Quote from: TrevorMonty on 08/28/2014 10:22 amStrange that NASA is happy to fly their reusable vehicle multiply times, but don't trust a private company's reusable vehicle. NB Orion is also planned to be reused a few times.Garrett (Reisman, not me; I always find it weird talking about namesakes) said it would complicate the certification process. So the decision not to offer reused Dragons was made by SpaceX, not NASA. Now, whether NASA's certification process deserves criticism is another story ...
Strange that NASA is happy to fly their reusable vehicle multiply times, but don't trust a private company's reusable vehicle. NB Orion is also planned to be reused a few times.
Quote from: rpapo on 08/28/2014 04:16 pmYou don't need to send ships out to fish the capsule out of the water, and you have much less chance of seawater leaking in.You can avoid those also by landing on ground with parachutes like Soyuz and Shenzhou (albeit using last second retro rockets).
You don't need to send ships out to fish the capsule out of the water, and you have much less chance of seawater leaking in.
Don't overlook the possible impact damage for parachute landings, or the added mass to LEO (reduced payload) of the landing thrusters being carried all the way up instead of discarded.
Soyuz has had partial parachute failures
Quote from: SpacexULA on 08/28/2014 04:33 pmSoyuz has had partial parachute failuresApollo has three main chutes while Soyuz has only one. When Apollo 15's chute failed it still had two more to bring it down. The Soyuz chute failure killed the cosmonaut because the spacecraft impacted the ground at terminal velocity.
Not sure if this is the best thread for this question, so mods, please move it to wherever it needs to be.After 50+ years of continued developments in human spaceflight technologies, why is it that communications between the ground and crews aboard orbiting spacecraft (and launching ones too) are still so poor in terms of audio quality?
Why waste downlink bandwidth on an unnecessarily high audio bitrate when you can use it for more meaningful telemetry?
Realistically, how likely is it that an anomaly will occur due to launching in inclement weather?Is it realistic that future LV's will be capable of flying all but the most intense weather, just like all other forms of transport? Seems like a necessary development if SF is to become as routine as other regular flight in the future, given how often weather causes delays.
Seems kinda like the opposite, the Saturn V and the old reliable Soyuz have happily launched in terrible weather, but these new launch vehicles don't.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/20/2014 05:22 amSeems kinda like the opposite, the Saturn V and the old reliable Soyuz have happily launched in terrible weather, but these new launch vehicles don't.so much for progress
Quote from: Avron on 09/20/2014 08:56 pmQuote from: QuantumG on 09/20/2014 05:22 amSeems kinda like the opposite, the Saturn V and the old reliable Soyuz have happily launched in terrible weather, but these new launch vehicles don't.so much for progressAgain, look up Apollo 12 for a weather lesson.
Quote from: ugordan on 09/20/2014 09:09 pmQuote from: Avron on 09/20/2014 08:56 pmQuote from: QuantumG on 09/20/2014 05:22 amSeems kinda like the opposite, the Saturn V and the old reliable Soyuz have happily launched in terrible weather, but these new launch vehicles don't.so much for progressAgain, look up Apollo 12 for a weather lesson.Sometimes things get pushed a little far.. still they all made it..