It is becoming axiomatic that any new medium or heavy lift rocket that is proposed without some element of reuse is doomed to fail.
Finally
This one is entirely on you. I've been researching load-and-go, and no one wanted that but SpaceX. NASA official: "We tortured SpaceX for more than three years before we finally approved load-and-go. Had it been up to NASA, we would not have had the reusability revolution."
This is really random, but I'm trying to pin something down for the F9 book. If you're on a call with the Secretary of Defense, and there's a roll call that starts like this: "ALL J-3s REMAIN SLIENT! ALL J-3s REMAIN SILENT FOR ROLL CALL." ... what does 'J-3s' refer to or mean?
https://www.jcs.mil/Directorates/J3-Operations/
Yes, I get that. But what are "J-3s" in this context? Lower level officials in the Joint Chiefs of Staff office? Colonels or something?
I need some downtime because I've really been putting in some after-hours work on the Falcon 9 book (coming together nicely, thank you). It's a lot to manage that, Ars, and a weather site that's turned into more than a hobby!
There's method acting, of course. But is there method writing? I am thinking of working "hard core" on the Falcon 9 book by working a 100-hour week to emulate SpaceXers on deadlines. I haven't told Amanda yet though.
The idea would be to glean some small sense of the exhaustion and mental fatigue of the work done leading up to key milestones and launches in SpaceX's history. Of which there are many. Of course I will be comfortable in my office, rather than sweating in Texas or Florida.
Falcon 9 book then starship book? Loved block 1!
Any Starship book would need to be many years down the road. We are only at the beginning of that story.
Any idea when we may see the F9 sequel? This year maybe?Eric: Next year! Working hard on it at this very moment.
Feeling pretty good tonight. I've now written three-quarters of the Falcon 9 book, which is already longer than Liftoff. I think it's pretty great? Man, those early flights were wild. Hopefully we'll get it published next year.
What I do know is that I have mad respect for everyone at SpaceX, from the top down, who put everything they had into making all that happen. Insane effort and achievement by so many. I'm hoping to bring some of their stories into the light.
Any Falcon heavy in the book as well, or is it scrubbed from the chapters?
FH is not the focus of the book, but I have some fun stories. Including "Hells Bells."
Zach Dunn is back for more! He told me this amazing story about Flight 9.
First two-thirds of the book covers up to Amos-6. But I'll go all the way to Starhopper.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1652119362713579520QuoteZach Dunn is back for more! He told me this amazing story about Flight 9.
I'm sure he'll be totally objective.
Quote from: Blackstar on 04/29/2023 12:35 pmI'm sure he'll be totally objective.In my experience, he is. There’s a weird online Twitter cult of Berger haters who’ve been repeating just a whole ton of libelous attacks on him (I think because he has made some predictions about SLS which turned out to be right?), and I think it has succeeded in making even normal people like yourself think there’s something bad there, but there just isn’t. My respect always goes down for people whenever they make unfounded side remarks about how somehow Berger is dishonest. Do better, Blackstar, I know you’re one of the good ones.
I recently completed a long chapter on the origins of commercial crew, and the competition between Boeing and SpaceX. It is remarkable, in hindsight, how Boeing came within a hair's breadth of winning the entire contract; and how everyone thought only they would succeed.
You're writing another book?
On the Falcon 9, yeah. Hopefully out late next summer. It's good!
Is the title "Landing!" or something else?
Really struggling with a one-word title! If you have any suggestions please let me know.
T+254: Mars Sample Return, Vulcan, NSSL Phase 3 (with Eric Berger)JULY 18, 2023Eric Berger of Ars Technica joins me to talk about the budgetary threat facing Mars Sample Return, the latest issue with ULA’s Vulcan vehicle, and the ongoing tweaks to the National Security Space Launch Program’s Phase 3 architecture.
Definitely another must read:https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1652120406327717889QuoteFirst two-thirds of the book covers up to Amos-6. But I'll go all the way to Starhopper.
"Go all the way to Starhopper". That makers me a bit nervous that Berger might not be exploring the full culmination of first-stage reusability, which is what really sets Falcon aside. I hope the story of how multiple, routine re-flights weere achieved will not be just an afterthought.
