Musk didn't answered to Bezos yet?
Pity, I would imagine something like this:
"Jeff, thanks for the congrats: unfortunately I've no time to spend in your small circle.
Ya know, there is a cigar waiting for me in the orbital launchers club..."
Oh, I think he did. He lets the photos and videos speak for themselves.
Musk didn't answered to Bezos yet?
Pity, I would imagine something like this:
"Jeff, thanks for the congrats: unfortunately I've no time to spend in your small circle.
Ya know, there is a cigar waiting for me in the orbital launchers club..."
Oh, I think he did. He lets the photos and videos speak for themselves.
Well for blue it was a heavily produced video of the highlights.
For SpaceX… It was LIVE!
Classic. The "it ain't proven yet" line starts at the top.
If it were his own company, he might have worried about the possibility that it might actually work instead of clinging to the hope that it won't.
A Arianespace factory worker has less to worry about in near term from the F9 recovery than SpaceX factory worker. Every recovered booster is one less that SpaceX needs to produce and SpaceX are not known for carrying surplus workers.
I wouldn't worry about SpaceX factory workers. They still need to churn out upper stages that are built on the same assembly line. If they can lower costs and fly more often (or lower costs by flying more often) 
they still need to build a lot of hardware.
...I'm sure those "freed up" from Falcon 9 first stage building will have another much bigger thing to build real soon now. Might need a new factory and a launch site selected first, but...
Musk didn't answered to Bezos yet?
Pity, I would imagine something like this:
"Jeff, thanks for the congrats: unfortunately I've no time to spend in your small circle.
Ya know, there is a cigar waiting for me in the orbital launchers club..."
Oh, I think he did. He lets the photos and videos speak for themselves.
Having signed clients for orbital payloads and a large backlog speaks for itself as well.
Musk mentioned they don't plan to refly the returned stage. Will they do a static fire?
edited to answer my own question:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10642028/spacex-falcon-9-landing-elon-musk-wont-flyThe plan, Musk said, is to take the booster from Landing Zone 1 to SpaceX's other site at Cape Canaveral, Launch Complex 39A. There, the company will perform a static fire test — where the rocket is held down and the engines are fired at full thrust — on the launchpad to confirm that the rocket's systems are still in good shape.
Last nights launch is being talked about on NPR right now. Great tidbits...
I heard it on NPR last night, but the NPR local station reporter identified the head of SpaceX as Jeff Bezos. Oy vei!
I noticed that too. I had the radio on in my car driving home, and that was the first update I heard. Needless to say, I was a bit annoyed with NPR.
Nice reference as to Blue Origin and Falcon 9 landing comparisons.
Nice reference as to Blue Origin and Falcon 9 landing comparisons.
I wish someone would have added the prior flights too - at least the two barge attempts and BO's first flight.
Nice reference as to Blue Origin and Falcon 9 landing comparisons.
Also, this size comparison of the Falcon 9 and Blue Origin tells a lot.
Oh that's not good! They talked about Bezos' Twitter jab on this. And played a bit of Elon's con call. I'll see if I can find a link...
Where is this conference call I keep hearing about? Is there audio somewhere? There's such a burst of commentary here it's hard to find things!
That was the most awesome thing that ive seen in a long time...They really did it and I and you all got too see it live.. Here's to the future..We all get to go to space...
Yeah and man I remember on this forum all the detractors and naysaygers like that night gator guy, hey Jim how does it feel to go from one end of the spectrum where you thought this was impossible to witnessing history? Elon Musk really is a magician eh?
To be fair, I don't think Jim ever claimed it was impossible, just doubted it'd ever be economical.
And he'll be proven wrong about that.
Last nights launch is being talked about on NPR right now. Great tidbits...
I heard it on NPR last night, but the NPR local station reporter identified the head of SpaceX as Jeff Bezos. Oy vei!
Oh that's not good! They talked about Bezos' Twitter jab on this. And played a bit of Elon's con call. I'll see if I can find a link...
Please do! What program was it?
I'm sure somebody has already said it, but this has got to be the best Return to Flight mission ever. They didn't merely fix the Falcon 9 and relaunch the same version that failed in June, they chose this flight for the debut of the Full Thrust Falcon.
I was still practically giddy all day long today at work.
Classic. The "it ain't proven yet" line starts at the top.
If it were his own company, he might have worried about the possibility that it might actually work instead of clinging to the hope that it won't.
A Arianespace factory worker has less to worry about in near term from the F9 recovery than SpaceX factory worker. Every recovered booster is one less that SpaceX needs to produce and SpaceX are not known for carrying surplus workers.
