Vanderbilt: ... Bureaucrats tend to relax to lowest possible energy state.
Conference is over, lots of fun, time for the bar!
No, he was saying that NASA, being a government program, focuses on putting a lot of money into adding only a modicum of safety.
Echoing an argument made earlier in the conference, companies don't make money killing people (especially if they are a start-up), so the free market does tend towards efficient (rather than showy) safety systems.
Rich Pournelle on NanoRacksDeveloped as racks for experiments on ISS. 4x4 Cubesat form factor. $25 k for 30 days on station, without return. More for return. Flys in space-qualified camera bag. About 50 payloads so far. 1U, 3U and 4U sizes. All-commercial system; great relationship with NASA. Open source standard.
Gwynne Shotwell, President of SpaceX...Falcon 1 program is inactive until at least early next year. FH core almost (but not quite) full when boosters separate. ...Production rate of 12 F9s by 2013. ...Might have redundant engines on second stage in future! ...Elon driving for reusability; continuing work on both first and second stage recovery. Merlin 1D on test stand now. Still really want to build a F-1 class engine. ...FH: C3=3 km2/s2 -> 12 tonnes, C3=90 km2/s2 -> 3 tonnes. Still optimizing trajectories for FH. ...Did look at Falcon 1e Heavy to chase Minotaur IV; trading with manifesting on F9. Orbcomm moved 1e payloads to F9, and that put 1e on hold. Falcon 5 is hard to control; not worth it. 5.2 meter faring on FH. Bunch of little payloads on first FH flight. Plan is crossfeed on FH from start. Few (very few) people still working on Raptor.
Quote from: simonbp on 04/09/2011 01:07 amRich Pournelle on NanoRacksDeveloped as racks for experiments on ISS. 4x4 Cubesat form factor. $25 k for 30 days on station, without return. More for return. Flys in space-qualified camera bag. About 50 payloads so far. 1U, 3U and 4U sizes. All-commercial system; great relationship with NASA. Open source standard. I read via another site that NanoRacks announced at the conference that they are looking to develop an external payload site on ISS!Do you recall anything being said about that? Thanks.
Quote from: Space Pete on 04/10/2011 01:12 pmQuote from: simonbp on 04/09/2011 01:07 amRich Pournelle on NanoRacksDeveloped as racks for experiments on ISS. 4x4 Cubesat form factor. $25 k for 30 days on station, without return. More for return. Flys in space-qualified camera bag. About 50 payloads so far. 1U, 3U and 4U sizes. All-commercial system; great relationship with NASA. Open source standard. I read via another site that NanoRacks announced at the conference that they are looking to develop an external payload site on ISS!Do you recall anything being said about that? Thanks.Is there something wrong with Japan's EF, or is just the commercial aspect of it?
Quote from: robertross on 04/10/2011 03:18 pmQuote from: Space Pete on 04/10/2011 01:12 pmQuote from: simonbp on 04/09/2011 01:07 amRich Pournelle on NanoRacksDeveloped as racks for experiments on ISS. 4x4 Cubesat form factor. $25 k for 30 days on station, without return. More for return. Flys in space-qualified camera bag. About 50 payloads so far. 1U, 3U and 4U sizes. All-commercial system; great relationship with NASA. Open source standard. I read via another site that NanoRacks announced at the conference that they are looking to develop an external payload site on ISS!Do you recall anything being said about that? Thanks.Is there something wrong with Japan's EF, or is just the commercial aspect of it?What I mean is that NanoRacks want to mount some small payloads outside ISS, either on the JEF or on an ELC. I don't mean develop an entire new platform - just develop something that attaches to the existing platforms to accommodate small payloads.
Quote from: WulfTheSaxon on 04/10/2011 12:34 amQuote from: simonbp on 04/09/2011 11:58 pmRand Simberg on Competitive Space Task Force[snip]Focus on safety over cost[…] Don't spend billions having evacuation systems for South Pole station.Is he saying that cost is more important than safety? If not, those 2 statements seem to be rather contradictory. (Then again, a lot of what he says never seems to make any sense.)Dude, you're taking shorthand notes from simonbp (already short of context) and snipping out the parts that could have provided you that context, namely:"Created a NASA that wasn't pro-enterprise. Focus on safety over cost."shows that "Focus on safety over cost" clearly refers to NASA, and "Don't spend billions having evacuation systems for South Pole station" refers to a non-NASA practice (and the model he thinks NASA should be following).I don't agree with Rand on many issues, but your post is ridiculous.
Quote from: simonbp on 04/09/2011 11:58 pmRand Simberg on Competitive Space Task Force[snip]Focus on safety over cost[…] Don't spend billions having evacuation systems for South Pole station.Is he saying that cost is more important than safety? If not, those 2 statements seem to be rather contradictory. (Then again, a lot of what he says never seems to make any sense.)
Rand Simberg on Competitive Space Task Force[snip]Focus on safety over cost[…] Don't spend billions having evacuation systems for South Pole station.
Is it really necessary for you to insult people publicly for the way someone prepares a quote? It was obvious to me, and probably everyone else, that WulfTheSaxon was probably just trying to save a little space by not quoting the entire original post.
Quote from: rickyramjet on 04/10/2011 03:58 pmIs it really necessary for you to insult people publicly for the way someone prepares a quote? It was obvious to me, and probably everyone else, that WulfTheSaxon was probably just trying to save a little space by not quoting the entire original post.His question was phrased in such a way as to make it entirely non-obvious that he meant what you think he meant. I certainly got the same impression as Jorge. Oh, and as far as insulting people, FWIW from what I've seen Jorge is probably the least insulting industry insider around here.
I’ve seen quoted replies 20 layers deep (I tend not to frequent the latter).
The history of commercial aviation seems to show otherwise.
I read via another site that NanoRacks announced at the conference that they are looking to develop an external payload site on ISS!Do you recall anything being said about that? Thanks.
Have fun, and have one on me. Thanks so much for the coverage!