Elon Musk and the future of spaceflight(newscientist.com)
newscientist.com
Elon Musk and the future of spaceflight
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/05/spacex-the-apple-of-spacefligh.html
33 comments
I don't think commercial spaceflight will easily "tolerate" manned failures. Maybe with lots of competitors in lots of different countries.
But I did not realise the reusability cost structure quite so well as Elon's explanation - 200k on fuel, 60m on a one shot rocket.
Before that I truly thought we had no hope before a space elevator.
Call me a reluctant convert.
But I did not realise the reusability cost structure quite so well as Elon's explanation - 200k on fuel, 60m on a one shot rocket.
Before that I truly thought we had no hope before a space elevator.
Call me a reluctant convert.
I always enjoy reading what Musk has to say.
Insufferable nitwit interviewers at New Scientist, not so much.
I am really sick of interviewers using language as a weapon and having hostile confrontational interviews with scientists and entrepreneurs, when the same interviewers and periodicals don't have the balls to even ask questions of the various criminals in society who are actually worthy of such contempt in an interview.
In particular, the interview starts with the phrase "You claim to be...". This phrasing establishes that the subject is suspected of lying. A respectful neutral question is "You have said that..." Such language use is not unintentional. It is designed to impeach the credibility of the subject in the reader's view by painting him as someone who is dishonest and can not be trusted.
Insufferable nitwit interviewers at New Scientist, not so much.
I am really sick of interviewers using language as a weapon and having hostile confrontational interviews with scientists and entrepreneurs, when the same interviewers and periodicals don't have the balls to even ask questions of the various criminals in society who are actually worthy of such contempt in an interview.
In particular, the interview starts with the phrase "You claim to be...". This phrasing establishes that the subject is suspected of lying. A respectful neutral question is "You have said that..." Such language use is not unintentional. It is designed to impeach the credibility of the subject in the reader's view by painting him as someone who is dishonest and can not be trusted.
That question in particular was definitely shit. I absolutely love how Musk handled it though: pointed accusatory question? Spam them with a big vocabulary and technical stuff!
Textbook response, if you know that you can put the other person out of their depth.
Textbook response, if you know that you can put the other person out of their depth.
"Insufferable nitwit interviewers at New Scientist, not so much."
Think that's a bit strong. I didn't take "you claim to be" as anything close to framing Musk as potentially lying.
"It is designed to impeach the credibility of the subject in the reader's view"
If that is the case there would have been more wording like this in the interview. I'm not seeing that in any of the other questions, at least nothing that is worthy of calling the writers at "Insufferable nitwit interviewers". Which in itself has made me think there is some general disrespect for New Scientist which I wasn't aware of. New Scientist seems to have fairly good demographics we're not talking about People Magazine here.
Think that's a bit strong. I didn't take "you claim to be" as anything close to framing Musk as potentially lying.
"It is designed to impeach the credibility of the subject in the reader's view"
If that is the case there would have been more wording like this in the interview. I'm not seeing that in any of the other questions, at least nothing that is worthy of calling the writers at "Insufferable nitwit interviewers". Which in itself has made me think there is some general disrespect for New Scientist which I wasn't aware of. New Scientist seems to have fairly good demographics we're not talking about People Magazine here.
i thought both the question and answer was good, but it didn't need to be first. i don't like fluff interviews, its too easy for critical areas not to be discussed.
(i do quite a few interviews myself).
(i do quite a few interviews myself).
"Our engine has the highest thrust to weight ratio of any engine in the world, our airframe has the best mass fraction of any rocket in the world - and our electronics are the lightest and have have the most computing power over that of any other rocket."
"The escape system's motors will allow the capsule to land anywhere in the solar system, whether it has an atmosphere or not - and that's pretty cool. These motors can even fire supersonically which is important for Mars: in the higher altitudes of Mars the atmosphere is so thin that parachutes are completely pointless. So retro thrusters have to be able to fire when you are supersonic so they have to be very high thrust."
I've always understood SpaceX's main goal is lowered cost, followed closely by safety. It's pretty awesome that they're also cutting edge in terms of performance.