I disagree. SpaceX wants to get to 40 launches per year with their Falcons. They currently are at 6. Even with fairly high reuse, they'll need much more rocket stages (upper stages mostly) and about as many rocket engines (when you include occasionally expended boosters plus occasional failed landing/barging plus the eventual retirement due to fatigue and obsolescence). It will take them several years to get to 40 launches, but it will also take several years to get to very high reuse fractions (i.e. 90% of flights reused, and reused for 10 flights). This is also a key point that that Arianespace CEO falters: he fails to grasp the size of SpaceX's launch market ambitions as well as the possibility of continued significant launch market growth (driven in part by lowering launch costs, but some just due to economic growth... though these are interconnected). Reuse will allow SpaceX to do an order of magnitude more launches while keeping their existing manufacturing capabilities well-utilized but also not needing them to be greatly expanded.
And yes, by that time, we'll be talking about BFR and BFS, which WILL need expansion of capability (in terms of size, though not so much numbers except for BFS which will need lots more manufacturing capability). And before SpaceX is really flying BFR/BFS significantly, they'll need to expand manufacturing for their constellation. So yeah, I doubt SpaceX will downsize if reuse works like a charm. Instead, they'll just grow.
Musk didn't answered to Bezos yet?
Pity, I would imagine something like this:
"Jeff, thanks for the congrats: unfortunately I've no time to spend in your small circle.
Ya know, there is a cigar waiting for me in the orbital launchers club..."
Or "OK, Jeff - you can be Leif Ericson, and I'll be Christopher Columbus..."
it's a bit petty.
perhaps this would be better.
"Thanks. Next stop Mars. See you there"
Lots of reposts of photos and content created by others today. It's always nice to reference/credit the sources.
On a different subject, what are all the streaks flying around before and for a short while after S2 ignition? Looks to me like pulsed streams of liquid from a bunch of different outlets? I don't recall seeing anything like that in previous flights.
Classic. The "it ain't proven yet" line starts at the top.
If it were his own company, he might have worried about the possibility that it might actually work instead of clinging to the hope that it won't.
A Arianespace factory worker has less to worry about in near term from the F9 recovery than SpaceX factory worker. Every recovered booster is one less that SpaceX needs to produce and SpaceX are not known for carrying surplus workers.
I disagree. SpaceX wants to get to 40 launches per year with their Falcons. They currently are at 6. Even with fairly high reuse, they'll need much more rocket stages (upper stages mostly) and about as many rocket engines (when you include occasionally expended boosters plus occasional failed landing/barging plus the eventual retirement due to fatigue and obsolescence). It will take them several years to get to 40 launches, but it will also take several years to get to very high reuse fractions (i.e. 90% of flights reused, and reused for 10 flights). This is also a key point that that Arianespace CEO falters: he fails to grasp the size of SpaceX's launch market ambitions as well as the possibility of continued significant launch market growth (driven in part by lowering launch costs, but some just due to economic growth... though these are interconnected). Reuse will allow SpaceX to do an order of magnitude more launches while keeping their existing manufacturing capabilities well-utilized but also not needing them to be greatly expanded.
And yes, by that time, we'll be talking about BFR and BFS, which WILL need expansion of capability (in terms of size, though not so much numbers except for BFS which will need lots more manufacturing capability). And before SpaceX is really flying BFR/BFS significantly, they'll need to expand manufacturing for their constellation. So yeah, I doubt SpaceX will downsize if reuse works like a charm. Instead, they'll just grow.
C’est une belle réussite technologique dans le cadre d’une mission en orbite basse qui demandait peu de performance au lanceur, libérant ainsi celle exigée par la récupération. The Ariane Space CEO's first point is that the Orbcomm mission didn't require much from the rocket in terms of performance, thus saving enough fuel for landing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the modifications to the rocket and the use of super-cooled propellants intended to make feasible GTO missions lifting large communications satellites that also enabled landing?
Mais pour l’équation économique, les choses restent encore très incertaines.
He challenges the economic equation and lists a number of factors.
Perte de performance liée à la récupération, moindre cadence industrielle, coût de remise en état de l’étage, difficulté à convaincre les clients d’utiliser un lanceur d’occasion, incertitudes sur la fiabilité: ce serait une erreur de considérer que la réutilisation est l’alpha et l’oméga de l’innovation de rupture dans le domaine des lanceurs. 1) Loss of performance linked to recovery;
2) Lowered industrial rate, presumably referring to diminished use of productive capacity;
3) Refurbishment costs;
4) Uncertainty regarding the reliability of "used" rockets.
He then concludes that it would be an error to think of reusability as the alpha and omaga of disruptive innovation in the area of rockets.
Aren't the unknowns he cites precisely the targets of the experimental research that SpaceX is pursuing? It's reasonable to remain skeptical about the economics of reusability, given that nobody knows at present how much it will cost to make a returned rocket flight ready, how much of a market there will be for used rockets, and how the decreased demand for new materiel will affect the profitability of the company. The issue he raises of loss of performance, however, suggests that he doubts that the modifications to the rocket will achieve what SpaceX has said that they do.
they still need to build a lot of hardware.