One of the engineers I spoke with for a book on the Falcon 9 rocket said, during the inaugural flight campaign back in 2010, that she would catch short afternoon naps inside the interstage. It was "cozy," she said. Thirteen years later:
Quote from: Oersted on 07/21/2023 06:49 am"Go all the way to Starhopper". That makers me a bit nervous that Berger might not be exploring the full culmination of first-stage reusability, which is what really sets Falcon aside. I hope the story of how multiple, routine re-flights weere achieved will not be just an afterthought.I interpreted that as saying the book looks a bit beyond F9. Eric also said the book ends with the Euclid mission, which is way past Starhopper in time and well into routine reuse.
True story about this you will likely find interesting. Right after SpaceX started crashing rockets into barges and hadn’t perfected it yet, I met a young engineer who was part of NASA’s research program for supersonic retropropulsion. He said,… /1
2/ “At NASA, we had a big program planned to study this. We were going to start with lots of computer simulations. Then we would put a thruster on a high speed rail car and shoot the plume into the direction of travel. Then we’d drop rockets off high altitude balloons…
3/ “But then @elonmusk just went and tried it, and it WORKED! So NASA canceled our entire program!”😂😂😂The beauty is that SpaceX didn’t even have to land on the barge for this result. Just hitting the barge with the booster proved that supersonic retropropulsion worked.
Actually, they proved it on F9 F6 out of Vandenberg. @lrocket gave me a banger quote about watching that reentry that is in my forthcoming book on the development of Falcon 9 and reuse.
I’m thrilled to announce the sequel to Liftoff, titled REENTRY, will be published on September 24. This book picks up the story where Liftoff left off, taking readers on a wild ride aboard the Falcon 9, Dragon, Heavy, and so much more.Publisher page: https://penguinrandomhouse.com/books/759707/reentry-by-eric-berger/I packed a lot in here: the origins of the Falcon 9, its development, the early launches and fruitless recoveries, two devastating failures, the remarkable road to reuse, flying the first Dragons, crewed flights, Falcon Heavy, the rivalries, and more.The story is again told primarily through the employees at SpaceX, the big names are all there of course, but also lesser known but critical players like Roger Carlson, Catriona Chambers, Robert Rose, Ricky Lim, and many more.There are technical details and wild stories. Most of all, I want to provide a sense of what Elon Musk and his team slogged through to reach the point where they are today, at the pinnacle of global spaceflight. It was never easy. Nor inevitable.Thanks to @johnkraus for the great cover photo. If you compare it to the US cover of Liftoff there are some wonderful symmetries with the rocket and text going up on Liftoff, and then returning on REENTRY.The new book is 50 percent longer than Liftoff because there was so much story to tell. I’m deeply indebted to the many dozens of SpaceXers who spoke to me, in addition to those from NASA, FAA, and elsewhere. I did my best. I hope you like it.
May as well go for a trilogy
I have seen some of the pre-production chapters, and, like Liftoff, I learned a lot of details that I didn't know from reading the book. The story is so big, even those of us in the middle of it don't know it all
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1748235987828765100QuoteMay as well go for a trilogy
I hope you wrote something about the designs for full reuse on Falcon…
Alas, I must say I did not. There were about 10 million different loose ends I could have written about. As it is, the book is already quite long, more than 110,000 words.
Will REENTRY have a section will lots of photos like LIFTOFF did?
Yes, if I can get off my butt and get the requisite permission forms signed off on. I know y'all want to see early Falcon 9's accidentally being crashed into buildings during transport.
@mastenspace Xombie in-air relight.
This moment is in Reentry.
#HappyBirthday to ASE Life Member Susan Helms, who flew to space five times between 1993 and 2001 (STS-54, STS-64, STS-78, STS-101, and STS-102), including as part of trips and expeditions to the @Space_Station (Expedition 2)!
General Helms also made the call to lease SLC-40 to SpaceX nearly two decades ago. She did this despite furious lobbying against it. I detail this in REENTRY.
12 years ago the @SpaceX Dragon D1 became the first commercial cargo vehicle to visit @Space_Station, where my crewmates and I captured it with the Canada robotic arm in May 2012; Expedition 30.
I have a full chapter in Reentry devoted to this mission. It's a hell of a tale, culminating in Pettit grabbing this Dragon by its tail.
