News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX receives FAA approval for return to flight [pdf] by searine on Friday January 06, 2017 @01:11PM (#13338618)
The next few months are going to be back to back launches.

Let's hope Spacex can keep the pace.

Re:SpaceX receives FAA approval for return to flight [pdf] by londons_explore on Friday January 06, 2017 @01:53PM (#13339066)
I hope they have the whole thing super-practiced and can do one per week like a big production line.

Big planes, which are of similar complexity, have production lines rolling off one per day, so it's doable with the right processes.

Re:SpaceX receives FAA approval for return to flight [pdf] by thelambentonion on Friday January 06, 2017 @05:09PM (#13340743)
Big planes have an order of magnitude lower complexity than a rocket of the Falcon 9's caliber. That's a somewhat subjective statement, I'm sure, but even if it weren't the case there's so much variation between each Falcon 9 I'd be surprised if they could crank that many out with any reasonable amount of QA.
Re:SpaceX receives FAA approval for return to flight [pdf] by msl on Saturday January 07, 2017 @02:20AM (#13342825)
The Soviet Union managed to produce their Soyuz-U rockets at a higher pace than that some four decades ago [1] while achieving a success rate of > 97%. Sure, it's a different rocket with different capabilities, but it was also a long time ago.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-U

Re:SpaceX receives FAA approval for return to flight [pdf] by NegativeLatency on Friday January 06, 2017 @05:40PM (#13340968)
Big planes generally have better failure modes as well, and humanity has more experience in producing/operating planes than rockets.
Re:SpaceX receives FAA approval for return to flight [pdf] by 6stringmerc on Friday January 06, 2017 @05:08PM (#13340737)
...one only has to make a similar comparison between Tesla and a variety of auto manufacturing firms to note there is a distinct whiff of under-performance and delays that, by outward appearances, appear to be top-down culturally.