Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 01/12/2012 06:58 pm And without that, without sustainable access to LEO, no space exploration is going to take place.Not going to happen with chemical propulsion.
And without that, without sustainable access to LEO, no space exploration is going to take place.
What do you mean by sustainable? Do you think $1,000 / kg is possible with chemical propulsion?
Norm: I actually disagree. Blue Origin's plan offers just as much hope for sustainable space access (and thus enabling sustainable exploration) if they are successful. They are well into pursuing the technology needed for their hydrogen powered fully reusable VTVL two-stage orbital rocket with a reusable capsule or whatever it is. They're just going a little slower, but they have an arguably much more secure source of funding as a legacy philanthrocapitalist project of the billionaire Jeff Bezos. They already have significant experience with their reusability mode of VTVL fully reusable rocket vehicles.XCor is in a similar situation (seeking fully reusable orbital transport using hydrogen and already significant experience with HTHL fully reusable rocket vehicles), though with more short-term focus with real customers via suborbital Lynx but without quite the enormous philanthrocapitalist backing (that we know about).SpaceX is going a different route, relying on more typical NASA and commercial (and perhaps military) customers to try to grow to become a big aerospace company with significant experience putting stuff into orbit before really tackling the reusability aspect head-on. Musk is more flashy and cocky. It makes the program more interesting in some ways, but it's also a little more risky. It may well pay off (and I hope it does), but it's not the only one out there, not by a long shot. And SpaceX is already well beyond the stage of being able to be sustained indefinitely by money from philanthrocapitalists like Blue Origin is (and Elon Musk isn't that rich). They're playing poker for keeps, here.As Jim says, SpaceX can't shoulder the whole future of space exploration themselves.
Not going to happen with chemical propulsion.
I thought the dragon came back in great shape. Heard Musk say they could fly it again if they wanted.
If Elon is Luke:
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/12/2012 07:04 pmWell if Bezos is Leia, I would rather not imagine him in a bikini...
Seems maybe a tad unrealistic given that the Dragon capsule came back char-boiled. Trying is one thing. Making something actually work and work right is another.
It's a long way back to the launch pad at staging. Won't it take a lot of propellent to boost all the way back, because it has to slow down, then gain the downrange back?
Quote from: oiorionsbelt on 01/12/2012 12:07 amChris, you've mentioned before on the forum, that the use of 'Uprising' was controversial to some. I can't understand why it would be. Can you give anymore details on that.Wishing your competitors would "have a heart attack" is hardly civil. Listen to the song.
Chris, you've mentioned before on the forum, that the use of 'Uprising' was controversial to some. I can't understand why it would be. Can you give anymore details on that.
Quote from: Seattle Dave on 01/13/2012 01:50 amIt's a long way back to the launch pad at staging. Won't it take a lot of propellent to boost all the way back, because it has to slow down, then gain the downrange back?Speculation is that they'll optimize for that. The first stage would be closer to straight up. Less efficient, but addresses exactly the issue you've described.