711–720 of 772 posts
First Shuttle orbited astronauts and successfully recovered all intended components. Every Saturn 5 was successful, the 3rd flight sent a crew to lunar orbit, and the 6th put a crew on the moon. To date a Starship has yet to be recovered after flight - and those launched are effectively boilerplate as they have carried no cargo (other than a banana) and have none of the systems in place to support a crew. Some people…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The planes diverting were downrange. Also, I doubt they had much information to go off, and were essentially flying blind about where the debris were unless they had a direct line to NORAD. Do you have a better explanation why they are doing donuts over the pacific at the time of reentry, then were diverted? https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ABX3133 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N121BZ/history/20250..…
I was on r/flightradar24 and someone was listening on ATC and heard that one of the flights declared emergency due to fuel. Other planes were also caught up in the chaos but SJU was at capacity apparently
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can forget to carry a 1 in metric, too.
It won't save everything will will reduce at least two possibles routes of mistake (wrong unit, or imprecise conversion). OP wrote "km miles", which would create an incident. SpaceX uses metric system for that exact reason, because in the past, on Mars, accident happened because of imperial measures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be one of those components where it just needs to be built without problems, and improved safety means fixing individual design and manufacturing flaws as you find them, until you’ve hopefully got them all. This can work. Fundamental structural components of airliners just can’t fail without killing everyone, and high reliability is achieved with careful design, manufacturing, testing, and inspection. I’m…
High reliability of airliners is achieved by having redundancy of all critical parts. The idea is no single failure can cause a crash. For example, if system A has a failure probability of 10%, if A is redundant with another A', the combined failure probability is 1%. That of course presumes that A and A' are not connected.
The response to this was to make sure repairs are carried out correctly so the structure doesn’t fail, not to somehow make two redundant bulkheads or two skins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...operational achievement, not an engineering one. How would I distinquish between the two, esp wrt rocketry?
An operational achievement means excellence in building the same vehicle over and over, to the right tolerances, and operating it the same way every time, without fing anything up. An engineering achievement means excellence in designing a new vehicle, or updating an existing one, or inventing a new procedure, and finding the right tolerances that allow that to be replicated over and over without excess cost.
So using some wholly new process, like the continuous innovation involved in casting large parts, how would I separate ops and engr?
Forgive my ignorance. I'm just wondering how Ford's quality circles, or the Toyota Production System would work if ops and engr were treated aa separate silos.
Since we're kibitzing about rockets, I suppose the example above could have been ramping up production of Raptor engines to 1 per day (IIRC), while improving performance and reducing costs. If I wanted to emulate that process, using your methodology, where would I start?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Observer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Polar_Lander
wtf does that have to do with Curiosity program? All of these are 2+ decades old. Besides, you make it as if SpaceX couldn't learn from nasa mistakes, not to mention core team of SpaceX are ex-nasa already. what kind of elon musk logic is that?
That’s 20 years of learning how to design and land things on mars. They wouldn’t have been able to build Curiosity without the past experiences. The Curiosity program itself started in 2002, just a couple years after the missions above.
What people say is that knowledge in the field is extremely hard to transfer, and easily lost. As an example, apparently we are completely unable to rebuild the Space Shuttle and Saturn rocket, even though technology is vastly more advanced today. Each vehicle really is a “program” including all its people and supply chain. This is also something SpaceX is trying to change by building actual production lines for their engines and bodies, not one-off builds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...which has nothing to do with NASA the US government organization, or the NSF (FYI). It's just some independent streamers who apparently know you can't get trademark claims against you by the federal government.
NSF was started by Chris Bergen, a meteorologist by trade and a space exploration enthusiast, in early 2000s as a hobby forum (good old phBB) for people to chat about space and rocketry. I'm sure he couldn't even dream about becoming so popular so he didn't spend too much time coming up with a name (ie to protect himself against copyright infringement lawsuits). In fact I'm sure he would love to change the name now a…
The things real NASA produces are in the public domain and can be used for all purposes by anyone on earth, royalty-free, no copyright whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spoken like someone who is generating their opinion from their channel name alone. Those "independent streamers" provide live launch streams with multiple feeds using their own equipment and to top it off they have numerous very knowledgeable hosts for all their streams. At this point I suspect they are covering every US based launch from all the major players. Hell, today they broadcasted both the New Glenn and Star…
They should rename themselves NSF, short for NSF Space Flight.
NSF is taken, too.