Hacker News Reader

Comment by quickpost | Hacker News Reader

I'm surprised Stephenson didn't touch on SpaceX's potential as a game changer. The biggest "next" step to increased space access, is a vastly cheaper, more efficient, and potentially more reliable orbital rocket. And, SpaceX is doing exactly that!

As Musk is so fond of saying, the existing options are the Lamborghini's of launch vehicles, whereas he's trying to build the Honda. Safe, reliable, and cheap!

I have a lot of hope that we will have a new Space Renaissance in our lifetimes and I think the work that SpaceX, and other companies is doing will be instrumental in getting us to Mars and beyond.

View on HN

I agree with you and disagree with Stephenson. From TFA: "Sixty years and a couple of trillion dollars later, we have reached a place that is infinitesimally close to the top of that hill. Rockets are as close to perfect as they're ever going to get."

From what I understand of the rocket business, this is completely wrong.

Current rockets designed by the established players (LockMart, etc.) are optimised for performance, not overall cost. This comes from a variety of factors, starting with the basic philosophy of the designers, to the rocket fuels chosen, all the way up the design hierarchy.

I estimate that it is possible to reduce launch costs by at least 10x, and that is using 1960's rocket technology with modern computers and sensors. The key is looking at what is going to reduce overall operational cost. I don't have room to explain everything, but suffice it to say I'm a fan of big dumb boosters.

There are many, many political factors at work that have slowed down the cost reductions which we would see if this was some other industry. One of the biggest factors is that the major governments don't really want launchers to become cheaper. Again, it gets back to the space race, and the governments don't want just anyone to have ICBM capability. The big companies also don't want competition for their cash cows, so they lobby hard to make sure space access remains as expensive as possible.

> I estimate that it is possible to reduce launch costs by at least 10x, and that is using 1960's rocket technology with modern computers and sensors.

I couldn't agree more. They are already at least 3x cheaper based on my very rough calculations and wikipedia:

- Falcon 9: $56million

- Delta IV: $150million

- Atlas V: $187million

And they are just at the very beginning of recovering their research costs and systematizing the process of rocket building. I am amazed at what they have been able to accomplish thus far.

Did you correct for inflation?

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

I'm not sure what you mean. Those are all active launch vehicles and current prices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

They're 1960's technology, not 1960's prices... ;)

I think he touches on it in a very generally with this statement.

There is no shortage of proposals for radically innovative space launch schemes that, if they worked, would get us across the valley to other hilltops considerably higher than the one we are standing on now—high enough to bring the cost and risk of space launch down to the point where fundamentally new things could begin happening in outer space. But we are not making any serious effort as a society to cross those valleys. It is not clear why.

Sure SpaceX is the first (almost) successful commercial venture of its kind and has been a long time coming. But they're still using essentially the same old ICBM technology the USA and USSR have been using for the past 60 years.

Stephenson is advocating more energy, research and money be devoted to the technologies on the horizon that would replace giant explosive tin cans.

Sealaunch got around some of the problems - such as a launch site but then got stopped by the same vested interests.

California (coincidentally home to all the current rocket makers) first banned the launchers from docking in Californian ports claiming they were weapons - then banned loading the satelites in foreign ports claiming they were exporting secret technology.

Sounds like a good documentary. Possible name: "Who Killed the Space Ventures?"

Well, SpaceX is still playing the "expendable rocket" game, at least for the moment. They're trying to recover and reuse first stages, but they say that they're set up to be profitable even if that doesn't work --- and while their prices are cheaper than others, it's not enough yet to change the way you'd build a satellite.

Besides, Stephenson at least used to have a consulting relationship of some kind with Blue Origin, the rival launch-system startup funded by Jeff Bezos, which is still awfully quiet about their vehicle, at least for the moment. (I was wondering if this was a preview, but even if it was, he'd be highly unlikely to say so.) If the relationship continues, or even if he just holds stock, that might be reason enough not to talk up the competition.

'Well, SpaceX is still playing the "expendable rocket" game, at least for the moment.'

As much as I am an enormous fan of non-chemical-rocket approaches into space (as hartror linked), they all fall into one of two categories: "Not proved feasible" (space elevator and all variations thereof), and "Contains the word 'nuclear' and not proved feasible". I break that second one out as a separate category on the grounds that making many of these proposals functional seems a lot more likely than the more far-out ones, but are Utterly Impossible because nobody will even fund research into a space technology that contains the word "nuclear", let alone permit it to fly. We barely get RTGs into space, because they are the only solution, and not without ignorant protesters nearly managing to stop it.

For instance, I'm a fan of the nuclear lightbulb [1]; I don't know if can be built or not, and I suspect I will never find out, because nobody within my lifetime will try, despite the fact it may require no actually new physics or technology.

If you're trying to make money in this field, best start with the things we actually know will work. Let us all hope the multi-trillion-dollar-market-cap SpaceX of 2040 see its way to funding some of these proposals, goodness knows our governments aren't going to until the word "nuclear" completely loses its fear factor.

Oh, and if we all die because we're hit by a meteor that could have been stopped with a nuclear lightbulb or even Project Orion, let the record show I hate you all, humanity.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb

This is the whole point. Non-chemical-rockets are the jump to the next hill that Stephenson says we aren't making.

That's sort of me explaining why; the next hill probably has NUKULAR and OMGRadiation!!1! written all over it. We're trying to jump to the next one after that, if indeed it even exists, because of our "nuclear" phobia.

There have been many attempts since the 80s to change the game just that way, repeatedly failing. The article tries to explain why. I no longer follow the field, and don't know about SpaceX -- hopefully it's found the way or the right time to break the jinx.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com