I just received Berger's Reentry and am delighted to see our DQ binger immortalized in these annals of aerospace advancement. August 2014. McGregor, TX. Final ice cream before the final flight of the F9R test vehicle. F9R was flying with three engines that day, a test run for the vertical landing of a Falcon 9 class booster.Mastering rocket reentry and reuse are essential for colonizing Mars... and lowering launch costs on Earth. Only SpaceX was pursuing this path, and incumbents dismissed it as folly. But the SpaceX engineers were determined.As we drove out to the launch site, I joked about the big bada boom to come. Not sure why. We watched it climb from a tent out in the fields. We watched it arch over in a visceral swan song... the aching arc of a doom loop... a failure to launch made manifest.💥 clip: youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ?si…Elon was deep in thought. We tried to cheer him up with a quote about learning from life's failures. Elon replied: “Given the options, I prefer to learn from success.”My last shot is @ElonMusk out on the battlefield.... with the fires still burning.Book lands Sept 24 (with a bunch of my photos): amazon.com/Reentry-SpaceX…
I recently received final copies of Reentry and they look stunning! One of my favorite sections of the narrative is the scene inside the room where NASA made the final selection for commercial crew, which seems newly relevant today. Releases Sept. 24. (I know).
Saturday, #Starlink 8-3 took to the skies. 🛰️ This morning, Starlink 10-7 also lifted off.For those of you keeping score at home, that brings us to 57 launches in 2024!@SpaceForceDoD | @USSF_SSC #PremierGatewaytoSpace #SpaceX 🚀
SpaceX had to push pretty hard to make these launch cadence increases happen at the Cape and KSC in Florida. They were helped by some Air Force officials who were willing to risk their careers to accept changes like automatic flight termination. Much more in Reentry!
NASA just decided that SpaceX needs to rescue Boeing’s astronauts.Written before the Starliner debacle, Berger’s forthcoming book Reentry tells the backstory with plenty of foreshadowing, starting with Boeing’s attempt to be the sole crewed spacecraft provider:“Boeing had a solution, telling NASA it needed the entire Commercial Crew budget to succeed. Because a lot of decision makers believed that only Boeing could safely fly astronauts, the company’s gambit very nearly worked.” (p.270)After “a cascade of pro-Boeing opinions swept around the table, a building and unbreakable wave of consensus” (272), NASA’s human exploration lead Gerstenmeier took a month to decide, eventually asking for more budget to support two competing efforts. Ultimately, Boeing would receive twice as much funding as SpaceX, but SpaceX was in the game, as the new kid on the block.“It had been a very near thing. NASA officials had already written a justification for selecting Boeing, solely for the Commercial Crew contract. It was ready to go and had to be hastily rewritten to include SpaceX. This delayed the announcement to September 16.” (274)“Former NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman helped write the proposal and provide and astronaut’s perspective. But their small team was no match for Boeing’s proposal-writing machine. It was intimidating knowing that 200 people were working on Boeing’s proposal, when Dragon’s team could fit in a small conference room.” (275) With Reisman in photo 2 above from 2012, after pulling an all-nighter at SpaceX: flic.kr/p/c5sY3N“BOEING HAS AN ASTRONAUT PROBLEM” (291)“When the SpaceX engineers could be corralled, they were eager to hear feedback from the NASA astronauts , excited to work with them, and attentive to their suggestions. By contrast, Boeing engineers seemed indifferent to hearing from the four commercial crew astronauts.” (293)“There was an arrogance with them that you certainly didn’t see at SpaceX.” (astronaut Hurley, p.294)“Boeing also underperformed. Not only were its engineers overconfident, but the company’s management also was not putting skin in the game. Hurley did not see any urgency from Boeing’s teams. Rather, they appeared to be working part-time on Starliner. ‘It was all about managing dollars and cents from Boeing’s perspective,’ Hurley said.” (295)“During the summer of 2018 as Boeing worked toward a pad abort test in White Sands, New Mexico (Boeing never flew an in-flight abort test)… a significant problem occurred due to a propellant leak. Ultimately, this would delay the company’s pad abort test by more than a year, but at the time, Boeing neglected to tell the Commercial Crew astronauts about the issue.” (295)“That summer NASA was closing in on making crew assignments for the first flights. Hurley told the chief of the astronaut office he would not fly on Starliner.” (296)He went on to fly the first SpaceX Dragon to bring crew to the ISS (we were there for the launch, photo 3). “‘It was the second space age,’ Hurley said. ‘And it started in 2020.’” (313) My video from Mission Control captured the excitement of capture: youtube.com/watch?v=bwqdEK…“SpaceX emerged triumphant over another major domestic competitor, Boeing, as well. The company that supposedly went for substance over pizzazz, ended up with neither in the Commercial Crew race.” (340)Just prior to their first human flight, there were several “shocking discoveries, especially so close to the flight. Neither NASA nor Boeing had good answers for why they had been found as astronauts were about to strap into Starliner. Questions emerged about the company’s commitment to the program. Because it operates on a fixed-price contract [and despite being 2x higher than SpaceX’s], Boeing has reported losses of nearly $1 billion on Starliner.” (342)After being stranded in space, Suni will fly with SpaceX, as she originally hoped (photo 1 above).And during this same time, there was a Boeing – Lockheed joint venture competing for launch, ULA: “The U.S. rocket wars were over. SpaceX had won. Since then, SpaceX has kept beating the dead horse. Over one stretch, from the end of 2022 into the first half of 2023, SpaceX launched more than fifty rockets between ULA flights. It has become difficult to remember that these two companies were once rivals, or that ULA’s employees would drive up to the SpaceX fence, jeering.” (339)Reentry book pre-order: amazon.com/Reentry-SpaceX… cc @ElonMusk
Reentry recounts that Doug Hurley said he wouldn’t fly on Starliner:
Eric Berger cemented his position as a guy with real insight into spaceflight of this era. So many of those quotes about SpaceX and Boeing have been validated by the debacle we are seeing now with the CFT mission.
