111–120 of 839 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is quite an achievement. This paves the way forward for eventual space colonization.
Agree with it being an achievement. And watching the first stage land was amazing. But chemical engines can get us only to the asteroid belt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree with it being an achievement. And watching the first stage land was amazing. But chemical engines can get us only to the asteroid belt.
And 116 years ago an engine could only fly us from the top of a hill to the bottom. Don’t underestimate how quickly technology can change what’s possible :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the whole quote is in order here. > I suspect it's a question which is considered less important so far, so SpaceX didn't pay that much attention to it, considering they had to do a lot of other things already. They had a lot of other things to work on, so they - because of that, I suspect - didn't pay that much attention to it. I don't think it's the same as what you wrote.
I strongly suspect they've given the matter orders of magnitude more engineer-hours of consideration than you have. Yes, they have many other things to consider as well; that's why they have a lot of engineers.
And right as the booster was landing on the ship the satellite feed cut out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone know how on schedule crew dragon was? Apparently: Musk plans to send a SpaceX rocket to Mars, with cargo only, by 2022, according to the SpaceX website. A second mission, which would take more cargo and crew, is targeted for 2024 So, realistically, 2030?
Less than a year behind after the issue they had in Aug 2019. However the mission to Mars isn't a direct linear descendant of this so it may slip more or less.
It is hard to convey how "sustainable" this feels to me. For the first time, humans have gone into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. All of the NASA missions prior to this have an ambience of "uneconomical but useful". Even the shuttle, which was supposed to be this cost effective space truck, turned out to be not even close. And the last thing I'm feeling is the a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your posts use terms like "inferior" to automatically shift the conversation to the notion that hypergolics are inferior solely because they are dangerous chemicals, and ignore engineering decisions that are made. Its the same as arguing that RP1 engines are inferior to H2 engines because RP1 is based off fossil fuels. It's not relevant to the point.
Dangerousness is relevant, and it's in this aspect which inferiority is mentioned.
Good to know thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less than a year behind after the issue they had in Aug 2019. However the mission to Mars isn't a direct linear descendant of this so it may slip more or less.
I would expect Elon to push really hard to send something to Mars in 2022 aboard Starship, even if it's just an empty ship. They need to try navigating with precision and landing. It's a 2 year delay if they miss that window.
Why the MRAP though?