Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
Interestingly, only 2.3% think they won't get any cores returned in 2015... That seems low, IMO. I voted for 2, but I think 0 has at least a 10% chance. (though I think this is a case where most people think they'll probably succeed a few times, but not that such success is guaranteed... People have a similar idea of the distribution..)

I could easily see them decide to recover every stage that they can, since that's got to be millions of dollars worth of hardware (and they can at least reuse the legs and fins each time!), even if refurbishment is harder than they expect. I mean, otherwise they're essentially throwing away hardware. So I voted for 2, but if they're successful on this first try with the barge (which has almost a 50% of succeeding), it could easily be 5 or 6 cores recovered.

Just because most people believe that there's a 10% chance no cores will be recovered, it doesn't follow that 10% of the people would believe that no cores will be recovered.  If everybody believes there's only a 10% chance of no core recovery, then that means everybody will predict some higher number where they think the percentages are highest, and nobody will predict zero.

I think their chances of getting zero are a lot less than 10% -- that would be a major failure in their entire design philosophy, for which there's no evidence thus far.
2
Here is a good article on Orion and Mars with many quotes from Mary Lynne Dittmar:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/1220/Can-NASA-s-Orion-program-reinvigorate-human-spaceflight-video


I didn't know it was out until this morning...not paying much attention to my own press (though I am just one of many; the author really spent a lot of time talking with folks and gathered a lot of different perspectives; hard to mesh them into one article.)  Thanks for posting!
3
Seems like a lot of cost and risk for a mission with little value.  If you are going to send men to mars, don't do a half assed job, bring a lander and accomplish something.
4
I say, are you challenging me to a duel?!?

-Trelaine to Kirk (Star Trek: TOS)
5
By the way:
http://www.lsgi.polyu.edu.hk/staff/Bo.Wu/publications/Wu_2014_CE-3%20Landing%20Site%20Mapping%20and%20Analysis.pdf

Found this from Bo Wu's website here : http://www.lsgi.polyu.edu.hk/staff/Bo.Wu/
According to the research history he got to practice a bit with ExoMars and LRO, before figuring out Chang'e-3

There is also this one that details post-integration of landing camera images into the local topographic map
http://www.int-arch-photogramm-remote-sens-spatial-inf-sci.net/XL-4/157/2014/isprsarchives-XL-4-157-2014.pdf
Quote
CE-3 began to descent from the lunar orbit at an altitude of around 15 km, and when it was about 2 km above the lunar surface, the descent camera fixed at the bottom of CE-3 started to take images. During the descending phase, hovering and obstacle avoidance and landing phase (see Figure 4), CE-3
descent camera acquired totally 4,672 images with a resolution  higher than 1 m within an area of 1*1 km and as high as 0.1 m within a range of 50 m from the landing point (Liu et al. 2014).
6
This is SpaceX you talking about and Elon's optimistic forecasts that always slip by a year or two.

Yeah, unlike NASA who have always been DEAD ON with their conservative forecasts.

So when is the next launch of a VentureStar up to Space Station Freedom?
7
Orion and Exploration Vehicles / Duel Orion Mission Possibilities
« Last post by Khadgars on 12/22/2014 11:50 PM »
With recent success of EFT-1, what are some possibilities of duel Orion missions? 

My understanding that two of them together have a mission duration of 4-6 months (please correct me if I am wrong).

Add a small hab in between them,  could be well on our way to a Mars fly-by?
8
VSATs don't require FCC licenses. Since they're point to point and can't interfere with the wrong satellite on the same frequency unless they're seriously defective there's no reason for it. Where you're allowed to operate a particular remote is determined by the satellite operator.
 2090 Mhz sounds more like a radar frequency. It could be used for ranging or transponders. Depending on where they are, it can also be spread spectrum, which is a lot harder to listen in on.
9
SpaceX General Section / Re: Number of SpaceX orbital flights in 2015
« Last post by Comga on 12/22/2014 11:33 PM »

Simple Excel plot of simple Gaussian fit Dec 22 with 339 votes
The outliers have alomst no effect on the fit.
(See what I mean about people avoiding odd values?)

Dear comga, Thank you very much for Counting all the votes. i can see your post  is the 114th, but your Plot Contains 339 votes. How is that possible?

I removed my post.  It had slipped my mind that the protocol is not to show how others have voted until one votes.
Apologies to the OP and group.
10
Iím really looking forward as to which spacecraft will be the first for its crewed orbital test flight. The first is going to get a lot of press especially if it is Dragon 2 for what I see as ďmedia biasĒ as it makes for a better storey to cover in their eyes... Not really fair but thatís the way itís probably going to play out... Good incentive for Elon to make it happen...

It really makes no difference to the program but of course only one company gets the gold, while the other gets the silver.

Unless Boeing is holding out on unannounced progress my bet is on Dragon 2 getting the gold. That's because of the way the entire competition was done. Each company was allowed to write its own milestones. SpaceX chose the more difficult ones that required creating and flying operational flight hardware while Boeing created lots of procedures and documentation and some really good boilerplate hardware to test some systems. ISTM that leaves Boeing at a disadvantage in that it now needs to create and prove the operational flight hardware that SpaceX has already accomplished. However it could also be that Boeing feels it can do the flight hardware faster than SpaceX because of its heritage capabilities. To me that's iffy but it could be.

I could be wrong, but that is my impression.

In Boeing's favor, they said from the beginning that they were using to the greatest extent possible proven hardware and designs (which many consider boring), so even though they are behind in terms of building flight hardware, the presumption is that when they do start building it there will be few surprises, and it will all go to according schedule.

Whereas SpaceX are going for a much more radical design, including designing and building a new compact and high performance engine, and although the CRS Dragon gave them a head start in hardware, and their CCiCAP goals put them further ahead (2 goals remain to be completed, however). We don't know what is holding up the pad abort, but if it is related to the performance and reliability of SuperDraco it could cause more delays. It could be a tortoise and hare scenario, although I am cheering for the hare.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next