As all good journalists do, Eric tells it as he sees it and doesn’t slant a story because it benefits one party or another. He then adds his own assessment and will criticise any decision if he thinks it’s warranted. So he doesn’t only report facts but gives us well-informed analysis/insight into what it means.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/25/2024 08:49 amAs all good journalists do, Eric tells it as he sees it and doesn’t slant a story because it benefits one party or another. He then adds his own assessment and will criticise any decision if he thinks it’s warranted. So he doesn’t only report facts but gives us well-informed analysis/insight into what it means. This is simply not true. His article about the IM-1 mission was essentially a press release for the company. He glossed over all the problems and did not dig deeply or ask questions about why the company was giving out positive spin when things were going badly. He will write negative articles about Boeing, but he will never write a negative article about SpaceX because he wants to maintain his access.
Risking the wrath of Chris B. but the reason why Berger writes negative articles about Boeing is mostly because Boeing has done litterally nothing positive in the past decade. The facts speak for themselves:
[Blackstar] is making the much more tendentious claim without evidence given that Berger suppreses the bad stories he knows about SpaceX to maintain journalistic access with the company.
QuoteI hope you wrote something about the designs for full reuse on Falcon…https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1757619552190431707QuoteAlas, I must say I did not. There were about 10 million different loose ends I could have written about. As it is, the book is already quite long, more than 110,000 words.
You completely missed my point. My point is that he's not an objective, unbiased journalist. He doesn't approach every company with the same neutrality. He clearly favors certain companies, notably SpaceX.
I don't think this is entirely without evidence. As one relevant example, Berger himself has said that he is not going to say anything about the Falcon 9 full-reuse program. Now, whether or not you would call SpaceX's decision to cancel this project a "failure" (personally I wouldn't), it is a failure for the F9 reuse project - which is what the book is about. Instead of recognising it's relevance, Berger has called it a "loose end."
Quote from: Hyperborealis on 08/26/2024 11:50 am[Blackstar] is making the much more tendentious claim without evidence given that Berger suppreses the bad stories he knows about SpaceX to maintain journalistic access with the company. I don't think this is entirely without evidence. As one relevant example, Berger himself has said that he is not going to say anything about the Falcon 9 full-reuse program. Now, whether or not you would call SpaceX's decision to cancel this project a "failure" (personally I wouldn't), it is a failure for the F9 reuse project - which is what the book is about. Instead of recognising its relevance, Berger has called it a "loose end."
Published my review of Reentry by @SciGuySpace There are a lot of inspiring stories to be found here, and plenty of stuff I didn't know about the Falcon 9 development program. I think its an especially good book to give to those who have formed their opinion on what SpaceX is as a company based entirely on their opinion of the CEO (and his politics).
Blackstar will speak for himself, but I don't think he denies Boeing's failures. He is making the much more tendentious claim without evidence given that Berger suppreses the bad stories he knows about SpaceX to maintain journalistic access with the company.
......- When the Crew Dragon pad abort test showed that the SuperDracos lacked performance, SpaceX re-designed SuperDraco to get to the required performance. NASA never bothered to publically report this, it only showed up in an internal report. Berger subsequently also didn't report it, because he was unaware of it (because NASA hadn't publically reported it). - When the pad abort test showed that a 3-parachute set-up was insufficient, SpaceX redesigned the recovery compartment to include a fourth parachute. As mentioned by NASA and OIG and as reported correctly by Berger..........- When testing showed that the parachute design for Crew Dragon had weaker-than-expected links and seems, SpaceX immediately selected a much stronger system and performed 14 drop tests in rapid succession to qualify the system, going above and beyond NASA qualification requirements. As detailed by NASA and the OIG, and as correctly reported by Berger.
