51–60 of 188 posts
So SpaceX is now officially a government contractor. This may be the beginning of the end for them. Can we name any govt contractor with a $400MM contract that has stayed true to its entrepreneurial principles and not fallen into the rent-seeking abyss?
Musk is the most interesting man in the valley. This is awesome! Congrats to SpaceX!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty important observation. I will applaud SpaceX for their efforts as well, but there is a massive difference between transporting cargo into space and human beings. SpaceX claims their transport is cheaper but they have not claimed it is safer . If they are really aiming for the human transportation business I wonder if the true cost of their rocket ships will be much more on par with existing vehicles.…
From TFA: "This is a decisive milestone in human spaceflight and sets an exciting course for the next phase of American space exploration," said SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer Elon Musk. "SpaceX, along with our partners at NASA, will continue to push the boundaries of space technology to develop the safest, most advanced crew vehicle ever flown." So yes, he is claiming it is the safest, and I think he has good reason…
It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed". But a lot of stuff can go wrong - fast - when you're sitting on a big pile of potential explosives that under other circumstances you'd keep a safe distance from. Until they actually achieve it, you shouldn't throw the superlatives around. I will be the first to applaud if SpaceX achieves this goal. I am certain that they want to achieve this goal. Bu…
Well... Considering its predecessor, the shuttle, was one of the least safe rockets ever designed, it's not very hard to improve upon. Use multiple engines, avoid solid rockets (at least the ones that cannot be throttled down), mount your heatshield where nothing crashes on it, keep it simple...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious to know how this compares to other new aircraft testing, since there are already plenty of commercial companies in that space. Admittedly, spacecraft is a a bit different from normal aircraft, but something going horribly wrong in either situation still means almost certain death.
It's a whole nuther ballgame for commercial airliners, for example. They undergo hundreds of test flights and all manner of subsystem tests before getting certification. Of course rockets are single use. Most rocket designs will never fly even half the number of test program flights a commercial airliner has to undergo. The cost would be (hohoho) astronomical. A lot of the reliability estimates of spacecraft are real…
Actually one of the design goals for SpaceX is to develop reusable rockets. According to Elon in an ideal world, this would reduce the cost of a launch by something like a factor of 100. Elon claims that a realistic target is to reduce it by a factor of 10.
Of course as soon as you design a rocket to be reusable, the task of making sure it is still safe after a dozen or a hundred launches becomes much harder.
Every time I see something like a rocket or space shuttle launch, I can't help but wonder how much of the weight and cost could be saved using alternative methods . Even helium/hydrogen filled balloons could get them a good chunk of the way there. I know that would be horribly impractical for something the size of the shuttle and it's rocket boosters/fuel tanks, but if a balloon rig can get them to 120,000 ft they ha…
The job of the rockets isn't to gain height (that is a side effect), unless you are working with a sub-orbital design. The job is to accelerate the payload to around Mach 25 or so. The reason this is challenging is that you not only have to accelerate the payload, you also have to accelerate the fuel, fuel tanks, engines, and other associated hardware too. Which is why the promising techs mostly revolve around using…
Every time I see something like a rocket or space shuttle launch, I can't help but wonder how much of the weight and cost could be saved using alternative methods . Even helium/hydrogen filled balloons could get them a good chunk of the way there. I know that would be horribly impractical for something the size of the shuttle and it's rocket boosters/fuel tanks, but if a balloon rig can get them to 120,000 ft they ha…
The job of the rockets isn't to gain height (that is a side effect), unless you are working with a sub-orbital design. The job is to accelerate the payload to around Mach 25 or so. The reason this is challenging is that you not only have to accelerate the payload, you also have to accelerate the fuel, fuel tanks, engines, and other associated hardware too. Which is why the promising techs mostly revolve around using…
Every time I see something like a rocket or space shuttle launch, I can't help but wonder how much of the weight and cost could be saved using alternative methods . Even helium/hydrogen filled balloons could get them a good chunk of the way there. I know that would be horribly impractical for something the size of the shuttle and it's rocket boosters/fuel tanks, but if a balloon rig can get them to 120,000 ft they ha…
So, make them properly reusable (not just rebuildable, not just reusable only say 5 times, able to turn around and fly again within a week) and you will change everything.
To my knowledge there's only sat launcher in the world that's working towards this, (the Skylon Space Plane) but that's probably 10 years and a few billion dollars away.
I don't know how reusable SpaceX's grasshopper efforts will be (as I intimated above there's reusable and then there's reusable). But I watch with fascination!
It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed". But a lot of stuff can go wrong - fast - when you're sitting on a big pile of potential explosives that under other circumstances you'd keep a safe distance from. Until they actually achieve it, you shouldn't throw the superlatives around. I will be the first to applaud if SpaceX achieves this goal. I am certain that they want to achieve this goal. Bu…
> It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed" Well... Considering its predecessor, the shuttle, was one of the least safe rockets ever designed, it's not very hard to improve upon. Use multiple engines, avoid solid rockets (at least the ones that cannot be throttled down), mount your heatshield where nothing crashes on it, keep it simple...
According to http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/000940.html as of 2003, the space shuttle had the best safety record of any rocket design that had been flown to space at least 100x.
That fact would argue strongly against your claim.