211–216 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Appears" or not, but their offered prices and especially the cadence of launching stuff to LEO are currently unmatched, AFAICT. They'd run out of money if they did not make profit on most launches
Question is, would they make more or less profit by making new rockets versus refurbishing the existing ones? By how much?
At 74km/h you would reach space (100km karman line) in an hour and a half but you would need to keep going for another 20 days at that speed reach geostationary orbit in order to not fall back to earth when you exit the space elevator.
but do you need to reach geostationary? couldn't you just switch to a rocket at this stage? Maybe a small one to bridge the gap? I would have thought that the first kilometres are the ones where you have to invest the most work so if you just bridge them using the space elevator it would be still an improvement. Maybe for cargo the 20 days are not really important
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just the opposite. This is engineer-driven testing.
it's amazing how well this works for them. I think this is the main reason they can crank through development so fast. Wish this sort of development was more common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hi, i’m australian, the only time i ever use imperial is if i work with hydraulic hoses or (rarely) tell someone my height we pretty much only use metric, unlike the uk
Also Australian, can confirm although TV/monitor screen sizes are also usually expressed in inches. We also haven't made the switch to metric time yet ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's amazing how well this works for them. I think this is the main reason they can crank through development so fast. Wish this sort of development was more common.
The grand applause when they blew it up showed that it was a success.