-
#20
by
GalacticIntruder
on 05 Feb, 2015 07:18
-
He made a bizarre comment about F9 barge landing, that it is was easy, been done before, and he was surprised they failed on their previous try. But he will watch the next one.
Can we get a direct quote here or at least a timestamp?
52:18
-
#21
by
kevinof
on 05 Feb, 2015 07:29
-
Maybe I'm getting old and the memory is going but when has it been done before?
-
#22
by
Hauerg
on 05 Feb, 2015 07:57
-
Maybe I'm getting old and the memory is going but when has it been done before?
For me there are problems with sound at that point of the video, but to me it sounds like he said that vertical landings were easy and done before. And methinks he means DC-X. (But of course DC-X was more like F9-R than F9 1st stage)
-
#23
by
AdrianW
on 05 Feb, 2015 08:03
-
If it's so easy, why isn't ULA already doing it?
It's the same story all over again:
1) SpaceX announces crazy plan.
2) Critics: "It will never work/be economical!"
3) SpaceX succeeds.
4) Critics: "That was easy anyway, why did it take them so long?"
However, it's nice to hear him talking about his company's new plans so openly, very refreshing.
-
#24
by
ChrisWilson68
on 05 Feb, 2015 08:32
-
Maybe I'm getting old and the memory is going but when has it been done before?
For me there are problems with sound at that point of the video, but to me it sounds like he said that vertical landings were easy and done before. And methinks he means DC-X. (But of course DC-X was more like F9-R than F9 1st stage)
Yes, that's what I heard, too, that "vertical landing" has been done before.
Which is true, but which totally ignores the hard part of what SpaceX is planning to do. It was either disingenuous or he's totally out of touch.
-
#25
by
TrevorMonty
on 05 Feb, 2015 08:49
-
Interesting comments towards end of video about aging work force at ULA (aerospace industry in general) and need to bring in young engineers and up skill them (soon) before older work force retires. These speeches at universities, and his tweeting are part of their recruitment drive.
Having a new booster followed by a new upper stage to develop over the next few years will help with the recruitment drive. The NGLS maybe expendable but it will be modern with innovative technology and who knows, after it is finished and flying regularly, ULA may start work on a RLV.
-
#26
by
woods170
on 05 Feb, 2015 09:34
-
He did hint that he'd cut price in half and double launch rate...
Unfortunately, we have heard such bold statements before, and not just from ULA. None of those promises ever came thru. This one won't either IMO.
-
#27
by
ChrisWilson68
on 05 Feb, 2015 09:42
-
Interesting comments towards end of video about aging work force at ULA (aerospace industry in general) and need to bring in young engineers and up skill them (soon) before older work force retires. These speeches at universities, and his tweeting are part of their recruitment drive.
Having a new booster followed by a new upper stage to develop over the next few years will help with the recruitment drive. The NGLS maybe expendable but it will be modern with innovative technology and who knows, after it is finished and flying regularly, ULA may start work on a RLV.
So...if you're an eager young graduate looking for a job you can join ULA where who knows, someday they might work on something new, or you can join SpaceX where they're already bringing that to production while working on colonizing Mars in their spare time.
I think I can tell which type of engineer will choose ULA and which will choose SpaceX. And it's not good for ULA.
If ULA really wants to compete with SpaceX, they need to up their game, and that starts with doing things today that are interesting enough to attract the best talent.
-
#28
by
Chris Bergin
on 05 Feb, 2015 10:09
-
He made a bizarre comment about F9 barge landing, that it is was easy, been done before, and he was surprised they failed on their previous try. But he will watch the next one.
Can we get a direct quote here or at least a timestamp?
52:18
Anyone able to accurately quote that? The video seems like it was streamed on a calculator.
-
#29
by
Prober
on 05 Feb, 2015 10:22
-
How can you halve costs twice?
Cashing in on experience. Removing mitigation for problems that've been found to be not necessary. New technology in manufacturing.
believe he was talking about bringing costs down to 1/4 the costs or 25% (nice goal).
-
#30
by
Lar
on 05 Feb, 2015 10:24
-
Interesting comments towards end of video about aging work force at ULA (aerospace industry in general) and need to bring in young engineers and up skill them (soon) before older work force retires. These speeches at universities, and his tweeting are part of their recruitment drive.
