So, Antonio, do you have any comment on Elon's interview:
Specifically his question about flight rate and SpaceX carrying more cargo?
I have a little trouble myself believing that getting an engine flight ready after sitting in salt water for six hours is as easy as some think.
Quote from: nomadd22 on 12/29/2008 06:18 am I have a little trouble myself believing that getting an engine flight ready after sitting in salt water for six hours is as easy as some think.SSME already did it, maybe not 6 hours. They dunked one in the Gulf with a helicopter then flew it to Stennis and fired it. This was in the mid-90s when SSME was a candidate for Delta IV first stage. The press release is out there somewhere.
Quote from: Jim on 12/29/2008 12:19 pmWhat was the success rate of the V-2?I was suprised to see you, of ALL people, try to stand on that sort of number. They were getting pretty good at launching those things. Methinks V-2 success rate is a poor comparison point for anything in today's aerospace. Unskilled workforce + bleeding edge tech + primitive (by todays standards) technology = bad odds for flight, and it still ended up doing pretty well (ignoring guidance issues which were technology limited, not vehicle limited).
What was the success rate of the V-2?
Quote from: Swatch on 12/29/2008 01:36 pmQuote from: Jim on 12/29/2008 12:19 pmWhat was the success rate of the V-2?I was suprised to see you, of ALL people, try to stand on that sort of number. They were getting pretty good at launching those things. Methinks V-2 success rate is a poor comparison point for anything in today's aerospace. Unskilled workforce + bleeding edge tech + primitive (by todays standards) technology = bad odds for flight, and it still ended up doing pretty well (ignoring guidance issues which were technology limited, not vehicle limited).One of the guidance anecdotes (I think this is from Dornberger's book, which I don't think I have anymore) was the allies thinking it was radio controlled after one test launch from Peenemunde went off course and came down in Sweden. But that was experimental and the deployed weapon had a clockwork guidance system. In some thread here, we toted up how many of each engine had actually flown, and it turned out the V-2 engine was up near the top of the list. Amazing, when you think about it.
<p>Hey, I just realized that the TV table we've been putting together is missing the pressurized cargo volume data. Here's yet one more version with that data added. Please post any additions/corrections/comment, please:</p>
Hmm, it seems quite. The overlords must be cracking the whip. How is everything going in Cygnus/Taurus II world?
Yuzhnoye just told us we cannot use any color darker than blue on any signage or decals on Stage 1 because black paint can increase the temperature of the metal directly under it in bright sunlight more than they want to accept (I was told that is why Sea Launch and Zenith decals are blue... haven't checked that for accuracy... those Yuzhnoye guys are SO conservative they make Lockheed and Boeing look like wild and crazy guys...)
Nope. No surprises. Orbital's policy is to defer to NASA any public announcements on COTS/CRS. Being a policy and not a contract requirement, our subs are under no such constraint.Notice, though, the number NINE
That's interesting... Doesn't adding the additonal cost of proto-flight on top of typical acceptance test add significantly to the recurring costs? And my experience has been that the govm't team doesn't like to proto-flight if possible. As it does demonstrate as much hardware margins.
It's a protoflight qualification approach. No need for a (dedicated) qual unit.