"The escape system's motors will allow the capsule to land anywhere in the solar system, whether it has an atmosphere or not - and that's pretty cool. These motors can even fire supersonically which is important for Mars: in the higher altitudes of Mars the atmosphere is so thin that parachutes are completely pointless. So retro thrusters have to be able to fire when you are supersonic so they have to be very high thrust."
I've always understood SpaceX's main goal is lowered cost, followed closely by safety. It's pretty awesome that they're also cutting edge in terms of performance.
I was born on the edges of the 80s and 90s. I missed the entirety of the space race. I never even knew the enthusiasm towards space flight.
Suddenly SpaceX appears and in only 10 years looks in place to eclipse NASA. They're poised to achieve far greater things than merely following NASA's footsteps. I knew they were looking forward but I didn't expect them to be considering things so far in advance.
I'm genuinely excited by space flight now. I have the new space race (fought between SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Armadillo Aerospace and all these other companies) to thank for it :)
I'm genuinely excited by space flight now. I have the new space race (fought between SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Armadillo Aerospace and all these other companies) to thank for it :)
> I knew they were looking forward but I didn't expect them to be considering things so far in advance.
The stated, immediate goal of SpaceX is to "Make the human race a multi-planetary species." They want to put a self-sufficient colony of people on Mars. Everything else they do before that is a stepping stone to make it happen.
The stated, immediate goal of SpaceX is to "Make the human race a multi-planetary species." They want to put a self-sufficient colony of people on Mars. Everything else they do before that is a stepping stone to make it happen.
You should probably look into Apollo 11 and Saturn V and learn more about the rockets that put man on the moon. I love Space-X and I'm genuinely inspired by them and Elon Musk, but they are not very close to reproducing what NASA did 40 years ago, yet. And they have unfathomable advantages in technology, software, material science, and existing body of knowledge.
I trust you've heard of Planetary Resources and their asteroid mining plans? (Just surprised they didn't make your list.)
For now, they seem to be in the pie-in-the-sky type of stage, where all they have are "plans" and paper.
Comparing the two is a bit premature.
Comparing the two is a bit premature.
They also have preposterous amounts of investment money and a space telescope under construction. Literally under construction; they're making hardware as we speak. Most of what they want to do is still only on paper, but they're a bit further along than your post suggests.
I imagine that Planetary Resources may just be using someone else's launch tech, though the asteroid mining tech might be developed in-house (vs. out-sourced).
I actually expect that they'll partner with SpaceX and other launchers: one of the key things they're planning to do is to build fueling stations, which is not something I've heard that SpaceX is planning on yet.
Build the robots, ask SpaceX to put them in space, construct a station, permit SpaceX to use it to push further to Mars. It makes a lot of sense to me.
Build the robots, ask SpaceX to put them in space, construct a station, permit SpaceX to use it to push further to Mars. It makes a lot of sense to me.
I'm sure they're going to use other people's launch vehicles, but space races aren't just about how you get to space. Increasingly, they're going to be about what you do there.
The way mr. Musk voices his mind reminds me heavily of Steve jobs. Both wanting to change the world for the better. The only difference is that Elon is an engineer as well as an entrepreneur which makes him hard to dislike.
On a side note, I'm quite glad that this is getting a lot of press. Hopefully this buzz will create a demand for jobs related to space technology. I'm 27 but I wouldn't mind working for something related to that field once there is of high demand.
On a side note, I'm quite glad that this is getting a lot of press. Hopefully this buzz will create a demand for jobs related to space technology. I'm 27 but I wouldn't mind working for something related to that field once there is of high demand.
Musk says Merlin-1C has the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any (liquid fuel) rocket today. Well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK-33
Merlin 1C is 96:1, while NK-33 is 133:1
Obviously Musk knows what he's talking about, so where's the discrepancy?
Merlin 1C is 96:1, while NK-33 is 133:1
Obviously Musk knows what he's talking about, so where's the discrepancy?
Maybe he was talking about Merlin 1D, which will be used (starting from 2013?) in Falcon 9 v1.1 and Falcon Heavy. Merlin 1D according to wiki has thrust-to-weight ratio 160:1
There's a documentary about the NK-33 called "The engine that came in from the cold".
