<span style="line-height:1.4em;">...2: SpaceX ix able to build them cheaper because they're doing nothing but reinvent the wheel. They're duplicating work that was done 50-55 years ago.</span>
I wish to hell SpaceX (or someone) would try to do something that would actually bring down launch costs...
Don't understand your post, sorry. Is SpaceX reinventing or duplicating? Well, the aren't reinventing because of course, Elon Musk is fully aware of precedents. Neither are they copying because there is novelty to SpaceX's designs that take advantage of modern knowledge, computing power, materials and engineering practices. The entire business model of SpaceX is built on vastly lower costs to orbit. According to Musk, they can now do it more cheaply than the Chinese. Actual lower costs will mainly be achieved under the SpaceX business model once hardware is being re-used. They are now so close to achieving this.
They're reinventing the wheel because they're just imitating the boosters of 50 years ago. They've essentially reproduced the Saturn I, only with one more engine, and much less payload because the upper stage burns freakin' kerosene! Launch costs are still stuck in the tens-to-hundreds of million dollar range.
I'd love to see their reuseability plan succeed, but I'm afraid that went out the window when they chose to make the vehicle so long and skinny. Seriously, look at the proposals—like the one I linked to—from 45 years ago. We have the technology to implement something like that and bring launch costs down to a tiny fraction of what they are. Cutting them in half like SpaceX is doing (maybe) is not remotely going to accomplish anything towards increasing access to space.
(Nor is reinventing Saturn V/Apollo like NASA is doing.)
I'd love to see their reuseability plan succeed, but I'm afraid that went out the window when they chose to make the vehicle so long and skinny.
You’re ignoring the videos showing this very 10 story tall rocket take off and land exactly where it once was because…?
Cutting them in half like SpaceX is doing (maybe) is not remotely going to accomplish anything towards increasing access to space.
Sounds exactly like what you’re claiming, in fact. 50% better is something that just about any company in any other industry would sell their souls for.
Space tourism won’t start in earnest until we’re down to $100 per kilo, sure, but meaningful cost ratios already exist to greatly expand spaceflight capability.
(Nor is reinventing Saturn V/Apollo like NASA is doing.)
See, they’re going to the Moon again. That’s fine; we should. But Mars first.
I am not seeing anything like self driving cars, street level views of every road on Earth, high altitude balloon wireless internet covering the entire planet, human sized autonomous robots, contact lens cameras or singularity class AI projects out of Apple. I know that makes me sound like a Google fan but I am really an Apple fan and wish they would take on some really big projects.
None of those projects are making Google money and most of them may never make them any money. I suppose they are interesting diversions, but if their ad revenue collapses Google won't be messing around much longer.
The R&D budget may be tiny for a company this size, but it has apparently been tightly focused since Steve Jobs returned.
With this much money in the bank, I kinda wish Apple would re-establish a skunkworks R&D dept. to think different and do basic research in related areas.
Personally, I'd like to see some major efforts in the physics of light and lenses. Is there a radical new technology that would allow them to create tiny zoom lenses, for instance?
What makes you think they don't have a skunk-works R&D lab and working on assorted advanced science projects now?
There's not a person here that knows... and/or is allowed to say what Apple is doing with their budget. We do know that 1000's of employees at Apple HQ also have no idea due to traditional Apple Lab Lock Down.
The only question that remains is what guy (or girl?) that has access to any and all labs, pullls something from a shelf in lab A and remembers stuff being worked on in labs H, M, and Z... and envisions a new industry changing product. Then makes it happen.
I wish to hell SpaceX (or someone) would try to do something that would actually bring down launch costs—like Chrysler's SERV from 45 years ago.
Have you seen what Burt Rutan has designed? (well... his company, Scaled Composites, I'm sure there was another engineer that helped him )
The Spaceship One / White Knight vehicles. He's funded by Richard Branson through Virgin Galactic.
They are only sub-orbital at the moment... but scaling to orbital is not really the hard part... they've already proven they have a vehicle that can go to space and back... and do it again with a turnaround of a few DAYS.
Have you seen what Burt Rutan has designed? (well... his company, Scaled Composites, I'm sure there was another engineer that helped him )
The Spaceship One / White Knight vehicles. He's funded by Richard Branson through Virgin Galactic.
They are only sub-orbital at the moment... but scaling to orbital is not really the hard part...
Actually that is the hard part. Sub orbital is easy, achieving the velocity required to hold an orbit is the difficult problem. It takes. Lot of energy to go from sub orbital speeds to orbital, that is why the SpaceShip one combo only achieves a suborbital flight.
they've already proven they have a vehicle that can go to space and back... and do it again with a turnaround of a few DAYS.
I'm not convinced that Rutans ship could withstand reentry from orbital velocities.
I'm not convinced that Rutans ship could withstand reentry from orbital velocities.
Oh, there’s no way SS1 or even SS2 could handle reentry.
And really, $200,000 for fifteen minutes?! SUBorbital?! There’s honestly no wonder they haven’t… *cough* taken off… like SpaceX, who actually seems to be doing what a spaceflight company is supposed to.