Quote from: woods170 on 08/26/2024 09:17 am......- When the Crew Dragon pad abort test showed that the SuperDracos lacked performance, SpaceX re-designed SuperDraco to get to the required performance. NASA never bothered to publically report this, it only showed up in an internal report. Berger subsequently also didn't report it, because he was unaware of it (because NASA hadn't publically reported it). - When the pad abort test showed that a 3-parachute set-up was insufficient, SpaceX redesigned the recovery compartment to include a fourth parachute. As mentioned by NASA and OIG and as reported correctly by Berger..........- When testing showed that the parachute design for Crew Dragon had weaker-than-expected links and seems, SpaceX immediately selected a much stronger system and performed 14 drop tests in rapid succession to qualify the system, going above and beyond NASA qualification requirements. As detailed by NASA and the OIG, and as correctly reported by Berger.Links to information about these 3?I wasn't aware of the SuperDraco underperformance.
I thought that it was NASA just wanting extra safety margin that prompted the extra 'chute, rather than it being driven by test data.
I think I saw some comment about the links (at the same time that the Boeing issue came to light?)Additional info on these would be gratefully received .....
The audiobook version of Reentry is now available for pre-order. Listen to the first five minutes of Chapter One:https://www.audible.com/pd/Reentry-Audiobook/B0DDM997NY
I've seen enough of his reporting to know that he has a bias. Look at the tweets posted above and you'll see some of it. I'm not saying he's totally in the tank, but he is not always objective when it comes to SpaceX.
So what?I loved Dorothy Kearns Goodwin’s biography of Lincoln, and learned a lot from it, but she makes absolutely no pretense of being objective. It’s still a great, informative, and moving book.
Quote from: Comga on 09/05/2024 11:44 pmSo what?I loved Dorothy Kearns Goodwin’s biography of Lincoln, and learned a lot from it, but she makes absolutely no pretense of being objective. It’s still a great, informative, and moving book.So we are both agreeing that he is biased and not objective.
Just say you dislike his perspective on things and think he gets some things wrong. This "agree he is biased" business is childish.
Episode 167 - Bechtold (with Eric Berger)Off-Nominal19 Sept 2024Jake and Anthony are joined by Eric Berger, Senior Space Editor at Ars Technica and author of Liftoff: Elon Musk and the Desperate Early Days That Launched SpaceX, to talk about his newest book, Reentry: SpaceX, Elon Musk, and the Reusable Rockets that Launched a Second Space Age.Find us at https://offnom.comFind Anthony Colangelo at https://mainenginecutoff.com/Find Jake Robins at / jakeonorbit Find Eric Berger at / sciguyspace
#103 Eric Berger on his new book 'Reentry: SpaceX, Elon Musk, and Reusable RocketsThe Astro Ben Podcast12 Aug 2024(Episode first aired 8th August 2024 - audio only) In this episode, Ben sits down (again) with Eric Berger, Senior Space Editor at Ars Technica and author of the upcoming book 'Reentry: SpaceX, Elon Musk, and the Reusable Rockets that Launched a Second Space Age'They discuss the Polaris Dawn mission, the state of the space industry, NASA's Crew-9 launch delay, and the latest breaking stories in the space industry. Eric shares his thoughts on Elon Musk's current focus and vision at SpaceX, as well as the critical role billionaires are playing in space exploration. Subjects Discussed:Interviewing NASA administratorStarliner date pushed backPolaris DawnWhy is it significant?Billionaires in SpaceNEW BOOK: “Reentry: SpaceX, Elon Musk, and the Reusable Rockets that Launched a Second Space Age”The Technical Challenges of SpaceX 2008-2020Importance of Gwynne ShotwellSignificance of Falcon HeavyThe emotion of launchesArtemisChinaNew GlennFirst mover advantage for reusable rocket companies?Stoke SpaceSpaceXVision of SpaceXElon and politicsElon’s Musks Plans too ambitious?
If you enjoyed Liftoff, Reentry carries the story of SpaceX forward over the next decade. What surprised me, as I reported this book, is how scrappy the company remained through much of the 2010s. The money was always tight. The pressure was always intense.
