SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
RobDickinson said:
Oh and if you are interested in how you get your spacecraft human rated check out this...
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Interna...
In bet the Space Shuttle didn't comply with those regulations.http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Interna...
hidetheelephants said:
The sound of straws being clutched is deafening. 
They're all terrified of their tame cashcow being hauled away by the knackers' lorry.
Probably not, and they all receive funds form NASA. They're all terrified of their tame cashcow being hauled away by the knackers' lorry.The Falcon in itself is just another rocket the big difference is the philosophy and methodology behind its manufacture. As I posted earlier on the thread McDonald Douglas clipper was reusable a launch team of 15 and the rocket could be re-launched in 24 hours.
There is enough 'brains' out there with commercial and technical acumen to step up to the mark. The booster manufactures will change what they do and how they do it otherwise Ford would still be manufacturing the Model T. If Boeing do not do this I am sure others such as the Indian / Chinese manufactures will after all this is where most of our other goods are manufactured to keep low costs so why not build them there and fly them to the USA or wherever (Mars).
hidetheelephants said:
RobDickinson said:
In other news Dennis Muilenburg (CEO of Boeing) has said the first man on Mars will be taken there by a boeing rocket. huge lolz.
The sound of straws being clutched is deafening. They're all terrified of their tame cashcow being hauled away by the knackers' lorry.
Toaster said:
Probably not, and they all receive funds form NASA.
The Falcon in itself is just another rocket the big difference is the philosophy and methodology behind its manufacture. As I posted earlier on the thread McDonald Douglas clipper was reusable a launch team of 15 and the rocket could be re-launched in 24 hours.
In theory...but it was never built and only a suborbital prototype was created.The Falcon in itself is just another rocket the big difference is the philosophy and methodology behind its manufacture. As I posted earlier on the thread McDonald Douglas clipper was reusable a launch team of 15 and the rocket could be re-launched in 24 hours.
Toaster said:
Probably not, and they all receive funds form NASA.
The Falcon in itself is just another rocket the big difference is the philosophy and methodology behind its manufacture. As I posted earlier on the thread McDonald Douglas clipper was reusable a launch team of 15 and the rocket could be re-launched in 24 hours.
There is enough 'brains' out there with commercial and technical acumen to step up to the mark. The booster manufactures will change what they do and how they do it otherwise Ford would still be manufacturing the Model T. If Boeing do not do this I am sure others such as the Indian / Chinese manufactures will after all this is where most of our other goods are manufactured to keep low costs so why not build them there and fly them to the USA or wherever (Mars).
If that's the case why are ULA so expensive? Is this a deliberate business policy to lull Musk into complacency? The Falcon in itself is just another rocket the big difference is the philosophy and methodology behind its manufacture. As I posted earlier on the thread McDonald Douglas clipper was reusable a launch team of 15 and the rocket could be re-launched in 24 hours.
There is enough 'brains' out there with commercial and technical acumen to step up to the mark. The booster manufactures will change what they do and how they do it otherwise Ford would still be manufacturing the Model T. If Boeing do not do this I am sure others such as the Indian / Chinese manufactures will after all this is where most of our other goods are manufactured to keep low costs so why not build them there and fly them to the USA or wherever (Mars).
There's little chance of NASA outsourcing anything to India or China, they only use the Russians for manned flight because congress forced them to bin the shuttle early.Eric Mc said:
And it never flew very high or fast.
It Flew Eric thats what counts and higher than the Grasshopper maiden flightEric Mc said:
And it crashed and exploded.
And! it was the 90's and not every flight failed check the facts Eric Mc said:
And it wasn't proceeded with.
Edited to say the X in the name stood for Experimental rather than developmental....http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x-33/dc-xa.htm
"The flight vehicle was tested at White Sands during the summer of 1996, and demonstrated a 26-hour turnaround between its second and third flights, a first for any rocket. After the fourth flight, however, the DC-XA suffered severe damage and the program ended due to lack of funding"
Your so negative Eric, before Blue Shepherd and Space X others did have the idea of reusable kit
Toaster said:
Eric Mc said:
And it never flew very high or fast.
It Flew Eric thats what counts and higher than the Grasshopper maiden flightEric Mc said:
And it crashed and exploded.
And! it was the 90's and not every flight failed check the facts Eric Mc said:
And it wasn't proceeded with.
Edited to say the X in the name stood for Experimental rather than developmental....http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x-33/dc-xa.htm
"The flight vehicle was tested at White Sands during the summer of 1996, and demonstrated a 26-hour turnaround between its second and third flights, a first for any rocket. After the fourth flight, however, the DC-XA suffered severe damage and the program ended due to lack of funding"
Your so negative Eric, before Blue Shepherd and Space X others did have the idea of reusable kit
MartG said:
But, as Eric points out, before SpaceX and Blue Origin no-one attempted to put reuseable boosters into operation. NASA may have 'had the technology' but didn't do anything with it, nor did any of the big aerospace manufacturers in the US. They were all too comfortable with the existing expendable launch vehicle market to risk upsetting it with reuseable boosters
Interesting comment, the shuttle booster was re-usable as were the solid rocket boosters, the real key for lower costs is the commercial and manufacturing methodology plus further development of what has gone before. I don't think anyone has been upset, the other manufactures will get their act together or pull out
Musk's goal is full and rapid reuse, neither of which describe the shuttle. Whether he and his engineers can achieve this is yet to be seen, but he knows very well that without it his, shall we say more ambitious plans, are economically completely unviable. I continue to watch with interest and wish him, and indeed Mr. Bezos well with their endeavours.
Einion Yrth said:
Musk's goal is full and rapid reuse, neither of which describe the shuttle. Whether he and his engineers can achieve this is yet to be seen, but he knows very well that without it his, shall we say more ambitious plans, are economically completely unviable. I continue to watch with interest and wish him, and indeed Mr. Bezos well with their endeavours.
Of course it is, my point is that Musk's deployment is development of known technology its just naive not to acknowledge the craft that has gone before Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff