Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
I voted 2.  I don't see one ship able to get under two halves in time.  If you need more than two it means you can't reliably catch the halves, so what's the point?

I'm sure it's been discussed, but wouldn't it be possible to make the halves tolerant of water impact and salt water exposure and just fish them out with one ship?  Seams like a lot simpler solution than catching them in a net.
2
Boeing suffers a setback with Starliner’s pad abort test

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/boeing-may-have-suffered-a-setback-with-starliners-pad-abort-test/

Quote
The engines successfully ignited and ran for the full duration, but during engine shutdown an anomaly occurred that resulted in a propellant leak. "We have been conducting a thorough investigation with assistance from our NASA and industry partners," the statement said. "We are confident we found the cause and are moving forward with corrective action. Flight safety and risk mitigation are why we conduct such rigorous testing, and anomalies are a natural part of any test program."

Quote
Boeing officials have apparently told NASA they believe there is an operational fix to the problem rather than a need to significantly rework the Starliner spacecraft itself.

Quote
One source indicated that this problem may not affect the uncrewed test flight but that it could delay the crew test.
So the rumors were true after all.
3
Looks cool.  Not holding my breath.
4
When it comes to solar power, the most low tech solution I can think of is concentrated solar using polished metal parabolic mirrors running Stirling engines. Homemade 10 watt Stirling engine:

5
Interesting article. It's clear that Charmeau operates within a really strong reality distortion field. Ignores his ongoing subsidies. Ignores that some SpaceX government launch prices are lower than some of his commercial ones, and in any case are competitively bid. Ignores that the entire landscape is potentially about to shift.

1. It doesn't matter how much Arianespace has reduced their prices, they are still higher than what SpaceX will be offering for the same service.
I wonder.  SpaceX prices have been creeping upward.  Jason 3 was $82 million.  TESS $87 million.  Sentinel 6A will be $97 million and SWOT $112 million.  Yes, these include ground processing costs, but that's the point.  Ariane 62 is aiming at $88 million USD and Ariane 64 at $105 million USD (based on the current exhange rate).
You're comparing base prices to fully optioned out prices.  Reality distortion field.

I don't think that's a very fair analysis of Arianespace's services or prices. For example, Ariane 64 is a more powerful rocket and is capable of dual launch so that's hardly the base price, not that Arianespace would use either for TESS. I also don't think Jason 3 or TESS were the most expensive missions pencilled in for the Falcon 9.

A better example might be how GPS III launches have crept up in price for the same service on the same rocket (Falcon 9).

"Base" is a reference to all optional services, and performance is only once of those options. NASA and USAF missions usually require more services.

Be that as it may, TESS and Jason 3 are not the most expensive Falcon 9 launches and you are able to fly a similarly-sized payload to similar orbits with Arianespace for less. To make a proper comparison, we probably would have to go apples to apples.

Maybe one of the best examples might be the LISA pathfinder mission to L1 using Vega versus TESS on Falcon 9?

The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that Falcon 9 is only really cost effective when full. It's a good size for that, but it can't compete on the small sat side or on the GEO side. Falcon Heavy seems to have the same capabilities as the Ariane 64 with core recovery, but without the dual launch. Seems like Arianeapce is going to be competitive on the lower and upper bounds of the Falcon 9 sweet spot.

That's not remotely apples to apples.

Launches aren't bought by the kg, you have to buy the whole vehicle. And in NASA's case, government regulations require that launch services are competitively bid, not purchased at a list price.

NASA can't buy launches on Vega, and no other vehicle than F9 that they could use was both cheaper and had the required performance.

NASA and ESA have different requirements. Even if they bought the same mission on the same vehicle (which again, they can't and don't) they would ask for different services and get different bid prices.
6
I also voted 2... one for each half... for now...  ???

It REALLY will boil down to (IMHO) how much control they end up having with the guidance system on each 1/2...

My guess is the risks v cost will show that one boat per 1/2 and at least 4 boats total (2 each coast) could pay for itself if they can retrieve them dry, undamaged, and at a low cost to refurb/reuse 75% of the time...  ;)
7
Commercial Space Flight General / Advanced Rockets Corporation
« Last post by Tywin on Today at 07:20 PM »
Well very interesting this company that seems to have patented a reusable spacecraft, SSTO  :o or called EALV. It has LEAPS technology that among other things promises ...


Quote
• A small number of life-limited moving & rotating parts (comparable to ramjets)
• Atmospheric and in-vacuum operation (with very little dead weight)
• Capable of independently generating thrust from idle to > Mach 18
• Efficient from a relatively low speed
• Average thrust/weight ratio of 40:1
• Simple high-efficiency intake system (Better than SCRAM and Ramjets)
• Easy to test on the ground
• Optimal nozzle expansion at all altitudes
• Available platforms

Reuse at least 400 times and prices of kg to orbit of less than $ 100: o
prices  :o

https://airbreathing.space/

It seems like a new company and there is not much more info, but what they promise is the wet dream of many space lovers ... we still need to know how much financing the project has available ... I hope it has an opportunity to demonstrate its technology ...



Link

Will see  ;)
9
Boeing suffers a setback with Starliner’s pad abort test

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/boeing-may-have-suffered-a-setback-with-starliners-pad-abort-test/

Quote
The engines successfully ignited and ran for the full duration, but during engine shutdown an anomaly occurred that resulted in a propellant leak. "We have been conducting a thorough investigation with assistance from our NASA and industry partners," the statement said. "We are confident we found the cause and are moving forward with corrective action. Flight safety and risk mitigation are why we conduct such rigorous testing, and anomalies are a natural part of any test program."

Quote
Boeing officials have apparently told NASA they believe there is an operational fix to the problem rather than a need to significantly rework the Starliner spacecraft itself.

Quote
One source indicated that this problem may not affect the uncrewed test flight but that it could delay the crew test.

10
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/boeing-may-have-suffered-a-setback-with-starliners-pad-abort-test/

Boeing suffers a setback with Starliner’s pad abort test
After the initial report, the company confirmed the issue.

"We have been conducting a thorough investigation with assistance from our NASA and industry partners," the statement said. "We are confident we found the cause and are moving forward with corrective action. Flight safety and risk mitigation are why we conduct such rigorous testing, and anomalies are a natural part of any test program."

"One source indicated that this problem may not affect the uncrewed test flight but that it could delay the crew test."
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next