Pretty amazing story - the Russians had these engines hidden in a warehouse for over 20 years before the Americans found out about them and they were better than anything that had been developed in the meantime.
It's on Google video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5787437371570928
It's on Google video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5787437371570928
Good find.
"In 2010 stockpiled NK-33 engines were successfully tested for use by the Orbital Sciences Antares light-to-medium-lift launcher."
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the Antares lifter the other lifter by Orbital that's currently in parallel production to SpaceX's (but not almost never talked about in the media)?
"In 2010 stockpiled NK-33 engines were successfully tested for use by the Orbital Sciences Antares light-to-medium-lift launcher."
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the Antares lifter the other lifter by Orbital that's currently in parallel production to SpaceX's (but not almost never talked about in the media)?
Is the latter still in production? Maybe he meant among currently produced engines.
[Edit]
"About 150 engines survived, and in the mid-1990s, Russia sold 36 engines to Aerojet General for $1.1 million each. This company also acquired a license for the production of new engines. Aerojet has modified and renamed the updated NK-33 and NK-43 the AJ26-58 and AJ26-59, respectively."
But that doesn't mean they are in production. I'd check but the Aerojet website doesn't seem to be working.
"The oxygen-rich technology lives on in the RD-170/-171 engines, and their RD-180 and recently developed RD-191 derivatives."
The engines produced after the NK-33/43, using a similar design, all have a power to weight ratio of under 90.
[Edit]
"About 150 engines survived, and in the mid-1990s, Russia sold 36 engines to Aerojet General for $1.1 million each. This company also acquired a license for the production of new engines. Aerojet has modified and renamed the updated NK-33 and NK-43 the AJ26-58 and AJ26-59, respectively."
But that doesn't mean they are in production. I'd check but the Aerojet website doesn't seem to be working.
"The oxygen-rich technology lives on in the RD-170/-171 engines, and their RD-180 and recently developed RD-191 derivatives."
The engines produced after the NK-33/43, using a similar design, all have a power to weight ratio of under 90.
The Soviet NK-33 engines will be used for SpaceX's competitor's, Orbital Sciences' Antares rocket.
If NASA doesn't kill that program.
SpaceX has gotten so much publicity that killing commercial ISS supply is getting harder though.
But they can still downselect. You should fight against this politically.
SpaceX isn't doing very high performance rocketry if you look at their engines. It's a liquid oxygen - kerosene gas generator engine, similar to first big rocket engines everywhere in the fifties.
The NK-33 for example is a much higher pressure staged combustion engine meaning it gets a much better exhaust velocity and you get more payload. So are the RD-170 and RD-180 used on Zenit and Atlas respectively.
In gas generator engines, a small amount of fuel and oxidizer is burnt in the gas generator to drive a turbine which drives the pump for all propellants. After the turbine the gas generator gas is exhausted. In staged combustion, you put the gas generator gas into the chamber so it is not wasted and its volume can be much higher.
There doesn't exist US technology for oxygen rich kerosene staged combustion engines, so that's why either you use gas generators like SpaceX, or use Russian engines like Lockheed Martin (Nowadays United Launch Alliance) or Orbital Sciences. Boeing (Now ULA too) used an odd hydrogen gas generator for the Delta IV first stage engine.
The Space shuttle main engine (SSME) was a hydrogen staged combustion engine, a technological marvel with extreme performance but also complex and very expensive. It is a wonder of the world that they got it to work reliably.
EDIT: Which makes me think - Some Russian companies like NPO Energomash http://www.npoenergomash.ru/eng/ can perhaps be considered the Foxconns of rocketry. You can also buy propellant tanks and structures from Russian and Ukrainian companies.
If NASA doesn't kill that program.
SpaceX has gotten so much publicity that killing commercial ISS supply is getting harder though.
But they can still downselect. You should fight against this politically.
SpaceX isn't doing very high performance rocketry if you look at their engines. It's a liquid oxygen - kerosene gas generator engine, similar to first big rocket engines everywhere in the fifties.
The NK-33 for example is a much higher pressure staged combustion engine meaning it gets a much better exhaust velocity and you get more payload. So are the RD-170 and RD-180 used on Zenit and Atlas respectively.
