OMG it's the SpaceX Party Thread!

[starsilk]

This employee doesn't seem too be thrilled here.
http://i.imgur.com/KYowi.gif

This will make Mr. B happy!
http://twitter.com/Molliway/status/204843813536145408

if you watch the video of this you will notice at some point he realizes that he is the only one not clapping and decides to give it a half hearted clap just to be part of the mob

Probably a contractor of a contractor.

Or he hasn't slept since Friday, and that's his I'm-super-damn-excited-on-no-sleep-since-Friday face.

or: he's studying at the school of Elon 'Poker Face while rolling the dice on this company' Musk.

[edkyle99]

The 2nd stage from the last flight is still in orbit? I had assumed that the orbit raising maneuver it did put it in a highly elliptical orbit that intersected the atmosphere.

It was last listed in a 276 x 10,890 km x 34.53 deg orbit.      
http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=37253&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET

 - Ed Kyle

[Chris Bergin]

Hey Chris,

What was the site traffic statistics for the C2+ launch?

I'll have to heat up the google analytics program. Might find time tomorrow as I've had about 10 hours sleep since Sunday. Soooooooooooooooooooo tired.

Servers didn't flinch though. Thanks L2 members (they paid for them).

[dcporter]

I was hoping for a record smash, but probably 3:44AM prevented that.

[kevin-rf]

Chris, Sounds like all you need now is another launch or two, hope they don't decide to bring the X-37 home before you get some sleep

[spectre9]

I wanted to point out that the 2012 launch count is no longer a shutout, as it is now:

PWR:  3  (two Delta 4 and 1/2 of two Atlas 5 launches)

"The Other Guys":  1

Or, if you are counting engines, it is:

PWR:  6

"The Other Guys":  10

That was a long 17 months though... 

 - Ed Kyle

Ed doing some SpaceX cheerleading has made my day 

Less engines is more reliable? The competition that want to keep making those claims will be silenced soon enough.

[Jim]

Less engines is more reliable? The competition that want to keep making those claims will be silenced soon enough.

Once again you are wrong.

1.  Less engines ARE more reliable.

2.  That is Spacex's exact words

3.  Spacex is NOT going to dominate the space launch business

[sanman]

This employee doesn't seem too be thrilled here.
http://i.imgur.com/KYowi.gif

Having watched a lot of late night TV, I've seen that look before - usually it's the alien saboteur sent to ensure the failure of the mission.

"Shazbot! The faulty nitrogen valve I tampered with didn't stop them! Cursed humans!" 

[dcporter]

This question is for Jim.  I'm Dave Porter, with Rocket Armchairists National.  Today was an emotional day for a lot of people - can you please give us your thoughts on the day's events?  Were you following the launch?  If so, how did you feel as key milestones were met?

*microphone in face*

[friendly3]

Spacex is NOT going to dominate the space launch business

I copied this statement on my hard drive and will remind it to you in a few years.

[Robotbeat]

Less engines is more reliable? The competition that want to keep making those claims will be silenced soon enough.

Once again you are wrong.

1.  Less engines ARE more reliable.

2.  That is Spacex's exact words
T
3.  Spacex is NOT going to dominate the space launch business

if you need all the engines to take off then yeah, having more engines works against you in many ways (but not all).

3) isn't a given

[Jim]

Spacex is NOT going to dominate the space launch business

I copied this statement on my hard drive and will remind it to you in a few years.

To show me that I was right?

[Idiomatic]

Less engines is more reliable? The competition that want to keep making those claims will be silenced soon enough.

Once again you are wrong.

1.  Less engines ARE more reliable.

2.  That is Spacex's exact words
T
3.  Spacex is NOT going to dominate the space launch business

if you need all the engines to take off then yeah, having more engines works against you in many ways (but not all).

3) isn't a given

The Falcon9 does need all 9 engines to take off. It has engine out capability ~30seconds into the flight.

[Robert Thompson]

Less engines is more reliable? The competition that want to keep making those claims will be silenced soon enough.

Once again you are wrong.

1.  Less engines ARE more reliable.

2.  That is Spacex's exact words
T
3.  Spacex is NOT going to dominate the space launch business

if you need all the engines to take off then yeah, having more engines works against you in many ways (but not all).

3) isn't a given

I would appreciate hearing an informed rationale that is appropriate for use at EPO (Education and Public Outreach) events that explains SpaceX's strategy for using a large number of small and individually less expensive engines. (e.g. than ULA / PW)

[JBF]

In order to improve production efficiencies and drive cost down SpaceX wants to build as few different types of engines as possible. With the Falcon 9 both stages use essentially the same engine. To get the required thrust requires 9 of them on the first stage.

I would appreciate hearing an informed rationale that is appropriate for use at EPO (Education and Public Outreach) events that explains SpaceX's strategy for using a large number of small and individually less expensive engines. (e.g. than PW)

[Lars_J]

The power & size of the Merlin engines was dictated by the Falcon 1. When the Falcon 5 and 9 were proposed, they simply used the engine they had, but more of them.

If they started over from scratch they would probably not decide to use 9 engines, it adds complexity - but mass production does have cost benefits. And with 30 Merlin 1C's and 3 Merlin Vacuum engines flown without incident, it seems to be a good engine.

[sanman]

Once again you are wrong.

1.  Less engines ARE more reliable.

2.  That is Spacex's exact words

3.  Spacex is NOT going to dominate the space launch business

Jim, maybe their goal isn't to dominate the space launch business. Musk seems to be most interested in Mars, and in selling vehicles to anyone who wants to go to space.

Furthermore, they seem to be evolving their designs (Falcon Heavy, Raptor, RLV, v1.1, merlins, etc) faster than anyone else, and that seems be in their favor.

I wonder if SpaceX's latest success will now put pressure on their competitors to show some results?

[Lars_J]

Two pieces of advice:

#1. Don't argue with Jim. Just don't.

#2. When blind squirrels run amok, he gets irritable.

[Robert Thompson]

In order to improve production efficiencies and drive cost down SpaceX wants to build as few different types of engines as possible. With the Falcon 9 both stages use essentially the same engine. To get the required thrust requires 9 of them on the first stage.

I would appreciate hearing an informed rationale that is appropriate for use at EPO (Education and Public Outreach) events that explains SpaceX's strategy for using a large number of small and individually less expensive engines. (e.g. than PW)

Ok, I recall a bit now. Well, keep pushing this. What are we drinking to, as it were?

Elon's Gamble is trusting to a statistics or consistency of excellence across a more automated assembly line whereas ULA's "assured launch" is a Faustian contract for engines that receive hands-on and TLC. Something like highly adaptive mammals after the K-T event, and T-Rex. And does ATK's Liberty strategy threaten either ULA or SpaceX if it promises base-line 'assured survival' with MLAS? Anyone. Thank you.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

3. Spacex is NOT going to dominate the space launch business

In order to dominate in the space launch business it has to be a free market. The space launch business only seems to be a free market.

Therefore "Spacex is NOT going to dominate the space launch business".