Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 Next
And the really interesting bit, this will be the first launch with four boosters or PSLV-QL!

"For the first time, PSLV with four strap-on configuration has been identified for this mission. Till now, ISRO has used either two strap-on or six strap-on configuration for the mission or it was without strap-on, he said."
Point of interest, if Starliner CFT arrives at the ISS before Dragon DM2 (almost a certainty at this point) and Starliner remains docked, for full mission duration but DM2 stays for just a few days, then who gets to take home the flag? First one back or first one there?
Why is that almost a certainty? Maybe you could share your thoughts at the schedule analysis thread.
Based on the capabilities and potential of the Stratos III design, Stratos IV was developed and builts on DARE's hybrid rocket technology. The vehicle features active roll stabilization and the most powerful student-built hybrid engine in the world, we a peak thrust of 25 kN. The design is recently revealed, and the vehicle is currently under construction for its space shot in August 2019.

Thanks for the update and best of luck on the launch. Can you tell us where Stratos IV is launching from?
Commercial Crew Vehicles General / Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Last post by Lar on Today at 03:17 am »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Despite your assertions to the contrary, NASA and the contractors don't particularly care who goes first -- certainly not to the degree of pulling shenanigans of questionable legality over a meaningless boast for a contract that is already awarded as you are suggesting.

Come. On.  ::)
(fan) I think we all would prefer that everything be on the up and up. I think that's especially true for the employees at all the various concerns, who want to be proud that their company's winning fair and square. And, contrary to your view, that most of them actually do care who wins technically, and who wins in the court of public opinion. Because who doesn't want to be proud of their company? And, because this is very much about the upstart versus the other players.

Winning fair and square would be best. Most everyone wants that.

But that's not always the way to bet. Even my own employer, long regarded as the white knight of our industry, does have occasional lapses. And our CEOs have in the past indulged some unnecessary braggadocio akin to the "we'll be on Mars first". They  meant well no doubt, but have had to walk back words eventually.

But real life isn't always as we would wish it to be. My view, as a fan, is that something funny is going on here. It just feels like it. There is precedent for companies, including Boeing, sad to say, pulling dirty tricks of various sorts. (Why does ULA exist in the first place if not due to Boeing's industrial espionage? More recently,why did Boeing so transparently fund those hit pieces against SpaceX? There are other examples too)

I don't have to prove anything to have my feelings.  I wish it weren't so, but Boeing just doesn't feel lily white to me. I can totally understand why Boeing employees and others might not like that pointed out. So I'm sorry to have brought it up, but it was a necessary thing to mention. Because this is schedule analysis, after all. How are we supposed to make accurate predictions of, or have fruitful discussion of, the schedule, if it's not totally clear that the schedule is based on purely technical considerations.

I prefer to think it is. We'll see.
Other US Launchers / Re: US Launch Schedule
« Last post by gongora on Today at 03:16 am »
The first ones will fly on STP-3 for the Air Force, which has already slipped from the summer to October at the earliest.
The NGIS MEV is made to be launched with another GEO bird. So there could be savings for NGIS by launching an MEV with a GEO satellite its building for someone else or by launching two MEVs.

As for direct inject to GEO, there is a time savings of several months to get to its final station for a satellite that has all electric propulsion system. But for a satellite using chemical for orbit raising, there could be a time savings or it could end up taking longer depending on how far it has to drift from the injection location to the final location. The biggest savings in either case is in mass, which could be used to add more fuel for longer orbital life and/or more payload.
This is oneway for NG to add value to their Omega launches. Adding a few extra SRBs to make up for additional mass is cheap way to get MEVs into orbit. Most launch cost is already covered by GEO satellite.

NB NG will be offering a complete build and launch package for GEO satellites, I'd guess launch insurance is included.
This may mean profit from satellite build is subsidizing Omega launch costs. As long as they make OK 4profit on complete package it doesn't matter. Means Omega will be avaliable for high value DOD missions.

For ships where Earth's thick atmosphere and high gravity are not factors, H2 is better than CH4.

A few significant priority steps remain until then.

Hydrolox is definitely better performance-wise, but LH2 is also harder to store on orbit than CH4 so deep space craft may not rely entirely on hydrogen for that reason. Performance matters, but itís not the only thing to consider.
No. Vastly different flight regimes. Far lower energy for XS-1, and it's just the modest first stage of a two stage to orbit vehicle. It's not a pathfinder for SSTO, and it doesn't do anywhere near as intense of reentry. And reusing an old Shuttle engine is completely different than a vastly new rocket propulsion system.

But sure, I will be pretty surprised if XS-1 escapes X-33, so in that, they're quite similar.

It's insane XS-1 was awarded to Boeing. Everyone knows they'll *never* turn it into an affordable operational system. After the funding runs out, they'll kill it immediately. Im. Med. I. Ately. I mean Boeing killed ULA's ACES, for goodness sake.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 Next