Marcia Dunn : So you are saying that you could for early in the flight you could salvage if necessary.Hans: Its actually not that early I mean I would say its everything except last 20 ish seconds.
In CRS-8 pre-launch presser Hans said capability to salvage payload in case of any accident has been implemented i.e Dragon will deploy chutes and land softly on water. It is yet to be completely approved by FAA. QuoteMarcia Dunn : So you are saying that you could for early in the flight you could salvage if necessary.Hans: Its actually not that early I mean I would say its everything except last 20 ish seconds.
Quote from: Ohsin on 04/07/2016 08:48 pmIn CRS-8 pre-launch presser Hans said capability to salvage payload in case of any accident has been implemented i.e Dragon will deploy chutes and land softly on water. It is yet to be completely approved by FAA. QuoteMarcia Dunn : So you are saying that you could for early in the flight you could salvage if necessary.Hans: Its actually not that early I mean I would say its everything except last 20 ish seconds.As unlikely as it is for the rocket to fail and the capsule to survive, but I suppose it's a nice option to have in your back pocket.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 04/07/2016 09:18 pmAs unlikely as it is for the rocket to fail and the capsule to survive, but I suppose it's a nice option to have in your back pocket.This case is exactly what happened last year with SpaceX's failure: the Dragon was healthy until it hit the water, despite the disintegration of the rocket. Had the software been smart enough to pop the chutes, the payload would have survived."Simple" programming change.
As unlikely as it is for the rocket to fail and the capsule to survive, but I suppose it's a nice option to have in your back pocket.
Quote from: jg on 04/07/2016 09:25 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 04/07/2016 09:18 pmAs unlikely as it is for the rocket to fail and the capsule to survive, but I suppose it's a nice option to have in your back pocket.This case is exactly what happened last year with SpaceX's failure: the Dragon was healthy until it hit the water, despite the disintegration of the rocket. Had the software been smart enough to pop the chutes, the payload would have survived."Simple" programming change.I know, but that scenario where the rocket fails but the capsule survives is extraordinarily unlikely. Most rockets don't fail as slowly and gracefully as the Falcon 9 did.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 04/07/2016 09:43 pmQuote from: jg on 04/07/2016 09:25 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 04/07/2016 09:18 pmAs unlikely as it is for the rocket to fail and the capsule to survive, but I suppose it's a nice option to have in your back pocket.This case is exactly what happened last year with SpaceX's failure: the Dragon was healthy until it hit the water, despite the disintegration of the rocket. Had the software been smart enough to pop the chutes, the payload would have survived."Simple" programming change.I know, but that scenario where the rocket fails but the capsule survives is extraordinarily unlikely. Most rockets don't fail as slowly and gracefully as the Falcon 9 did. We had this debate before, you might want to review it.... Depending on the cost for the software mods (which at first glance ought to be low), it's a no brainer to make this change, because even if it's low probability, it's a cheap bet.
Quote from: Ohsin on 04/07/2016 08:48 pmIn CRS-8 pre-launch presser Hans said capability to salvage payload in case of any accident has been implemented i.e Dragon will deploy chutes and land softly on water. It is yet to be completely approved by FAA. QuoteMarcia Dunn : So you are saying that you could for early in the flight you could salvage if necessary.Hans: Its actually not that early I mean I would say its everything except last 20 ish seconds.If no CRS rocket fails and thus tests this feature, will SpaceX need to cause a failure to validate for crew launch?
Quote from: Hirox on 03/16/2016 05:18 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/16/2016 05:09 pmI just read through this, and found myself nodding my head in agreement most of the time. The "quarter-billion" per launch loss estimate was clearly hyperbole, but I don't think that anyone really believes SpaceX is making a profit on $60 million per launch. Perhaps the speaker was thinking of what it might cost to launch Falcon Heavy versus the price that SpaceX has listed for a launch. Interesting to hear that Blue blew up an engine in testing. It sounded like it may have been a BE-3 power head a while back.I also was interested in how the speaker thought that the first stage landing was amazing, but that the entire idea of recovery is "dumb" given the lost payload and the costs of refurbishment. - Ed KyleNobody believes SpaceX is making a $60 million profit on their launches, materials and working hours have costs. I've always thought that they make no profit on their ordinary launches, cost to produce and launch is $60million and selling price is 60$. I think the only launches they make anything on is government (NASA and soon DOD).I'm saying I don't think people believe SpaceX is making a profit when it sells Falcon 9 for (roughly) $60 million per launch. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/16/2016 05:09 pmI just read through this, and found myself nodding my head in agreement most of the time. The "quarter-billion" per launch loss estimate was clearly hyperbole, but I don't think that anyone really believes SpaceX is making a profit on $60 million per launch. Perhaps the speaker was thinking of what it might cost to launch Falcon Heavy versus the price that SpaceX has listed for a launch. Interesting to hear that Blue blew up an engine in testing. It sounded like it may have been a BE-3 power head a while back.I also was interested in how the speaker thought that the first stage landing was amazing, but that the entire idea of recovery is "dumb" given the lost payload and the costs of refurbishment. - Ed KyleNobody believes SpaceX is making a $60 million profit on their launches, materials and working hours have costs. I've always thought that they make no profit on their ordinary launches, cost to produce and launch is $60million and selling price is 60$. I think the only launches they make anything on is government (NASA and soon DOD).
