91–100 of 305 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first time the boosters landed side by side it was perfect weather and they touched down perfectly synchronously: https://youtu.be/l5I8jaMsHYk
that was one of the coolest things i think i may ever get to see in my life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to imagine - just look up the SLS program and it's budget + timeframe
The point you are trying to make is that that government is unlikely to succeed in terms of timeframe or budget, and that is probably true. Yet, your argument doesn't support that point. SLS is also a project that is built by private corporations. SLS vs Falcon Heavy is simply a battle between two different government contractors. One is not more government-based than the other.
Calling Falcon Heavy and SLS equivalently government-led is laughable. The amount of by-design government red tape and congressional district handouts is astounding.
Seeing those boosters land will never get old. I drive by one on my way to work every day and it's just amazing how large they are.
Possibly the most expensive thing in the world with a publicly listed price ($97M) and sales contact (sales@spacex.com)? https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf Just find that amusingly 'accessible'.
Has it ever been done so overtly before ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i believe the orbit and mass requirement meant there was no fuel left for landing the center stage. I think the configuration where they can't re-use the booster is called "full thrust".
Or ... "max waste" ... no harm being honest about it and keeing peoples eyes on the prize!
Possibly the most expensive thing in the world with a publicly listed price ($97M) and sales contact (sales@spacex.com)? https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf Just find that amusingly 'accessible'.
Listed price, and even a phone number to call. Go ahead, make an offer ;)
Quoted post unavailable.
It would cost 10x as much and would be 5 years behind schedule, intended to be the main vehicle for several decades (rather than soon to be replaced by an even more capable vehicle), entirely expendable, still stuck to its original parameters due to risk averseness and not at all commercially competitive. See: SLS, Space Shuttle (and to a lesser extent, Ariane 5 & 6) Falcon reusability was perfected through lots of e…
It's even worse than just risk averseness. There was a very telling comment by the CEO of ArianeGroup a few years ago[1] about why they weren't investing in reusable rockets--they were afraid that it would be too efficient, so they would end up laying off workers because they wouldn't have enough demand for new rockets. In the twisted world of government programs efficiency is often seen as a bad thing. Space programs are jobs programs. The SLS program was hamstrung by Congress requiring that it reuse 50-year-old Space shuttle tech because it's a jobs program. Getting to space efficiently isn't even a priority.
More recently ESA has reversed course[2] because SpaceX is eating their lunch, but they're still probably a good decade out from having a reusable rocket, and it's unlikely they would be heading that direction at all if not for the pressure from SpaceX.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/ariane-chief-seems-f...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/european-leaders-say...
Possibly the most expensive thing in the world with a publicly listed price ($97M) and sales contact (sales@spacex.com)? https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf Just find that amusingly 'accessible'.
Possibly the most expensive thing in the world with a publicly listed price ($97M) and sales contact (sales@spacex.com)? https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf Just find that amusingly 'accessible'.