Having a new booster followed by a new upper stage to develop over the next few years will help with the recruitment drive. The NGLS maybe expendable but it will be modern with innovative technology and who knows, after it is finished and flying regularly, ULA may start work on a RLV.
So...if you're an eager young graduate looking for a job you can join ULA where who knows, someday they might work on something new, or you can join SpaceX where they're already bringing that to production while working on colonizing Mars in their spare time.
I think I can tell which type of engineer will choose ULA and which will choose SpaceX. And it's not good for ULA.
If ULA really wants to compete with SpaceX, they need to up their game, and that starts with doing things today that are interesting enough to attract the best talent.
Roger that. I think it's a pity ULA's hands are tied as much as they are. If they wanted to do something interesting short term, they should start actually flying IVF/ACES. That would get people excited and the TRL is quite a bit higher than some ideas, IMHO.
-
#31
by
Prober
on 05 Feb, 2015 10:27
-
He made a bizarre comment about F9 barge landing, that it is was easy, been done before, and he was surprised they failed on their previous try. But he will watch the next one.
Can we get a direct quote here or at least a timestamp?
note at the bottom of the Utube posting:
"A talk on the future of commercial space hosted by Stanford SSI and the Speakers Bureau of Stanford University. The video will also be recorded in higher quality and posted later."
52:18
Anyone able to accurately quote that? The video seems like it was streamed on a calculator.
sound was a little problem.... but "a vertical landing has been done before"
-
#32
by
Prober
on 05 Feb, 2015 10:32
-
Interesting comments towards end of video about aging work force at ULA (aerospace industry in general) and need to bring in young engineers and up skill them (soon) before older work force retires. These speeches at universities, and his tweeting are part of their recruitment drive.
Having a new booster followed by a new upper stage to develop over the next few years will help with the recruitment drive. The NGLS maybe expendable but it will be modern with innovative technology and who knows, after it is finished and flying regularly, ULA may start work on a RLV.
So...if you're an eager young graduate looking for a job you can join ULA where who knows, someday they might work on something new, or you can join SpaceX where they're already bringing that to production while working on colonizing Mars in their spare time.
I think I can tell which type of engineer will choose ULA and which will choose SpaceX. And it's not good for ULA.
If ULA really wants to compete with SpaceX, they need to up their game, and that starts with doing things today that are interesting enough to attract the best talent.
Roger that. I think it's a pity ULA's hands are tied as much as they are. If they wanted to do something interesting short term, they should start actually flying IVF/ACES. That would get people excited and the TRL is quite a bit higher than some ideas, IMHO.
He did say "Additive manufacturing", Was good to hear. Would have to question him to find out if he "truly" understands it, or like many using it as a buzz world, the jury is out.
Did anyone get the questions regarding "vertical integration"? Was not clear on that subject.
-
#33
by
rokan2003
on 05 Feb, 2015 11:35
-
Here's the SpaceX quote - I've put the words I'm uncertain about in brackets:
Q: Is there room for SpaceX at the table?
A: Of course there is. Space is big. Competition is just fine.
Q: will you watching the second attempt on Sunday afternoon?
A: Of course I will. Honestly, I ( was surprised) it didn't work out last time. Uhm, vertical landing's been done before. It's an engineering (challenge? Problem?). They'll solve it. Now the question you'll want to ask, after all this discussion is: should we do it? You get to make your own opinion on it.
-
#34
by
mvpel
on 05 Feb, 2015 11:47
-
He does not seem to agree with SpaceX engineering style/method and their economics. I inferred from it he thinks the F9/FH is overkill (unnecessary?), but not efficient enough, especially for higher orbits.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "efficiency," doesn't it? Trashing an entire launch vehicle every time seems pretty inefficient to most of us.
What did he say to lead you to this inference?
-
#35
by
notsorandom
on 05 Feb, 2015 13:25
-
Interesting comments towards end of video about aging work force at ULA (aerospace industry in general) and need to bring in young engineers and up skill them (soon) before older work force retires. These speeches at universities, and his tweeting are part of their recruitment drive.
Having a new booster followed by a new upper stage to develop over the next few years will help with the recruitment drive. The NGLS maybe expendable but it will be modern with innovative technology and who knows, after it is finished and flying regularly, ULA may start work on a RLV.