I just read through this, and found myself nodding my head in agreement most of the time. The "quarter-billion" per launch loss estimate was clearly hyperbole, but I don't think that anyone really believes SpaceX is making a profit on $60 million per launch. Perhaps the speaker was thinking of what it might cost to launch Falcon Heavy versus the price that SpaceX has listed for a launch. Interesting to hear that Blue blew up an engine in testing. It sounded like it may have been a BE-3 power head a while back.I also was interested in how the speaker thought that the first stage landing was amazing, but that the entire idea of recovery is "dumb" given the lost payload and the costs of refurbishment. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/16/2016 05:21 pmI'm saying I don't think people believe SpaceX is making a profit when it sells Falcon 9 for (roughly) $60 million per launch. - Ed KyleI personally have no idea how much money SpaceX is or is not making, but I will say that I hate it when people make an assertion that SpaceX is loosing money on every launch without offering even 1 shred of evidence. Nobody offers any proof of any kind to back up what they are saying, so I call total b.s. on any statement like that. If anyone wants to say things like that then let them back it up with verifiable numbers, like we always used to do on here. I don't care if one asserts they are making money or loosing money. Either way - I don't care. Just please do not spread such utter crap. Back it up or shut it down. But stop smearing the company. They are doing awesome things. When was the last pure NASA vehicle launch? Oh yea, I remember; Ares-1X. October 2009. Big PR flop. The last Shuttle flight was STS-135, last flown July 2011. Then NASA shut the system down. Since then the only thing NASA has produced other than a sinfully expensive and decade late boilerplate Orion is literally tons of paper and terabytes of power points and CGI's while SpaceX has been bending metal, building infrastructure, building and flying rockets and spacecraft and orbiting satellites in LEO, GEO and Sun Synchronous. So stop putting the company down. If it wasn't for the excitement generated by them none of you would be here on NSF because NASA isn't flying anything these days, and hasn't for years.
I'm saying I don't think people believe SpaceX is making a profit when it sells Falcon 9 for (roughly) $60 million per launch. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: clongton on 04/16/2016 06:33 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/16/2016 05:21 pmI'm saying I don't think people believe SpaceX is making a profit when it sells Falcon 9 for (roughly) $60 million per launch. - Ed KyleI personally have no idea how much money SpaceX is or is not making, but I will say that I hate it when people make an assertion that SpaceX is loosing money on every launch without offering even 1 shred of evidence.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/16/2016 05:21 pmI'm saying I don't think people believe SpaceX is making a profit when it sells Falcon 9 for (roughly) $60 million per launch. - Ed KyleI personally have no idea how much money SpaceX is or is not making, but I will say that I hate it when people make an assertion that SpaceX is loosing money on every launch without offering even 1 shred of evidence.
What it basically boils down to is that some (most certainly not all) old-space folks are having a real hard time adjusting to the fact that a relatively new-and-young company, with no prior experience, is doing things that old-space companies never dared doing.
What probably bugs those old-space folks the most is that this new-space company is doing all those exciting new things without really "needing" the old-space folks. And this new-space company also has the guts of throwing "the old-space way of doing things" out the window. That upsets even more old-space folks. The result is that some old-space folks here make it a habit of questioning everything this new-space company does, down to the level of calling them "wrong" or stating "it is not done this way".
Being one of those old-space persons. I don't think a characterization of who is for or against SpaceX can be made by their association of pre or post "new-space". My old-space days started in 1980 on the Atlas E/F, where an old ICBM which had been in storage since the mid-early 1960's was used. It was dusted off, checked out, payload attachment ring welded on, new avionics, set on the pad, payload stacked on top and launched. All for a total cost to the gov of ~$25M. So I have no problem understanding how SpaceX can do it for $60M.