Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
Dang my memory, I thought that was Clarke's Law but his is "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
2
2018 would start with 1 used flight for every 3 new. And over the course of the year more used flights will occur which also means flight rates would increase. Now it is averaging at just less than 2 a month. By EOY 2018 it could be as high as 4 a month. But the problem is that SpaceX capability will quickly outpace available payloads over the course of the next year. This would have a very big significance for the AF/DOD/gov.

A good overall view into the future, and I just wanted to add that 2018 will also be the transition point for SpaceX as they incorporate Block 5 1st stages into their mix. But because Block 5 should be far less expensive to reuse than the current Block 3/4, that could cause some temporary new vs used decisions that won't happen in the future.

The other complication is how quickly they can produce Block 5 1st stages. We know there are certain customers (like Commercial Crew) that will require new Block 5 stages, which if they take longer to build could encourage some customers to rely on the reused Block 3/4 stages.

A lot of factors at play here, and it's hard to know how it plays out without internal knowledge of what the priorities are. But it will be entertaining to watch it unfold...  :D
3
It is as Monteith named it: SpaceX does not launch on schedule. They launch when they are ready.
While that is true, and will remain true, we might see a day sometime in the next year or two where SpaceX is regularly ready before payloads are.  Maybe even including their own...
There already has been a few cases where the LV was ready but payload was not. But as a look into what could occur in 2018 with at year end a reuse rate of 2 used for every new, they could literally be waiting on practically every payload. Even though the year may end that way it will not start that way. 2018 would start with 1 used flight for every 3 new. And over the course of the year more used flights will occur which also means flight rates would increase. Now it is averaging at just less than 2 a month. By EOY 2018 it could be as high as 4 a month. But the problem is that SpaceX capability will quickly outpace available payloads over the course of the next year. This would have a very big significance for the AF/DOD/gov.

The scenario is that the AF could then be able to do real launch on demand. Such that payloads are stored to be launched when needed to replace not only malfunctioning but intentionally disabled ones on a timetable of launch in less than 3 months from request.

The reason I mention three months is because of the activation timeline of a stored payload not because of SpaceX. SpaceX with a surplus available USs and fairings with also multiple boosters ready to go could launch in as little as 2 weeks from the request. But the encapsulation and checkouts plus possible shipments from wherever the sat was stored will take much longer.

The AF probably sees SpaceX as being able to provide the mythical launch on demand that has eluded the AF for a long time.
4
SpaceX Missions Section / Re: Launch, Land, and Relaunch Party Thread
« Last post by kch on Today at 06:05 PM »

Literally, everything in moderation...  ;)

Including moderation?

I find your intolerance of my tolerance of his moderation of moderation to be intolerable! And don't call me a hypocrite for pointing out the hypocrisy of you pointing out my other hypocrisy!

(The above is a summary of 90% of the stupid arguments on the internet).

Sturgeon's Law lives ... :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
5
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Null experiments do not disprove other experiments. The fact is there is some evidence EMDrives may in fact work, but I agree that it's not yet conclusive and exactly when it is conclusive is somewhat subjective.
Null experiments specifically show that there is no force above the experimental sensitivity. They can therefore in fact provide evidence contrary to claims of larger forces. When experiments don't agree with each other, you have to look at the details to figure out which experiment did something wrong. At some point when the data that is "inconclusive" or "null" outweighs any "positive" and you have done enough sensitive enough experiments, the reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing to find. Proponents of the emDrive tend not to specify what "enough" is though. This is important to know so that you don't spend forever walking down a dead end if it doesn't work.

The original point, which it seems you are agreeing with, is that TT's claims that the experimental evidence available is definitive are not reasonable at this point. Especially when he says people are rejecting the evidence when they are asking for more and better evidence.

In general I think it's a mistake to take null results and make conclusions far the beyond the immediate experimental setup, such as conclusions about other setups being wrong. Criticisms of other experimental setups doesn't prove the results invalid or that the criticisms are valid. Judgement is involved. While I may want stronger evidence, I'm not as down on the current evidence as you seem to be. I think it's valid. Both EMDrive data and Mach effect data. What I said was just my opinion, not a statement about how "unreasonable" TT's claims about the data might be.

Also, the process you outlined lends itself too easily to fields of research being squashed by arguments from authority when one well respected researcher claims to show null results and junior researchers just stop working in the field.
6
The thing looks like the Howard Hughes "Spruce Goose" times two. The "Spruce Deuce" might be a good nickname.  ;D

Deuce Goose is better
7
Other US Launchers / Re: US Launch Schedule
« Last post by Olaf on Today at 05:53 PM »
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43728.msg1725774#msg1725774
Quote
L2 now has SES-11 realigned via range documentation as NET October 7. Window opens at 18:53 Local
8
SpaceX Mars / Re: IAC 2017 -- ITS v0.2
« Last post by Norm38 on Today at 05:48 PM »
Musk's speech is one week from today, correct?
9


Much more Tesla talk around here and Chris may pull this device out:

That will spark off a whole new conversation....

I don't know. Most folks around here are down to earth, well grounded people...
10
Is carbon fiber the key to making these propellant mass fractions possible? I already know that methalox has the bulk density advantage over hydrolox, despite the lower Isp.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next