Do you have any particular insights how to get a reply from the HR? Applied twice through this form to a super relevant position with matching skills -- no reply, not even a negative one.
All at the time when I'm rejecting other offers expecting to have a chance to talk to SpaceX.
Hey, I work at SpaceX, and made the initial contact through HN. What kind of position are you looking for? If it's software, I can at least make sure someone internally looks at your resume.
First, "hard" landing doesn't necessarily mean "high speed". It's a generic term for unsuccessful landing. It could be incorrect attitude landing (e.g. tilted) or anything else. In this case it looks like it was exactly that: landed tilted or with significant horizontal speed. If it was high vertical speed, we would've seen big scrapes on the platform's surface, and there's none.
Contrary to popular belief, the fins are _extremely_ effective even at low speeds. First, they have enormous surface area. Secondly, they have huge momentum around the center of mass, which is at the very bottom of the rocket when it's empty. So, even a small force generated by the fins generates huge momentum and can help position the rocket in the desired attitude.
It looks like the control system was commanding the fins to move and was expecting the attitude to change, but they didn't move anymore. Perhaps at the very end of the flight the gimbals on the engine didn't have enough authority to orient the rocket vertically and/or arrest its horizontal speed.
I think it's amazing achievement for the very first attempt. Congrats SpaceX and I'm jealous like hell for what you've been able to achieve.
> I think it's amazing achievement for the very first attempt.
People don't understand this enough. They took the stage of a rocket from supersonic speeds to a tiny barge in the ocean. Even though they didn't complete the objective, they were successful in showing that the theory holds up.
On top of what you've said I don't think enough people get the scale of this task. This is decelerating, balancing, and maneuvering a 14 story tall object, from supersonic speed at the edge of space, onto a tiny barge in the ocean. It's mind boggling when you look at the scope of what they are pulling off.
I saw this same remark during the particle experiments at the LHC. If they discovered the Higgs, then we learn that our guess was right. If they can't find any evidence of the Higgs, then we learn that we might not be right. In any case, we learn things.
I liked to apply that to the Rosetta mission as well. The happy-path goal was to land a craft on a comet. If everything went 120% better than expected, then we would get a large amount of data about the surface of comets. If things went the way they did in actuality, then we get a large amount of data about comets. In either case, we learn a hell of a lot more than we did having not done the mission, regardless of it's outcome.
Science and knowledge isn't binary. Sure, you can say you either know something or you don't, but knowing something has a range of n through infinity. "Failure" gives you the option to learn more.
>> I think it's amazing achievement for the very first attempt.
I completely agree. I was just confused by the term "hard landing" and the effectiveness of the grid fins at low speed. It didn't make complete sense to me. As for my "stupid mistake" comment, I guess running out of fluid is also as simple as it gets if that's all that went wrong, and they are owning up to that.
That said, this is only a "first attempt" at putting it all together. I had fairly high confidence in them. Remember, they hovered and landed in Texas. Their first controlled re-entry failed, the second made it to the sea with onboad camera, the third was seen hovering at low speed from a plane. They had no reason to think this wouldn't work - which is not the same as having high confidence that it will work ;-) Putting it all together often leads to interesting things...
I'm still impressed and look forward to the next one.
Sounds like a very cool project. Any idea where we can find more info on it? Specifically, it would be interesting to learn where does the freed Carbon go: this topic is not covered in images and the little text that is available on the site. Also (or perhaps related to it) what's the longevity of the leaf and what does it require for photosynthesis to run (regular leafs require at least water and removal or generated organic material)
There's something wrong with the math here. 100 km/s delta-V means you go from standstill to 100 km/s. Solar system's escape velocity is 42 km/s at Earth's orbit. By the very definition, any A->B travel for any A and B within the solar system, requires less delta-V if Hoffman's orbits are used.
In reality the delta-V for Earth_surface -> Mars_surface journey is between 19 and 21 km/s (depending on the relative position of the two bodies) for Hoffman's orbits. Without using aerobreaking. If using aerobreaking, it's less by about 3-4km/s [1]
Drive one. Rent/borrow one for a day: it's possible and doable. Take it to a mountain road, take corners faster than you should, then report back.
I owned and tracked E46 M and E37 M Roadster. Sold the last one when I got my Model S. Now I will never go back to an Internal Combustion Engine. Yes, the Model S is not an M3 and won't last through a lap on any decent raceway. But it's not the goal. It's beyond adequate for everyday driving AND for fun through the mountain curves. It's got impeccably precise throttle response, unbelievable lateral grip and no body roll due to incredibly low center of gravity. The fact that it's fully charged every morning for nearly free, that the juice is free in the superchargers and that it's cargo volume and crash safety are out of its class, is just icing on top. The point is: for ALL uses (but tracking) this $70-120K car is better than anything in the $100-300K category.
My friends own 997 4S, E93 M, Viper, E39 M, F10 M, S6 and whatever the GTR Nizmo is (all US spec). Some of them are tracked, some are not. Half of them have deposits down for a Model S.
Another point: Juan Pablo Montoya owns one and uses it as his daily driver.
I have to be driving less than 7000mi/year for Uber to make financial sense over my Model S P85+.
Let me repeat that: from purely economical perspective, if driving more than 7000 miles/year, Tesla Model S P85+ is cheaper than Uber.
Here are the numbers. Basic assumptions:
gas : $4/gal (don't know if it's even a valid number anymore)
power: $.1/kWh
Tesla Model S P85+:
depreciation: $1/mile + $300/month (the $300 per months is a sandbagging factor, in reality it doesn't exist)
power: $.033/mile
maint: $600/year covers everything
tires: $1600 (P85+ goes through the full set once a year, depending on how you drive)
registration: $60/year
insurance: $600/year
parking: $300/year (suburbia, I hear you say. yeah, that's right)
---------
7000 miles => $13993
Uber:
7000 miles => $14000
For comparison: My old BMW M Roadster (yr. 2000, ~100K miles on the clock):
depreciation: $1500/year
gas: $1470 for the 7K miles
maint: ~$2000/year (it's old)
tires: $1000/year (chews through one set of good, soft tires. I like fast corners)
tabs: $100/year
insurance: $600/year
parking: $300/year
---------
7000 miles => ~$7000
We also live in an age of visas, rogue governments holding your (expir{ing|ed}) passport for ransom for stupid things like compulsory military service. Not everybody can change that part of the situation.
Lets cool our heads a bit. It's not that "impossible" to crash a modern car with ABS, EBD, TC and ST. I'm a living-breathing evidence to the fact that none of these technologies can do anything if the car hits a paddle of water/sand going too fast around a bend. I'm not saying that this is exactly what happened but do we know that it didn't?
All at the time when I'm rejecting other offers expecting to have a chance to talk to SpaceX.