At least, the first part. Next is actually going out into space.
Oh, there’s no way SS1 or even SS2 could handle reentry.
That was my impression, I haven't followed either of these machines as frankly they aren't that interesting. Many people don't seems to realize the huge difference in velocity required to achieve orbit vs getting high enough for weightlessness. Neither SS1nor SS2 seem to have the heat shielding that those high velocities imply.
And really, $200,000 for fifteen minutes?! SUBorbital?! There’s honestly no wonder they haven’t… *cough* taken off…
If you have the money to blow the cost is no big deal really. $200,000 is really nothing to get in on the dawn of a new era.
like SpaceX, who actually seems to be doing what a spaceflight company is supposed to.
At least, the first part. Next is actually going out into space.
The problem I see here is the lack of innovation from SpaceX. Rutan would have a more interesting solution if SS1 or whatever was replaced with an orbital container ship. That is if the platform was to launch resupply ships for the space station for example and if it could be accomplished at a lower cost with reusable hardware.
SpaceX on the other hand just manufactures rockets based on the same basic technologies we had back in the moon landing days. In any event I see NASA and SpaceX giving up on innovation and taking the easy way out with significant regressions in capability. Regressing to the Apollo capsule concept is a massive step backwards for NASA and is something that could have been left for industry in general. NASA needs to be working on a replacement for the spade shuttle. Not so much a shuttle as a plane. I can see us (the USA) being eclipsed by space plane technology within the decade.
SpaceX on the other hand just manufactures rockets based on the same basic technologies we had back in the moon landing days.
So? All that needs to be changed to that design is more efficient engines with greater delta V…
In any event I see NASA and SpaceX giving up on innovation and taking the easy way out with significant regressions in capability. Regressing to the Apollo capsule concept is a massive step backwards for NASA and is something that could have been left for industry in general.
How so? The Space Shuttle format is literally useless for anything you don’t plan to send back to Earth, and that’s not the kind of stuff that is innovative, space-wise. The Apollo capsule format works incredibly well for a moonshot, and a larger format (say, 25’ diameter) as a Mars hab. Retrofitted planes puttering around in space is just silly.
NASA needs to be working on a replacement for the spade shuttle. Not so much a shuttle as a plane.
That’s the polar opposite of what they need to do. The Space Shuttle killed innovation and expansion for thirty years.
I love R&D and the idea of pushing technology forward. But Tesla and SpaceX are telling examples because Elon Musk was able to develop them with only tens of millions, and he got an electric car that's actually better than gas cars, and rockets cheaper than anything any government ever built. Whereas Apple is investing billions for incremental improvements year after year.
Tesla didn't have to shrink chips and other components into an incredibly thin form-factor and make products at the rate Apple is producing them. There is much expense in spearheading the forward edge of such activity.
Tesla didn't have to shrink chips and other components into an incredibly thin form-factor and make products at the rate Apple is producing them. There is much expense in spearheading the forward edge of such activity.
An interesting point to make here is that Apple’s R&D doesn’t just go into product designs and software creation. It goes into the designs of the machines to MAKE the products in the first place. Because no normal machine can build the designs the way Apple has designed them, much less to the efficiency to which they want them built.
Tesla didn't have to shrink chips and other components into an incredibly thin form-factor and make products at the rate Apple is producing them. There is much expense in spearheading the forward edge of such activity.
It's like saying, "In 1995 they were able to reduce the nanometer process by 250nm to 350nm in a year, but now it will take them years just to go down 4nm from 14nm to 10nm in 2016." It's not really a fair measure, especially if we conclude that chipmakers are 62.5x worse than they were 20 years ago.
Tesla didn't have to shrink chips and other components into an incredibly thin form-factor and make products at the rate Apple is producing them. There is much expense in spearheading the forward edge of such activity.
That's my point really: what Apple is doing is very difficult and expensive but the amount SpaceX spent indicates that there are lower hanging tech fruit out there. But I guess a good thing about IT is that it enables so many other fields.
Samsung should contribute 5% of Apple's R&D budget to cover future theft.
Nah. Make them pay for all of it for five years straight. They’d be funding innovation for the first time in their existences, and it would cover the last five years of IP theft.
Whether during those five years they keep stealing is a question for another day in courts.
Comments
They're reinventing the wheel because they're just imitating the boosters of 50 years ago. They've essentially reproduced the Saturn I, only with one more engine, and much less payload because the upper stage burns freakin' kerosene! Launch costs are still stuck in the tens-to-hundreds of million dollar range.
I'd love to see their reuseability plan succeed, but I'm afraid that went out the window when they chose to make the vehicle so long and skinny. Seriously, look at the proposals—like the one I linked to—from 45 years ago. We have the technology to implement something like that and bring launch costs down to a tiny fraction of what they are. Cutting them in half like SpaceX is doing (maybe) is not remotely going to accomplish anything towards increasing access to space.
(Nor is reinventing Saturn V/Apollo like NASA is doing.)