I worked really hard to write a compelling and engaging story, to put readers in the middle of the action. There are so many wild stories here. This one, set in late 2009 while driving the first Falcon 9 from Texas to Florida, is one of my favorites:
I just read a terrific new book called "Reentry" by @SciGuySpace about SpaceX's ascent from fledgling startup to the top of the space industry.I also wrote a review about it in the @nypost Link below:
An excerpt from Reentry: Inside the room where NASA officials made the fateful decision on commercial crew a decade ago.
Quote from: Hyperborealis on 08/26/2024 11:50 am[Blackstar] is making the much more tendentious claim without evidence given that Berger suppreses the bad stories he knows about SpaceX to maintain journalistic access with the company. I don't think this is entirely without evidence. As one relevant example, Berger himself has said that he is not going to say anything about the Falcon 9 full-reuse program. Now, whether or not you would call SpaceX's decision to cancel this project a "failure" (personally I wouldn't), it is a failure for the F9 reuse project - which is what the book is about. Instead of recognising it's relevance, Berger has called it a "loose end."Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/14/2024 05:58 amQuoteI hope you wrote something about the designs for full reuse on Falcon…https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1757619552190431707QuoteAlas, I must say I did not. There were about 10 million different loose ends I could have written about. As it is, the book is already quite long, more than 110,000 words.Perhaps this is just a minor omission, but similarly minor-but-relevant omissions seem to appear often in Berger's work, and very frequently they favour SpaceX.Regardless, I'm sure this will be a great read filled with many interesting details I did not know about Falcon and SpaceX. Berger is good at writing!
Quote from: Blackstar on 09/06/2024 02:23 amQuote from: Comga on 09/05/2024 11:44 pmSo what?I loved Dorothy Kearns Goodwin’s biography of Lincoln, and learned a lot from it, but she makes absolutely no pretense of being objective. It’s still a great, informative, and moving book.So we are both agreeing that he is biased and not objective.What an angry and kind of pointless distinction to make. As though bias and objectivity are entirely separate things, black and white, and people go exclusively in buckets. Just say you dislike his perspective on things and think he gets some things wrong. This "agree he is biased" business is childish.
Q: What do you respond to comments that say you have pro SpaceX bias?Eric Berger: I would say, hell yes I'm biased. I'm biased toward progress. I just missed the Apollo landings as a kid (born in 1973) and I would like to see humans get out there and explore and settle the Solar System, and beyond. Looking at the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, we didn't go very far or fast. I chalk that up to a couple of things, including a lack of geopolitical need for deep space exploration, and large contractors doing only what the government asked and seeking to maximize profits over progress. I've been a critic of the SLS rocket because it exemplifies the way of doing things that is so slow, and so expensive, that you never really get anywhere.What excites me about commercial space is that you've got entrepreneurs and private capital seeking to do interesting things in space that could push humanity out there. A company like Astro Forge may well fail, but they're giving asteroid-mining-on-the-cheap a go. Intuitive Machines is landing on the Moon. Astrolab is trying to build autonomous lunar rovers. I'm biased toward these new and innovative approaches to spaceflight. And yes, I'm biased toward SpaceX, because they are the greatest exemplar of progress in spaceflight in the 21st century. As a thought exercise, imagine what the US spaceflight enterprise looks like today if the fourth flight of the Falcon 1 fails, and SpaceX goes under. It's kind of scary.
With that said, Blackstar has a point. Having done a great deal of interviewing with people at NASA and SpaceX, working to keep your sources willing to talk with you is a real-world thing that all authors and researchers have to deal with. There are places where I wanted Berger to ask of his interviewees, "wasn't that thing you did absolutely nuts/dangerous/counter-productive?" You do get a good sense of where things either went off the rails or were in real danger of doing so. It's not a sin to split the difference.
I disagree. Yes, SpaceX has succeeded. How much was skill and how much luck? The experts are usually right, which is why we regard them as experts. "All the experts will say that I am asking the impossible - but I tell you we can do it" -- that generally does not end well.
Two-thirds through and I have read with great interest all the stories about crises and near-disasters. Really brings it home how it takes real human beings stressed witless and suffering immensely to accomplish great things. Unfortunately I have to say that I miss a lot of technical info about the groundbreaking actual work that it took to make the wonder that is Falcon 9. The technical side is very reduced and very dumbed-down. Berger clearly aimed at a general audience, hoping for big sales, but I think he shouldn't think so little of the capacity for understanding (and being fascinated by) technical stuff by the general reader.There is basically nothing about Blackmore's guidance work, nothing about the landing legs, not much about the intricacies of Merlin development. I really bought the book hoping for that. Instead there is a lot, really a lot, about people working long days and burning out. It gets a bit samey after a while. Clearly Berger had a lot of access to those SpaceX'ers. I guess the present-day staff is too busy building rockets.Maybe Berger just understands his audience better, but I think we deserve much more info about what actually makes Falcon 9 great, and why it has broken old paradigms so effectively.
