←back to thread

395 points vinnyglennon | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
echoangle ◴[] No.43485519[source]
Don’t want to belittle the achievement but they launched it as in „had it launched by the commercial launch provider SpaceX“, not on a self-developed rocket as it sounds like on the first read.
replies(10): >>43486164 #>>43486176 #>>43486389 #>>43486503 #>>43487344 #>>43488249 #>>43488350 #>>43489132 #>>43490828 #>>43494066 #
mainecoder ◴[] No.43486164[source]
Of course, even Europe cannot launch cheaply anymore. Arianespace is crawling to space; they are left for dead. The only serious players are the US and China. It's reached a point where it has become like trying to manufacture a state-of-the-art 5nm chip in a developing nation: possible, but at an absurd cost. You might achieve an initial parametric yield of only 10%, meaning only a tiny fraction of the chips coming off the line meet the basic electrical specifications. Even then, the functional yield (the percentage that actually performs the intended computation correctly at the target speed) might be even lower, say 5%. You'd be throwing away 95 out of every 100 chips, and the cost per usable die would be astronomical due to the sheer expense of acquiring and maintaining the lithography equipment, cleanroom facilities, and specialized expertise – resources that are heavily concentrated in a few leading nations and require years, if not decades, to build from scratch.
replies(5): >>43486382 #>>43486523 #>>43486860 #>>43488167 #>>43495285 #
wat10000 ◴[] No.43486523[source]
SpaceX didn't spend an absurd amount of money getting Falcon 9 to where it is. It was a lot, but pretty typical, even somewhat cheap, for developing a brand new rocket. Repeating their feat should be even cheaper, since you won't be taking detours trying out parachutes and such before settling on the final architecture. It's a relatively straightforward application of known technology, not bleeding edge stuff like 5nm chip making.

An organization that can produce Ariane 6 should be able to produce a Falcon 9 clone with similar effort. The real problem is overcoming the of the old, slow, expensive way of doing things.

replies(5): >>43486861 #>>43487478 #>>43488215 #>>43490440 #>>43496245 #
perihelions ◴[] No.43487478{3}[source]
If it's so easy to clone it, where are the clones?

I've been reading about Airbus' reusable/recoverable SpaceX-killers for over a decade now. They've yet to have anything to show for their work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeline_(rocket_stage)

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006056 ("Airbus unveils 'Adeline' re-usable rocket concept" (2015))

- "...Airbus says it has been working on the concept since 2010 and has even flight-tested small demonstrators..."

(That BBC article predates the first Falcon rocket landing).

replies(1): >>43487759 #
wat10000 ◴[] No.43487759{4}[source]
Don't get me wrong, that problem of overcoming the old, slow, expensive way of doing things is huge for any established launch organization. I don't expect Airbus or ULA to get there. But it's not because the technology is so difficult that they can't do it. A new rocket company with a couple billion dollars in funding would have a good chance.
replies(1): >>43488145 #
1. trothamel ◴[] No.43488145{5}[source]
Note that in doing so, they'd be reaching where SpaceX was a decade ago, and by the time they got there, it seems pretty likely that full reusability will be working a year or so from now, at least for basic earth-orbit flights.