You’re ignoring the videos showing this very 10 story tall rocket take off and land exactly where it once was because…?
Sounds exactly like what you’re claiming, in fact. 50% better is something that just about any company in any other industry would sell their souls for.
Space tourism won’t start in earnest until we’re down to $100 per kilo, sure, but meaningful cost ratios already exist to greatly expand spaceflight capability.
See, they’re going to the Moon again. That’s fine; we should. But Mars first.
None of those projects are making Google money and most of them may never make them any money. I suppose they are interesting diversions, but if their ad revenue collapses Google won't be messing around much longer.
There's not a person here that knows... and/or is allowed to say what Apple is doing with their budget. We do know that 1000's of employees at Apple HQ also have no idea due to traditional Apple Lab Lock Down.
The only question that remains is what guy (or girl?) that has access to any and all labs, pullls something from a shelf in lab A and remembers stuff being worked on in labs H, M, and Z... and envisions a new industry changing product. Then makes it happen.
I wish to hell SpaceX (or someone) would try to do something that would actually bring down launch costs—like Chrysler's SERV from 45 years ago.
Have you seen what Burt Rutan has designed? (well... his company, Scaled Composites, I'm sure there was another engineer that helped him
)
The Spaceship One / White Knight vehicles. He's funded by Richard Branson through Virgin Galactic.
They are only sub-orbital at the moment... but scaling to orbital is not really the hard part... they've already proven they have a vehicle that can go to space and back... and do it again with a turnaround of a few DAYS.
I'm not convinced that Rutans ship could withstand reentry from orbital velocities.
Oh, there’s no way SS1 or even SS2 could handle reentry.
And really, $200,000 for fifteen minutes?! SUBorbital?! There’s honestly no wonder they haven’t… *cough* taken off… like SpaceX, who actually seems to be doing what a spaceflight company is supposed to.
At least, the first part. Next is actually going out into space.
The problem I see here is the lack of innovation from SpaceX. Rutan would have a more interesting solution if SS1 or whatever was replaced with an orbital container ship. That is if the platform was to launch resupply ships for the space station for example and if it could be accomplished at a lower cost with reusable hardware.
SpaceX on the other hand just manufactures rockets based on the same basic technologies we had back in the moon landing days. In any event I see NASA and SpaceX giving up on innovation and taking the easy way out with significant regressions in capability. Regressing to the Apollo capsule concept is a massive step backwards for NASA and is something that could have been left for industry in general. NASA needs to be working on a replacement for the spade shuttle. Not so much a shuttle as a plane. I can see us (the USA) being eclipsed by space plane technology within the decade.
So? All that needs to be changed to that design is more efficient engines with greater delta V…
How so? The Space Shuttle format is literally useless for anything you don’t plan to send back to Earth, and that’s not the kind of stuff that is innovative, space-wise. The Apollo capsule format works incredibly well for a moonshot, and a larger format (say, 25’ diameter) as a Mars hab. Retrofitted planes puttering around in space is just silly.
That’s the polar opposite of what they need to do. The Space Shuttle killed innovation and expansion for thirty years.
Not so much a shuttle as a plane. I can see us (the USA) being eclipsed by space plane technology within the decade.
Elon Musk addresses the question of planes vs rockets at 44:30 in this video:
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/elon-musk-lecture-at-the-royal-aeronautical-society-2012-11-16
I love R&D and the idea of pushing technology forward. But Tesla and SpaceX are telling examples because Elon Musk was able to develop them with only tens of millions, and he got an electric car that's actually better than gas cars, and rockets cheaper than anything any government ever built. Whereas Apple is investing billions for incremental improvements year after year.
Tesla didn't have to shrink chips and other components into an incredibly thin form-factor and make products at the rate Apple is producing them. There is much expense in spearheading the forward edge of such activity.
Tesla didn't have to shrink chips and other components into an incredibly thin form-factor and make products at the rate Apple is producing them. There is much expense in spearheading the forward edge of such activity.
An interesting point to make here is that Apple’s R&D doesn’t just go into product designs and software creation. It goes into the designs of the machines to MAKE the products in the first place. Because no normal machine can build the designs the way Apple has designed them, much less to the efficiency to which they want them built.
It's like saying, "In 1995 they were able to reduce the nanometer process by 250nm to 350nm in a year, but now it will take them years just to go down 4nm from 14nm to 10nm in 2016." It's not really a fair measure, especially if we conclude that chipmakers are 62.5x worse than they were 20 years ago.
Tesla didn't have to shrink chips and other components into an incredibly thin form-factor and make products at the rate Apple is producing them. There is much expense in spearheading the forward edge of such activity.
That's my point really: what Apple is doing is very difficult and expensive but the amount SpaceX spent indicates that there are lower hanging tech fruit out there. But I guess a good thing about IT is that it enables so many other fields.
Nah. Make them pay for all of it for five years straight. They’d be funding innovation for the first time in their existences, and it would cover the last five years of IP theft.
Whether during those five years they keep stealing is a question for another day in courts.