Had an unforgettable night with some of the key people in Reentry this weekend. Thanks to @lrocket for hosting a terrific party.
To add what other have posted, I love these stories so far, but I really wanted more technical info, especially on the first stage reentry and reuse. It is something that engineers have wanted to do for decades and SpaceX figured it out.
Quote from: Oersted on 09/29/2024 11:50 amTwo-thirds through and I have read with great interest all the stories about crises and near-disasters. Really brings it home how it takes real human beings stressed witless and suffering immensely to accomplish great things. Unfortunately I have to say that I miss a lot of technical info about the groundbreaking actual work that it took to make the wonder that is Falcon 9. The technical side is very reduced and very dumbed-down. Berger clearly aimed at a general audience, hoping for big sales, but I think he shouldn't think so little of the capacity for understanding (and being fascinated by) technical stuff by the general reader.There is basically nothing about Blackmore's guidance work, nothing about the landing legs, not much about the intricacies of Merlin development. I really bought the book hoping for that. Instead there is a lot, really a lot, about people working long days and burning out. It gets a bit samey after a while. Clearly Berger had a lot of access to those SpaceX'ers. I guess the present-day staff is too busy building rockets.Maybe Berger just understands his audience better, but I think we deserve much more info about what actually makes Falcon 9 great, and why it has broken old paradigms so effectively.If the Off Nominal interview [54:20], Eric mentioned some of the topics he had to cut (e.g Dragon XL, Red Dragon, 2nd Grasshopper program, etc) so that it didn't become a 600 page book (Reentry is already longer than Liftoff at 384 pages vs 288 pages).
In the brief epilog, Berger raises serious concerns about Musk's current non-SpaceX distractions, which are apparently pulling him away from focus on the vision. The most obvious example is his acquisition of X and the events surrounding it. Berger is clearly concerned that SpaceX may suffer from this, perhaps a lot. I found this very disturbing, especially since it my impressions as an outside casual observer.
“[Musk is] clearly a genius. I would compare him to the Thomas Edison of our time,” Nelson said. “That said, he’s very distracted at a point where he really needs to be completely focused on operational execution and delivering on the Model 3 targets. Instead, he’s appearing on podcasts, he’s tweeting, he’s spending a lot of time on SpaceX when arguably they’re probably at the company’s most critical juncture in terms of operational execution right now.”
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 10/09/2024 02:27 amIn the brief epilog, Berger raises serious concerns about Musk's current non-SpaceX distractions, which are apparently pulling him away from focus on the vision. The most obvious example is his acquisition of X and the events surrounding it. Berger is clearly concerned that SpaceX may suffer from this, perhaps a lot. I found this very disturbing, especially since it my impressions as an outside casual observer.This is just his partisan bias showing.
"Elon is distracted" is hardly a new narrative, it's been argued many times in the past......It turns out Tesla did pretty well even when he's "distracted", so I wouldn't worry about this for SpaceX either.
Quote from: thespacecow on 10/09/2024 04:26 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 10/09/2024 02:27 amIn the brief epilog, Berger raises serious concerns about Musk's current non-SpaceX distractions, which are apparently pulling him away from focus on the vision. The most obvious example is his acquisition of X and the events surrounding it. Berger is clearly concerned that SpaceX may suffer from this, perhaps a lot. I found this very disturbing, especially since it my impressions as an outside casual observer.This is just his partisan bias showing.Berger is trusted by Musk, and I've seen no evidence that he has a bias.
Oh, and BTW, it is easy to call someone "biased" without evidence. Even fashionable these days. That doesn't mean you are right. Please provide proof of some kind to back up your allegations if you truly believe them.
Quote"Elon is distracted" is hardly a new narrative, it's been argued many times in the past......It turns out Tesla did pretty well even when he's "distracted", so I wouldn't worry about this for SpaceX either.Tesla FSD is a great example to me of Elon Musk not paying enough attention to Tesla, especially when you look at the long length of time it is taking for product updates to the Model 3 and Model Y.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 11/10/2024 12:28 amQuote from: thespacecow on 10/09/2024 04:26 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 10/09/2024 02:27 amIn the brief epilog, Berger raises serious concerns about Musk's current non-SpaceX distractions, which are apparently pulling him away from focus on the vision. The most obvious example is his acquisition of X and the events surrounding it. Berger is clearly concerned that SpaceX may suffer from this, perhaps a lot. I found this very disturbing, especially since it my impressions as an outside casual observer.This is just his partisan bias showing.Berger is trusted by Musk, and I've seen no evidence that he has a bias.I see no evidence that he's "trusted" by Musk...
