81–90 of 219 posts
> "This is not just twice as difficult as any typical Mars mission; it's twice squared" So, four times as difficult?
>> So, four times as difficult? Or, by "twice squared" they mean to say "It has been squared ... twice". That would be 16x, which is probably more in line with the total deltaV requirements.
Remember when Uber’s business got a little shaky so they started making a bunch of noise about a flying taxi project that would launch soon and be cheaper than a car? Well this smells like that. Airbus knows that orders for commercial airplanes may be low for years as we work through the fallout of this virus. So time to go to space to give the investors something to think about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2031 is when the Sample Return Mission is supposed to return the samples back to Earth. Keep in mind slips happen in ALL sorts of space projects, not just SpaceX. I’ll take your bet. I want 2:1 odds: SpaceX returns a vehicle from Mars by the end of 2035 (UTC), and before the NASA-ESA sample return mission has returned its samples. I’ll buy you a beer/beverage (value not to exceed $10) if you win, and you’ll buy me 2…
Is that something returning from Mars _orbit_, or returning samples from the surface?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You agree with what I said, but the sentiment with which I said it wasn't positive enough, so now you've gotta jump in to defend SpaceX? That marketing scheme sure does work. It's no surprise that the best-funded company produces the best results, but it would be interesting to find out if a more honest company could produce better results with equal funding.
You don't need to wonder. Boeing has received much more funding for Starliner than SpaceX has for crewed Dragon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If ESA were building reusable rockets and not instead persisting with a pork-driven employment programme that happens to have a side effect of producing rockets, I'd agree with you. Until then ESA deserve to be hammered with criticism - and especially by those whose tax money etc. is being spent on an approach that is hurtling towards obsolescence.
What are you talking about ? So far Ariane program seems to be a commercial success. ESA on a scientific point of view too. It is true that Ariane 6 will not be reusable, although cheaper than Ariane 5, just like ALL reliable commercial launchers today (even tomorrow for ULA) outside of space X. It is clear that this is the future. However, these are only the first steps. I am not sure that today space X will be able…
This isn't an EU/US thing and I totally agree with you on ULA, SLS and I might add Roscosmos etc. I wish ALL launch providers would move towards reusability because in the end that increases the opportunities for getting humanity exploring space properly again, which is what I'd really like to see. Clearly Europe has fantastic engineers: why aren't they leading this transition? Why is it only SpaceX, Blue Origin and Rocket Lab that are actively pursuing reusability today (notwithstanding paper studies etc. from other groups)?
SpaceX Starship is planned for 2024, and with a cargo capacity in the hundreds of tons. Even if it gets delayed by four or five years it will be able to bring back samples before this is is even launched. NASA’s plans seem very slow in comparison.
NASA funds SpaceX though.
Question for the experts: what are the tests and analysis that we cannot do via a rover-based lab and hence need to send the samples to Earth? Asking out of curiosity (pun not intended!).
Simple answer from a space nerd: Rovers are small, light, and have very little energy. So what we can't do is anything that requires a large or heavy device or anything that requires significant energy. They break/fail. They take forever to make happen. Want to burn 20kg of soil to see if there's any trace of specific elements? You'll need a furnace. Those are both heavy and high-energy. You could do a smaller scale…
> "This is not just twice as difficult as any typical Mars mission; it's twice squared" So, four times as difficult?
>> So, four times as difficult? Or, by "twice squared" they mean to say "It has been squared ... twice". That would be 16x, which is probably more in line with the total deltaV requirements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2031 is when the Sample Return Mission is supposed to return the samples back to Earth. Keep in mind slips happen in ALL sorts of space projects, not just SpaceX. I’ll take your bet. I want 2:1 odds: SpaceX returns a vehicle from Mars by the end of 2035 (UTC), and before the NASA-ESA sample return mission has returned its samples. I’ll buy you a beer/beverage (value not to exceed $10) if you win, and you’ll buy me 2…
Is that something returning from Mars _orbit_, or returning samples from the surface?
Getting a sample from the surface basically means you need to do a deceleration burn to get into orbit, and then the reverse after grabbing the sample (which itself must be accelerated to orbital speed). No small thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2031 is when the Sample Return Mission is supposed to return the samples back to Earth. Keep in mind slips happen in ALL sorts of space projects, not just SpaceX. I’ll take your bet. I want 2:1 odds: SpaceX returns a vehicle from Mars by the end of 2035 (UTC), and before the NASA-ESA sample return mission has returned its samples. I’ll buy you a beer/beverage (value not to exceed $10) if you win, and you’ll buy me 2…
Maybe put it on http://longbets.org