101–110 of 305 posts
When does/do the research/space programs enabled by these more frequent launches start to benefit us all? It must have already contributed to something somehow. Agriculture? Defense? Oil exploration? Seems like the sort of information that's hard to find.
Falcon9 launched Starlink, without which the course of the Ukraine war might have been significantly different. There's also the plan to pull CO2 from the atmosphere to create rocket fuel. https://labusinessjournal.com/manufacturing/aerospace/big-pl... There's the Dragon 2, the only US human space vehicle in operation, as the Space Shuttle has been retired in 2011 due to expenses and safety issues. https://en.wikiped…
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.
This is completely false. SLS was established by Congress with various mandates on the technology and process to design and build it.
Falcon Heavy was not.
Many of the issues with SLS can be traced to Congress's requirements that they put on the project, like forcing it to reuse 50-year-old STS technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully once Starship launches, we'll never see a disposable core again.
Even a reusable rocket reaches the end of its service life eventually, and at that point it can make sense for the last flight to be expendable.
Now that Falcon 9 landings have become so routine, it feels surprisingly wasteful to see that mission profile with the center booster burning up without even trying. I wanted to write something about that lack of center booster reuse on falcon heavy feeling irrationally worse than a single F9 launch in the non-reusable profile (for a slightly higher payload iirc), but then I discovered that the non-reusable F9 profil…
When you are watching SpaceX launch videos, pay attention to the velocities at which the various engine burns begin and end. Reaching higher velocities (for comparable payloads, etc.) requires burning more fuel - so there is less fuel left in the tank to perform boost-back burns, entry burns, and landing burns. Not enough fuel for a boost-back burn (the typical situation) means "barge landing". Not enough fuel for an…
After the boosters stage the core will be throttled back up (if it hadn't been already).
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'.
Kinda nice to pay with your Amex and get flight miles in return.
Quoted post unavailable.
You mean ULA and Boing? Costs usually 5 times as much and takes three times as long to develop it, if it works at all in the end. Why the jealousy about people getting good money for good work?
This ruffles the feathers of a certain sort of "space commie", who have traditionally hoped that exploration of space would be impossible for capitalism, leaving space as the great utopia for the future of state-run communism. This was always a dumb point of view, but SpaceX has them particularly upset now because NASA is less involved in the design process than ever before, and it's becoming apparent that capitalism has no trouble getting to space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any source for this? I would expect that a FH launch that reuses all 3 first stage cores would be cheaper than an expended F9. A few hundred thousand extra in fuel costs for the side boosters is cheaper than the few million dollars that the 9 expended engines would cost. But I still believe you -- the infrequency of an FH launch probably increases the ancillary costs. I'd just like to see your source.
My payload numbers are from the FH Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Capabilities As for the price, the official numbers are $67m for a new F9 and $97m for a reusable FH (from their respective Wikipedia pages). Additionally, my reasoning is (as you mention) related to cadence. FH flies very infrequently and requires more ground expenses to prepare, recover and then refurbish 3 boosters. Addit…
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'.
"Check out our deals on launching stuff into friggin' space."
I never thought I would live to see such a service marketed this way.
Quoted post unavailable.
I am there with you. If only we could somehow make the public sector hire it's own personnel, pay it well and let it build the rockets instead of feeding either Boeing shareholders or the narcissistic idiot. Most people convinced of public sector inferiority only perceive the hollowed out and thoroughly corrupted husk left by the neoliberal policies. Mostly because it's been systematically destroyed their whole life…