In gas generator engines, a small amount of fuel and oxidizer is burnt in the gas generator to drive a turbine which drives the pump for all propellants. After the turbine the gas generator gas is exhausted. In staged combustion, you put the gas generator gas into the chamber so it is not wasted and its volume can be much higher.
There doesn't exist US technology for oxygen rich kerosene staged combustion engines, so that's why either you use gas generators like SpaceX, or use Russian engines like Lockheed Martin (Nowadays United Launch Alliance) or Orbital Sciences. Boeing (Now ULA too) used an odd hydrogen gas generator for the Delta IV first stage engine.
The Space shuttle main engine (SSME) was a hydrogen staged combustion engine, a technological marvel with extreme performance but also complex and very expensive. It is a wonder of the world that they got it to work reliably.
EDIT: Which makes me think - Some Russian companies like NPO Energomash http://www.npoenergomash.ru/eng/ can perhaps be considered the Foxconns of rocketry. You can also buy propellant tanks and structures from Russian and Ukrainian companies.
Has anyone yet done a successful launch with a NK-33 based design? According to Wikipedia Antares will be doing test launch this August with a design based on the NK-33, though.
After Elon Musk explained that it would be too dangerous to outsource the production to China because "rocket technology is [...] considered an advanced weapons technology," I'm surprised the interviewer didn't ask about potential dangers in the privatization of advanced weapons.
I do not agree with your interpretation. What he said was:
>>>"There's no Foxconn in the rocket business. And rocket technology is also considered an advanced weapons technology so you can't really have such a situation - so in our case manufacturing is necessary"<<<
To me his use of the word "considered" is meant to divorce his opinion from the stated fact. It does not reveal whether he agrees with it or not. To me it looks like he is giving one reason why a Foxconn of Rockets is very unlikely. Not espousing any opinions on what is or is not dangerous.
>>>"There's no Foxconn in the rocket business. And rocket technology is also considered an advanced weapons technology so you can't really have such a situation - so in our case manufacturing is necessary"<<<
To me his use of the word "considered" is meant to divorce his opinion from the stated fact. It does not reveal whether he agrees with it or not. To me it looks like he is giving one reason why a Foxconn of Rockets is very unlikely. Not espousing any opinions on what is or is not dangerous.
I doubt that Mr. Musk considers it to be advanced weapons technology (particularly given that China already has ICBMs), but the US government sure does: http://www.fas.org/news/ukraine/p5s1.htm .
Cost vs impact of ballistic missiles shapes current military strategy. A good example is how China's demonstration of a high maneuverability re-entry vehicle has shifted the navy back into building more destroyers to raise the odds of interception.
From this perspective, technology that reduces the cost to lob a warhead reliably is still advanced weapons technology.
But I also don't think fear should hold back progress.
From this perspective, technology that reduces the cost to lob a warhead reliably is still advanced weapons technology.
But I also don't think fear should hold back progress.
I'm pretty sure they are all privatized already, and have "Made in USA" stickers on them, which might answer your question. Chinese hackers gaining access to poorly secured systems has been more of an issue; although this could be a ruse [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage
[deleted]
To summarize, it goes something like that:
The aim is spacefaring.
1. We need reusable rockets 2. We should lower cost for space 3. Reliability follows automatically from above
4. We must iterate reasonable size projects to progress 5. We must tolerate failures 6. We must build many parallel and consecutive prototypes 7. Competition is good
Until now it's either been hobbyists or then NASA building something with billions of dollars and taking decades.
It is unlikely that a reliable, cheap and well working operational reusable rocket system will be built right on the first try, even with billions spent. Rather, you have to try different things at a reasonable scale, and then go back to design things differently. You can't know or analyze everything beforehand, what works and what doesn't. You must also be able to take risks in design. That has the potential of radical cost reductions.
All this is possible if you keep the projects small enough so that the failures don't destroy everything. With small enough steps, you enable progress.
I don't know if I write understandably. This is a perfectly sound concept but I find it very hard to make people understand that spacefaring progress is not reached by giving NASA more money and building the next big moon rocket. In fact, that would stagnate it.