News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight by sandworm101 on Friday March 08, 2019 @06:35PM (#19343305)
SpaceX is breaking new ground, but it isn't the first corporation to launch large rockets. The Saturn 5 wasn't built by the air force, nor was shuttle constructed by Nasa. These objects were built by contractors, corporations working under government contracts. The differences between SpaceX today and the corporations that built, and largely launched, the big rockets of the past is largely a legal distinction.

Space launch is also heavily regulated. SpaceX isn't free to launch anything. Every launch is subject to tight government controls on everything from the technology involved to the specifics of the range. Nobody is going up without US government permission. Their ability to "do" space tourism is not that different than previous space tourists on other rockets. That a corporation is selling the seats, and the passenger lists then being vetted by a government, rather than a national government doing both is again only a legal distinction.+

Re:SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight by simonh on Friday March 08, 2019 @10:12PM (#19344209)
The big rockets of the past were in very large part designed by NASA. The contractors did have a lot of input, but NASA drew up the detailed specifications and had the final say on every aspect of the design and engineering. Different components often had different manufacturers. For example each of the three stages of the Saturn 5 had a different manufacturer and all three were designed by NASA. The first stage was built by Boeing, but the F1 engines on it were made by Rocketdyne, all to NASA specs.

In contrast every aspect of the Falcon rocket and Dragon capsule design was determined by SpaceX. NASA set the overall goals and safety criteria, but you can see from the differences between the Starliner and Dragon designs how much scope the manufacturers had. It really is a completely different paradigm.

Re:SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight by dingaling on Saturday March 09, 2019 @01:31AM (#19344820)
> It really is a completely different paradigm

It has been done before; for example the Thor IRBM was a competitive bid between Douglas, Lockheed and NAA. Official specs specified the equipment to be carried but the bidders designed their own airframes and launch facilities.

Re:SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight by simonh on Saturday March 09, 2019 @03:18AM (#19345092)
From Wikipedia: The Rocketdyne division of North American Aviation was awarded the engine contract, AC Spark Plug the primary inertial guidance system, Bell Labs the backup radio guidance system, and General Electric the nose cone/reentry vehicle.

Douglas only won the contract to do the airframe and integration. It looks like a typical arrangement of the era. It’s not as if competitive bids have never been part of this process, they very often have. That’s not the point at all.

Re:SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight by sandworm101 on Saturday March 09, 2019 @12:55PM (#19347408)
Final specs on paper came from nasa, but only after much back and forth with industry. The fact that any engineer is paid by nasa or a private company is, as i stated, a simple legal distinction rather than a revolution.
Re:SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight by lostapathy on Friday March 08, 2019 @07:17PM (#19343537)
What other US-based company has had a man-rated rocket such that they owned the full stack, launch facility, etc?

Sure contractors have been involved and built lots of components, but this is the first time a corporation has owned the fully, complete product as well as the facilities to launch and recover.

Re:SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight by Rebelgecko on Friday March 08, 2019 @10:21PM (#19344233)
>What other US-based company has had a man-rated rocket such that they owned the full stack, launch facility, etc?

No company does (including SpaceX)

Re:SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight by simonh on Friday March 08, 2019 @10:37PM (#19344290)
This is in the context of the OP saying SpaceX will soon also own and operate their own launch facility, so that comment was contrasting the situation SpaceX will be in then to other companies. So I’m afraid your comment kind of misses the point.
Re:SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight by Rebelgecko on Friday March 08, 2019 @11:05PM (#19344375)
Last I heard, SpaceX won't be using Boca Chica for Falcon 9/Heavy launches. So they do have their own launch facility, and they do have their own rockets, but they don't currently have any rockets that they can launch from their LF (which isn't ready yet)
Re:SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight by jryle70 on Saturday March 09, 2019 @08:02AM (#19345915)
Spacex lease LC39 and LC40 at Cape Canaveral. They are exclusively used for Spacex's launches. SpaceX need approval for launches obviously, but they have full control of the cadence and timetable. NASA and US Air Force are just customers (albeit with higher priority).

They don't own the land like they do with Boca Chica, but from the operational perspective they are the same.

Re:SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down After Historic Test Flight by Rebelgecko on Saturday March 09, 2019 @10:22AM (#19346530)
That's not quite how things are in practice. At the Cape and Vandenberg they need to submit a scheduling request to the range. In the past, the Air Force wouldn't allow launches within 72 hours of each other. This caused some conflicts as SpaceX (and to a lesser extent ULA and Orbital/Northrop) upped their launch cadence over the last year. In theory with the Falcon's automated FTS they can launch more frequently than that, but I don't think that has actually happened.

Leasing the pad also prevents SpaceX from making certain modifications and puts some infrastructure constraints on them