against a launch monopoly (it upper-bounds what others can charge ESA). Ariane 5 is also extremely reliable, which is very important for some launches (NASA's James Webb telescope is going to launch on Ariane 5, for example). Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price.

This is also the reason reusability doesn't make sense for Ariane. With less than ten launches per year, fixed costs make up a large portion of the cost. If they only needed one rocket per year, it wouldn't really get all that much cheaper because they still need the factory.

One of the main goals of the Ariane rocket system is also provide jobs,not efficient Lunch system. If they create a reusable lunch system what the workforce will do then?

Build space stations and moon bases?

Given Ariane's French roots I think we can count on the lunch and all other meals being not just efficient, but superbe!

That is false. Historically this was not the reason, this is now the new claim they make but it was never the specific intent.

Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price

What if the "reasonable price" changes?

And yet:

'SpaceX is so cheap that Ariane's CEO worries SpaceX could eventually "kick Europe out of space" if Ariane cannot figure out a way to launch its rockets more cheaply'

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/02/europe-complains-s...

What happens with the JWT if the rocket blows up on launch? How long(and how much $$$) would it take to build another one, having already built one?

Is this an instance where the government should follow the maxim from Contact: "Why build one, when you can build two for twice the cost?"

> Is this an instance where the government should follow the maxim from Contact: "Why build one, when you can build two for twice the cost?"

The maxim in Contact was different - "Why build one, when you can build two, but keep the second one secret", right?

I do hope JWT could be recreated cheaper than costs to create it in the first place. No matter though, we'll still need other space telescopes anyway, so both reliability and price to orbit are important.

> Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price

> Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price

Winning commercial contracts is how the price is kept reasonable. As you pointed out fixed costs are very large and launching GTO satellites helps spread them around.

If SpaceX kicks Ariane out of the commercial market then ESA governments will have to pay more for their own launches.

> Ariane 5 is also extremely reliable

It certainly is reliable, but it's not extremely reliable. It's had 2 total failures and 3 partial failures out of 99 launch attempts, including a partial failure this year on SES-14 that left the satellite in-orbit, but inclined 20 degrees to the equator, which will significantly shorten the satellite's lifespan.

It's purpose has always been to be a globally competitive commercial launch provider. A purpose they excelled at for decades. While it's purpose is now shrinking to being Europe's government launcher it should be noted that this is an event that is happening, not merely a continuation of the status quo.

Insurance against a launch monopoly would be more effected by competition in general, no need to build your own rocket. I have also never heard anybody from ESA make that claim.

Ariane 5 is reliable but the primary reason it is launching rather then ULA is not reliability but politics.

> Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price.

That is false. That was exactly what their goal was all the way up to a 1-2 years ago when they finally realized how badly they fucked up.

They spent the last 10 years laughing at SpaceX and telling everybody how stupid SpaceX is and how nothing is gone work and how much better they are.

> This is also the reason reusability doesn't make sense for Ariane. With less than ten launches per year, fixed costs make up a large portion of the cost. If they only needed one rocket per year, it wouldn't really get all that much cheaper because they still need the factory.

You are repeating what is essentially propaganda that ignores important facts.

The reason Ariane can only launch 10 times a year is because they totally failed in innovating and rested their success for a long time and now that they got 3 billion to develop a new rocket, that they claimed would be competitive. However the totally fucked that up and are not even close to being competitive.

The very reason they go all this money for Ariane 6 was to build something competitive so they could continue to capture commercial launch so that government flights were cheap.

So it is not that re-usability is not worth it, its that they failed to make a commercially viable product and without that they are just monopolistic launch with a low launch rate.

I don’t think SLS ever looked good, except when evaluating it for pork value.

Here is what I would like to ask the head of NASA if I had the chance to interview him.

First I would ask him to list the various specific missions that the SLS is designed to carry out.

And then I would ask if the BRF lives up to its promises, which of those missions, if any it would not be able to carry out.

If he were able to be completely honest, I imagine his answers would be “satisfy members of Congress by sending money to their districts.” SLS exists by Congressional mandate, and I don’t think NASA actually wants it.

> It was a epoch defining change

Not yet. Costs haven't fallen. The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back commercial launches with the same booster in a short period of time with zero or little retrofitting.