So...if you're an eager young graduate looking for a job you can join ULA where who knows, someday they might work on something new, or you can join SpaceX where they're already bringing that to production while working on colonizing Mars in their spare time.
I think I can tell which type of engineer will choose ULA and which will choose SpaceX. And it's not good for ULA.
If ULA really wants to compete with SpaceX, they need to up their game, and that starts with doing things today that are interesting enough to attract the best talent.
ULA has a good compensation package, good overtime compensation, and low turn over. If they remain competitive in those areas it won't matter what cool things SpaceX are doing. ULA will still be able to attract talented engineers.
-
#36
by
NovaSilisko
on 05 Feb, 2015 16:24
-
Here's the SpaceX quote - I've put the words I'm uncertain about in brackets:
Q: Is there room for SpaceX at the table?
A: Of course there is. Space is big. Competition is just fine.
Q: will you watching the second attempt on Sunday afternoon?
A: Of course I will. Honestly, I ( was surprised) it didn't work out last time. Uhm, vertical landing's been done before. It's an engineering (challenge? Problem?). They'll solve it. Now the question you'll want to ask, after all this discussion is: should we do it? You get to make your own opinion on it.
Hmm, so I guess it can be taken as "I'm surprised SpaceX didn't get it on that first try, after their own numerous tests with vertical landing, but they'll get it right sooner or later." Or simply vertical landing in general (though nothing on the scale of what SpaceX has done... or such a horrid shape for a VTVL rocket)
Assuming the calculator audio can be trusted, that is.
-
#37
by
Coastal Ron
on 05 Feb, 2015 16:42
-
ULA has a good compensation package, good overtime compensation, and low turn over. If they remain competitive in those areas it won't matter what cool things SpaceX are doing. ULA will still be able to attract talented engineers.
Different types of people look for different types of needs in a job. If stability is important, then ULA today is a good bet. Before they announced their new launcher effort though, if you wanted to work on something new ULA would not have been the 1st on the list.
But now that they are working on a new launcher, they would attract people that are looking for new challenges. However they may already have everyone they need within the company, so there may not be a big need to hire from the outside. Or if they do it would be to backfill the people that are already in the company that are moving over to the new launcher program, in which case the new people would just be working on the existing launchers.
-
#38
by
RanulfC
on 05 Feb, 2015 16:47
-
Maybe I'm getting old and the memory is going but when has it been done before?
For me there are problems with sound at that point of the video, but to me it sounds like he said that vertical landings were easy and done before. And methinks he means DC-X. (But of course DC-X was more like F9-R than F9 1st stage)
Yes, that's what I heard, too, that "vertical landing" has been done before.
Which is true, but which totally ignores the hard part of what SpaceX is planning to do. It was either disingenuous or he's totally out of touch.
Well actually DC-X pretty much PROVED it's "easy" when everythink works right... When it doesn't, well as DC-X also proved (and SpaceX and BO
) things get more complicated. SpaceX is however the only one currently trying to "do-it" with an actual first stage rather than a limited test vehicle.
The main theme seems to be that SpaceX is on the right track and that "old-space" can easily follow in their footsteps if they so choose. Main issue I see in all this is everyone seems afraid to take that first "next" step to the logical conclusion which is an actual RLV rather than "incrementing" from ELV to partial-RLV. SpaceX has put it off till BFR (and I actually agree with the logic mind you) but this seems to indicate that Bruno feels its going to be "put-off" till some future SSTO-RLV.
LEO second stage reusablity has been discussed to death but that's not the market and GTO/GEO is again pointed out to not be economical.
Considering the economics I can't say I "really" can argue differently but it seems to me that the sooner the "customer/market" can be assured an intact abort of their payload at any time during the flight the MORE demand would increase. Following the "trend" here would seem to indictate that while your first stage would be "reusable" any problems and in the end you still lose your payload.
Randy
-
#39
by
phantomdj
on 05 Feb, 2015 17:57
-
The DC-X never proved how “easy” it is because it never came screaming back to the launch pad at Mach 5. It went up to about 2800 feet and then landed.
To say that vertical landing's been done before is to belittle the effort that SpaceX is trying to accomplish.
It's the same story all over again:
) things get more complicated. SpaceX is however the only one currently trying to "do-it" with an actual first stage rather than a limited test vehicle.