Hasn't this been done before many times with far far lesser tech?
SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit
221–230 of 839 posts
Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not like Airbus’s hands are clean. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-...
The WTO is run by a very specific brand of economists that don't see the value in a country subsidizing an industry to maintain local expertise in that industry. I for one disagree pretty heavily with this ruling.
The WTO is run by bureaucrats who enforce the terms of the membership agreement. If national governments think it's important to subsidize local industries then they should negotiate agreements to allow for that. Don't blame the WTO.
Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit
#223Watching this launch has really been a bar-setting thing for me as an engineer. It's done what folks stated as a goal many times during the launch livestreams--I feel inspired to build great things after watching the success of this mission. Looking at the history of Musk and SpaceX, I just get this feeling of "I could do it too, I need to step up my game" and certainly hope someday I get the opportunity to participate in similarly incredible projects!
Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit
#224Congrats SpaceX! A job well done. I assumed this launch would be uneventful since SpaceX has been flying numerous missions to the ISS, and this one merely has people on it but is basically business-as-usual for them.
I think they've been flying the cargo dragon missions with a full-atmosphere pressure inside the capsule, just to prove that even if a person had been in there for a cargo launch they very well may have survived (at least, if they had a chair I guess)
The very first Dragon that went up to ISS had life support enabled. When it landed Musk himself said that had there been astronauts on board they would've had a nice ride.
Even though that was 8 years ago (!) I can still remember it clearly.
Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit
#225And right as the booster was landing on the ship the satellite feed cut out.
That's quite normal. It happens on pretty much every launch to some extent. Something to do with vibrations causes by the landing burn and directional dishes
They really should put the comms dish on buoy a 100ft off deck to prevent this.
Moreover, how long until we get a "brought to you live by starlink" banner?
Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more that the DoD props up Boeing in any way they can, from sweetheart contracts like this, to trade policies designed to destroy competition (the Bombardier thing), to outright industrial espionage of other firms (the leaks of Airbus's foreign negotiations). Edit: Changed Embraer to Bombardier thanks to emiliobumachar's friendly reminder.
Boeing bought a large chunk of Embraer, then refused to pay after Embraer split itself in two. Could you or anyone please explain what the DoD or its trade policies have to do with that? Or were you talking about another Embraer thing?
Sorry, Bombardier, not Embraer.
Them getting out of the commercial jet industry had the US's geopolitical fingerprints all over it.
Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit
#227This is a huge success for NASA's Commercial Crew Program. Both the total development costs ($1.7B and $2.8B for Crew Dragon and Starliner, respectively) and the per-seat costs ($60-67M and $91-99M) have outperformed all other NASA crewed programs since the early days of the agency. For comparison, development costs for the Space Shuttle were $27.4B, while Orion is estimated at $23.7B. (From https://orbitalindex.com…
Yeah well even a mac pro nowadays is cheaper than a zx80 in the 90's
Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit
#228How wonderful! Congratulations to the entire Space X team, this is a real accomplishment and I'm sure not one that came easily. It's exciting to see relatively small companies fulfilling roles that people thought might require massive military contractors. Elon is an interesting figure. He is, I think, a paradigmatic example of the imperfect creator. His undeniable success in difficult endeavors can create an aura of…
For me the better precedent for Elon's eccentricities might be someone like Henry Ford. Ford was an undeniable genius and innovator in a way that inspired broad admiration, but he was also troublingly paternalistic with his workers--providing above-market pay and benefits but expecting them to live up to his moral standards in their personal lives. He was also a massive sponsor of anti-Semitic publications and, prior to Pearl Harbor, a Nazi sympathizer.
Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the government paid to develop crew dragon. And they buy launch services which is another source of revenue. The government paid for Apollo. And once they decided they no longer wanted it, it became impossible to use Apollo parts, technology, or any of the engineers or technicians to put people into orbit. The capability "vanished." If the government never bought another ticket to space, Crew Dragon could be mad…
If Crew Dragon is only making money from the government, how would it still be there tomorrow if the government weren't paying? Do you really imagine that there will be a market for this as it stands today? How much training and medical evaluation have the astronauts gone through to ensure they could survive the trip and know how to operate?
They've already got several private customers who have booked missions.
Re: SpaceX successfully launches two humans into orbit
#230I'm surprised how I almost ended up tearing up and was close to crying while watching this. Saying this as someone who is not a huge NASA or space enthusiast. I did study physics, and I'm more into science than the average person though.
Me too, and I'm not even an American (but live in the US)! Would have wished they would make it a little bit less "good for the US" and a little bit more "good for the free world".