Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 Next
If trump passes this, when will the gvt. Reopen? Is there a process after the signing to reopen, or do they just open right away?
Not all departments of any agency are closed so the ones that are will probably begin to show up at their normal start time...
More good news:

SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission

"Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lieutenant General John Thompson, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, told Bloomberg News. This qualified conclusion came after a preliminary review of data from the Zuma launch. That's according to Thompson, who said the Air Force will continue to review data from all launches.

Bloomberg has a write-up on it also - maybe nothing new to add, but more visible to the business and government crowd than Ars:

SpaceX Keeps U.S. Air Force's Confidence After Satellite's Loss - Bloomberg

Regardless what everything THINKS may have happened, the RESULT is that nothing has changed in the eyes of the USAF or NASA about the reliability of the Falcon 9.
So was wondering why SLS kept the clean-pad design of the Ares I ML and tower vs moving the FSS to the Pad surface like Shuttle. The clean pad made sense for Ares as you had two separate LVs, but with SLS after EM-1/only Block 1A flight the vehicle should have a fixed height for umbilicals. By removing the Tower from the ML you free up a lot of space and most importantly weight on it.

The original concept was to have a shared pad with commercial launcher(s). 
That seems to be on indefinite hold.
If trump passes this, when will the gvt. Reopen? Is there a process after the signing to reopen, or do they just open right away?
A small, recoverable vehicle can be done by a completely different strategy than RL and Vector use with expendables.

RL is about concise execution of minimal LV propulsion/frame/tanks with very narrow manufacturing/materials, so watching them bring it off was like that of an extremely narrow program that was brought in over time to hit the numbers *exactly*.

(Vector seems to be about stretching a marginal approach (pressure fed polypropylene lox props/tank/structure) to barely meet minimums.) Perhaps top down vs bottom up.

If you were to do a small recoverable vehicle, you'd have a combined bottom up and top down approach, where you'd be reusing the same CF airframe, but replacing portions to extend the dynamic range of the vehicle after each recovery. This would be the long way round the barn to prove systems to reach orbit, but highly economical at each step (due to reuse).

You'd worry about never getting there. (Although everyone, including ULA and SX does that with new/next vehicles.)

The key to it would be a highly dynamic risk regime, especially WRT props/materials/engine, because you'd need significant propulsion margin to get somewhere significant soon enough to matter. Likely a lot of "booms" at the beginning.

SX had most of their booms in the middle of the program. ULA will likely have no booms.

So this would be more like Armadillo or Masten. They all have considerably different approaches.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?) there's no pressing military need for suborbital spaceflight :)

Double digit annual deaths are okay for skydiving. Same with skiing/snowboarding and, of course, mountain climbing. Adventure sports have fatalities. Rollercoasters are more like single digit annual deaths.

An SSO program that lost two vehicles per year still would have been less dangerous than rollercoasters.
Commercial Space Flight General / Re: Space Ship Two - General Thread (3)
« Last post by Jim on 01/22/2018 11:26 PM »
This obsession with safety has killed the nascent industry. If aircraft were developed the same way we'd still be flying biplanes, if at all. Getting to market and servicing willing customers should be the priority, not debating how safe it is. Fly, innovate, fly some more.

Aircraft were developed during a timeframe when wars would have casualties of more than 10,000 per day.  Human life was less valued.  It was common for construction projects to lose several people without an uproar.   Now people don't accept any on the job deaths and ring their hands over more than 10 dead per day for any recent battle.

So the comparison to early aviation is invalid because of the different social norms.
Can we make sure Senator Shelby gets a copy of that medium article...or the Air Force's report?  :P
My point is that the follow on program didn't succeed more, just "killed" more. A less than dubious advantage, especially to a program that originally made a big thing about safety, not me making a big thing about safety.

It was flat out stupid to believe that SSO needed to be avoided as a program because it was unsafe - it was the ideal case to be made effective first, which means stable and reliable (probably also means safe).

Because then you'd have a means to test your propulsion/other systems, concurrent with your commercialization plans. When you'd learned more, including operations, then you might make it handle a higher payload to allow for a better commercial return per flight.

They just assumed they could do it all, at once.

Generally in those cases, it's because you are cheap and impatient, and you get what they got as a direct result.
SpaceX General Section / Re: SpaceX CCtCAP Milestones
« Last post by QuantumG on 01/22/2018 11:17 PM »
Actually, all opinions are welcome.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 Next