Eric Berger, a soft-spoken Ars Technica journalist, meteorologist, and lover of all things space-related, has spent a lot of time with Elon Musk during the past few years. While watching the billionaire SpaceX founder closely as he sat in on board meetings and gathering with his family on flights to Texas...
Musk agrees with him on his takes on US space program, that's all. It's pretty clear the two has vastly different takes on politics.
Quote from: Coastal RonQuote"Elon is distracted" is hardly a new narrative, it's been argued many times in the past......It turns out Tesla did pretty well even when he's "distracted", so I wouldn't worry about this for SpaceX either.Tesla FSD is a great example to me of Elon Musk not paying enough attention to Tesla, especially when you look at the long length of time it is taking for product updates to the Model 3 and Model Y.No, it just means FSD is really really hard, which coupled with Elon's usual super optimistic schedule estimate resulted in fairly long delays.
It's disingenuous to use this as proof that Elon is distracted...
Nov 19, 2024📖 Eric Berger's New Book "Reentry: SpaceX, Elon Musk, and the Reusable Rockets that Launched a Second Space Age" Will SpaceX be able to deliver Starship in time for Artemis? Will Elon and Donald cancel SLS and replace it with Falcon Heavy? Is there any chance for real competition with SpaceX? How serious is the space race with China? Finding out the answers in this interview. 🟣 Guest: Eric Bergerhttps://arstechnica.com/author/ericbe...00:00 Intro01:12 Reentry and the rise of SpaceX10:24 What happens to SLS20:17 The state of Starship30:45 Blue Origin and other competition35:29 Space race with China42:11 Questions from the Patreon Community53:22 Current obsessions 55:11 Final thoughts
Quote from: thespacecow on 11/10/2024 03:37 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 11/10/2024 12:28 amQuote from: thespacecow on 10/09/2024 04:26 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 10/09/2024 02:27 amIn the brief epilog, Berger raises serious concerns about Musk's current non-SpaceX distractions, which are apparently pulling him away from focus on the vision. The most obvious example is his acquisition of X and the events surrounding it. Berger is clearly concerned that SpaceX may suffer from this, perhaps a lot. I found this very disturbing, especially since it my impressions as an outside casual observer.This is just his partisan bias showing.Berger is trusted by Musk, and I've seen no evidence that he has a bias.I see no evidence that he's "trusted" by Musk...I think this 2021 article shows how Musk trusted Eric Berger:QuoteEric Berger, a soft-spoken Ars Technica journalist, meteorologist, and lover of all things space-related, has spent a lot of time with Elon Musk during the past few years. While watching the billionaire SpaceX founder closely as he sat in on board meetings and gathering with his family on flights to Texas...If that isn't trust, I don't know what it is...
QuoteMusk agrees with him on his takes on US space program, that's all. It's pretty clear the two has vastly different takes on politics.I don't know what you think the definition of the word "biased" is, but you don't have to agree 100% with someone to dispassionately (and professionally) evaluate what they are doing in one aspect of their life.
QuoteQuote from: Coastal RonQuote"Elon is distracted" is hardly a new narrative, it's been argued many times in the past......It turns out Tesla did pretty well even when he's "distracted", so I wouldn't worry about this for SpaceX either.Tesla FSD is a great example to me of Elon Musk not paying enough attention to Tesla, especially when you look at the long length of time it is taking for product updates to the Model 3 and Model Y.No, it just means FSD is really really hard, which coupled with Elon's usual super optimistic schedule estimate resulted in fairly long delays.As a Tesla Model Y owner, I disagree. Luckily I never paid for FSD, but for those that did Musk has not been paying enough attention to this issue. And again, Musk can't multitask his way through being the leader of so many companies, AND take some sort of position or job with the Trump II Administration - he will have to spend less time on all of his companies in order to spend time on whatever Trump assigns him.
QuoteIt's disingenuous to use this as proof that Elon is distracted...Let's try it this way, prove he is NOT distracted.
Thrilled to find that the @TheEconomist named Reentry one of its best books of 2024.