If this current revival of spacecraft innovation goes on to create rapid, fully reusable spacecraft(BFR, New Glen, etc.), I think the epoch changing moment will be seen as the first landing of the first stage Falcon 9 on December 21, 2015. Similar to the first flight at Kitty Hawk. But if we fail to take to the stars, it will soon be forgotten and only remembered as a nostalgic touchstone for a few dreamers. Sort of like how I imagine how people will think of the first moon landing if, in a thousand years, humans have still not made it back.

> Costs haven't fallen.

I disagree. I highly doubt reusing a booster has been more expensive to SpaceX than building new boosters. It is also speculated that at least the first few customers of reused boosters were given a discount.

If you are saying customer cost has not fallen, you may be correct. I would counter with the fact that SpaceX is already a low cost provider, lowering their price more may not increase their overall profits.

> The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back commercial launches with the same booster in a short period of time with zero or little retrofitting.

The booster SpaceX plans to reuse today is a "block 5" booster. This is basically the design that SpaceX hopes will enable that zero or little retrofitting reuse.

> I highly doubt reusing a booster has been more expensive to SpaceX than building new boosters

Well, they are. Which is natural, because the program is still R&D more than mass production.

> This is basically the design that SpaceX hopes will enable that zero or little retrofitting reuse

When that rapid re-use is demonstrated, it will mark the epoch. We could retcon to the original re-use, or even booster recovery. But that's premature.

(I'm still super excited about everything SpaceX does.)

Costs have already fallen. Iridium paid far less to launch their next generation fleet despite it being the same number of satellites, each of which are individually quite heavier than the previous generation (meaning, they purchased much greater launch capability but at a strictly lower cost). And several customers have taken advantage of the extreme low costs of reused launchers. Sure, right now it's only maybe $10 million cheaper, but $10 million is still $10 million, and for some that makes the difference between feasibility and infeasability.

> Not yet. Costs haven't fallen.

That is false. You already pay 10 million less. That is 15% of the launch price. And 15% of the extremely cheap price that SpaceX was already selling.

The reality is that SpaceX simply increased its margin. The technology is still epoch defining.

If any competitor comes even close to SpaceX in price, they will simply drop the price again.

>It was a epoch defining change. It does feel like a ton of time ago, and everyone in the industry (most notably ULA, Arianespace and the Chinese) are trying to figure out what they do now that the SpaceX steamroller is in full force.

Nitpicking on the language: why would SpaceX be a steamroller? Steamrollers are slow. Also, what does it mean for a steamroller to be in full force? Steamrollers push downward at a constant force, don't they?

I understand that SpaceX is crushing its competition, so you want to bring the steamroller metaphor, but perhaps for what you are saying other metaphors would be a better fit.

Further reading: Orwell, Politics and the English language[1]

[1]https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79p/

It’s an idiom.

It is not clear what "it" you refer to here.

Referring to SpaceX as a steamroller is a metaphor[1].

"In full force" is, indeed, an idiom that generally means "in entirety", "completely"[2]

"Steamroller in full force" is neither a metaphor nor an idiom. It's a mashup of the two, and a phrase hitherto unuttered because it doesn't carry meaning.

Put simply, the set of things that can be "in full force" generally does not include steamrollers.

Please see Orwell's essay I linked to. "Fascist octopus has sung its swan song" is an example there that is a similar mix of metaphors.

There are many ways this can be fixed; steamrollers can gain momentum, for example.

As I said - it's not a principal point; I'm nitpicking. However, I believe clear communication is important - so here is an opportunity to improve.

- [1]https://www.grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/

[2]https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+full+force

Don't forget Roscosmos, who is going to be in a world of hurt when NASA and other customers stop using their services and instead use SpaceX.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/russia-may-lack-the-... sums it up nicely.

Have actual cost saving numbers been published? I remember reading estimates back in 2016 or so of ~60% but I'd be interested in what the real numbers were

Gwynne Shotwell once noted that even the very first refurbished booster cost less than 50 % of a new one to refurbish. They've learned a lot since then and Block V is designed to do at least 10 launches I think without refurbishment (this one has been taken apart, though, since it's the very first one that launched).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com