271–280 of 305 posts
Did I miss something or did this rocket have no stack - it was a single stage (with boosters, but aside those still one undivided rocket)? Can anyone comment on that please.
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'.
Boeing lists aircraft prices for commercial planes: https://www.boeing.com/company/about-bca/#/prices (Although they note that the actual price may vary by configuration, so I guess it's not as "pure" of a list price compared to SpaceX). The highest there is $442.2 million. I wonder if there are any list prices out there higher than that?
[^1]: https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boeing-777x-9-first-fligh...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"wasteful to see that mission profile with the center booster burning up without even trying." My understanding was that the intended orbit / mission profile means that they must fly the center core in expendable mode. Otherwise, the satellite wouldn't be able to reach the intended orbit with the intended amount of fuel for the mission's duration.
Likely yes. Though there may be few ways to land the core booster: 1. Expend side-boosters to save enough fuel in the core for the entry+landing burn. 2. Land side-boosters on drone ships instead of flying back to land. First option is likely the least favorable one, since two side-boosters combined price may be higher than the single core. Even though the core itself is likely more expensive than a single side-boost…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a spacefaring vessel lasts long enough that it needs to be decomissioned due to wear and tear, that mf'er belongs ONLY in a museum. I hope to live to the day where that isn't universally true, but it is not today.
SpaceX would get considerably more than $10M in marketing / brand goodwill by donating to a museum. So for the first 1 or 2 decommissioned rockets, I think donation beats scrap ROI.
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…
The military propaganda at 9:30 was interesting. Showing Chinese people while saying "our adversaries". Has it ever been done so overtly before ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SLS is a joint project between many large bureaucratic private organizations, and thus design-by-committee is more of a function of the way that those institutions operate, and their need to coordinate with one another. Congress cared that it met payload requirements and mission requirements. That these institutions were unable to deliver within reasonable time and budget limits is a result of their own dysfunction.…
> Congress cared that it met payload requirements and mission requirements. This is just not correct if you mean that they only cared about payload and mission requirements. Congress mandated that certain technologies were to be used from non-competitive, single-source suppliers in order to prop up industry in particular congressional districts. Cost overruns are practically by-design because as long as it doesn’t ra…
Now that there is a critical mass of billionaire nerds and venture capitalists who want to build rocket companies, there is now competition in this sector. It is a case of monopoly vs competition. That is the real answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our brains are wired to see twins (and symmetry) as evidence of intent as opposed to randomness. Lots of examples in art, and of course both the WTC twin towers and the 9/11 attacks. There’s more power seeing two of something.
>Our brains are wired to see twins (and symmetry) as evidence of intent as opposed to randomness. This seems like a massive over-generalization.
Imagine you see a herd of deer trotting along, and one goes down. A hole, or ditch, or maybe a predator? Now imagine two deer go down at nearly the same time. Different implications, or at least different probabilities to the possible implications.
I'll stand by my over-generalization for now, but I'm open to counter-examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm sure the first couple will be preserved, but they'll quickly become as common as derelict airplanes I've always been a fan of putting such things on pedestals outside of public buildings, VFWs, etc. A bit less feasible with full rockets, but the engines at least would be fairly easy to put in parks so kids can climb on them.
You'd love Gasworks Park in Seattle: https://www.seattle.gov/parks/find/parks/gas-works-park
> About
> Gas Works Park has a play area with a large play barn, and big hill popular for flying kites. Special park features include a sundial, and a beautiful view of Seattle. Access to Lake Union is restricted at Gas Works Park, as the lake sediment contains hazardous substances.
Appear that that description omits the lede! But the park does seem singularly interesting per the Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_Works_Park
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, and that throttle-fiddling is required to get a good performance boost from using side boosters.
An earlier design has propellant transfer from the boosters to the core stage while they were still attached, but I guess that was decided to not be worth it (if the engine thrust growth was high enough simple throttling would be enough.)