I guess that means Falcon 9 v1.0 is not quite reusable.
Wrong, this is not a finest hour. They just got lucky. A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.
The F9 shuts down two engines part way through the boost to keep Gs down, right? Does anybody know how an unplanned shutdown would affect the planned shutdowns?
Quote from: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:21 pmWrong, this is not a finest hour. They just got lucky. A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.Of course this isn't the finest hour. A fine hour is one which goes unheard of, like a good referee/umpire at a football game.But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us If indeed luck has played a part, then today was their unlucky day, and the previous 3 flights were their lucky days.
But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us
Designing is a continuous process, and the reason this domain is in so much trouble is that people take a design and run with it ad infinitum, expecting it to work over and over again with little or no improvement. That may work for NASA and the Air Force, but it's not going to work with the new paradigm of commercial space flight if you expect progress in the timeframes of your lifetime.
The silence surrounding the GNC door is starting to worry me. It should have opened by now, and it's not like SpaceX to ignore facts surrounding successful milestones.
Quote from: Genuine on 10/08/2012 04:16 pmQuote from: DMeader on 10/08/2012 04:14 pmQuote from: Genuine on 10/08/2012 04:01 pmI will continue to respond to your inanities until I am banned here.Not a very nice way to introduce yourself with your first post.Can we please be polite?Sure, I can be polite. The question is, can Jim?You're confusing "impoliteness" with "bluntness". If the latter offends you, then you need to consider avoiding internet forums in general, and scientific/engineering orientated forums in particular.Oh, and welcome to the forum.
Quote from: DMeader on 10/08/2012 04:14 pmQuote from: Genuine on 10/08/2012 04:01 pmI will continue to respond to your inanities until I am banned here.Not a very nice way to introduce yourself with your first post.Can we please be polite?Sure, I can be polite. The question is, can Jim?
Quote from: Genuine on 10/08/2012 04:01 pmI will continue to respond to your inanities until I am banned here.Not a very nice way to introduce yourself with your first post.Can we please be polite?
I will continue to respond to your inanities until I am banned here.
If you care to comment on the topics of proof and demonstration and the demonstrable decades' long standing problems of the lack of design innovation and progress within the NASA and Air Force launch vehicle procurement process, then I would love to hear about it.
Reusable launch and propulsion is going to be a huge industry in the very near future, with hoppers moving from pad to pad delivering upper and core stages to low Earth orbit and beyond with airline like efficiency, and
[Impoliteness snipped]Launch vehicle designs are not static.
1. There are likely a host of scenarios where it could have ended differently and performance relative to other potential payloads could be a factor in the future. 2. There could be other engines with similar issues (if and when the problem is discovered) that need correcting. It could be a process issue, which goes beyond that specific serial number or even engine design.
The SRB joints were redesigned after the loss of seven lives and the addition of post launch inspection didn't occur until another seven lives were lost. The overall configuration of the vehicle didn't change for the entire life of the program. Ditto the EELV program. Compare to SpaceX.
Quote[Impoliteness snipped]Launch vehicle designs are not static.The SRB joints were redesigned after the loss of seven lives and the addition of post launch inspection didn't occur until another seven lives were lost. The overall configuration of the vehicle didn't change for the entire life of the program. Ditto the EELV program. Compare to SpaceX.