171–180 of 839 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thinking of Europe, I have a feeling that it's just surreal that this launch is happening in America at the same time with the events in Minneapolis
There is an eerie echo of history here. The late 60's were the height of civil unrest in modern America. Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated as Apollo astronauts were preparing to land on the moon.
Quick note: Boeing got the big bucks at $5B or so for their crewed services because they have the "better" more reliable design. SpaceX only got $3B or so. Boeing running roughly 60%+ more per seat as well. So a real accomplishment so far for SpaceX to pull this off.
Best video found so far of it that covers launch and landing of falcon 9. Alas loss of signal during the moment, though I'm sure another camera angle/footage will come about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPLgs3ktyo
Like, they switch footage to another droneship with a rocket that was always there.
I wonder if these people believe in flat Earth, too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you can have adequate reliability performance and win on safety with a different choice of propellants. I also think general history of technology - including space technology - supports this point of view.
You're not arguing anything. You're saying "I think something else can be good too". Until you literally give an actual engineering (comparison of performance/reliablity/etc) reason that hypergolics are the wrong choice to make, this is effectively saying that "something should be different because I think so"
As with many discussions, we talk here mostly qualitative differences. Quantitative differences are harder to get by - for example, back of the envelop calculation says that 30 kg of peroxide in Soyuz landing capsule could be, roughly, replaced with 15 kg of hydrazine, so you'd have a 15 kg mass saving here, but in general actual engineering calculations are harder. I wish they wouldn't be such.
Given those very crude estimations and the practice, which shows there are no big unforeseen problems, we have a valid arguments for the alternative. It's an engineering argument, an estimation and not necessarily full calculations, and it's not effectively an arbitrary opinion. You may finally decide the issue using hard numbers, but since we don't have them now, the question stands.
Best video found so far of it that covers launch and landing of falcon 9. Alas loss of signal during the moment, though I'm sure another camera angle/footage will come about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPLgs3ktyo
They probably record locally as well so if the live connection gets disrupted for some reason you can download the complete recording (perhaps even with better bitrate) after the fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX has brought the costs down a lot. Around $500mil for a shuttle launch.
Didn’t shuttle have a larger payload? Up to 8 people and larger cargo. NASA gave a $55million estimate on cost per seat on crew dragon, which would be about $440 million to launch 8 people. Not sure that is factoring in reusability once they are willing to use that for crew missions (or offset price reusing crew boosters on non crewed missions). Another issue with shuttle was reliability though. It may take hundreds…
Stuff like spacelab missions can probably be done using the ISS. Some of the military capabilities are moved to X-37.
Certain of the satellite launching capabilities of the shuttle were hampered by safety concerns post challenger/columbia.
The ability to retrieve and return large cargo is still missing, but it doesn't appear many people are clamoring for it. It'd be nice if we could continue to service Hubble going forward, but that's mostly nostalgia talking.
The Shuttle was supposed to do everything for everyone and it met with predictable results. The promised economies and launch rates were never realized. The safety issues inherent with the design made its continuation nearly impossible.
Having cheaper, mostly reusable launchers that have capabilities that people actually use is way more valuable.
Best video found so far of it that covers launch and landing of falcon 9. Alas loss of signal during the moment, though I'm sure another camera angle/footage will come about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPLgs3ktyo
I've already seen conspiracy theorists online who claimed that loss of signal during every first stage landing is a proof that it's all a hoax. Like, they switch footage to another droneship with a rocket that was always there. I wonder if these people believe in flat Earth, too?
What am i giving to spacex and nasa by believing this? Its barely a drop in the budget.
I know you're not saying that, just baffles me.
Not very Kerbal, good job and goodspeed!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Boeing is forever crooning: "Yeah, but we put a man on the Moon." So NASA will lick their boots anytime and pay them whatever they want. Off course, if Boeing messes up again, the carpet will be pulled from under their feet.
I think it's more that the DoD props up Boeing in any way they can, from sweetheart contracts like this, to trade policies designed to destroy competition (the Bombardier thing), to outright industrial espionage of other firms (the leaks of Airbus's foreign negotiations). Edit: Changed Embraer to Bombardier thanks to emiliobumachar's friendly reminder.