SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
Sylvaforever said:
Toaster said:
I don't think anyone has been upset, the other manufactures will get their act together or pull out
t out.That would be very good for the industry, after all they are not without know-how and experience.Eric Mc said:
Who's denying anything?
DCX did what it did. It showed what was possible 20 plus years ago Musk and Bezos are taking the principle to its next and logical step.
Both receive funding from NASA that helps fund development and I suspect that experimental technologies from the past are indeed helping development now. DCX did what it did. It showed what was possible 20 plus years ago Musk and Bezos are taking the principle to its next and logical step.
Eric Mc said:
As do I. The Shuttle was far from reusable and, most important, was massively expensive and extremely dangerous and fragile.
That is why it only flew 135 times (two of those flights ending in catastrophe) instead of the expected 2,000 times.
That is why it only flew 135 times (two of those flights ending in catastrophe) instead of the expected 2,000 times.
Cleary having flown 135 times shows the vehicle was reusable costs and failures are well documented so nothing new there.
Toaster said:
Sylvaforever said:
I take at that point they will indeed be upset.
Why? its just business if you cant adapt to a changing market you either go bust get taken over or focus on other markets. Industry is littered with examples. 
Eric Mc said:
On the shoulders of giants - as they say.
possibly but without former R&D stepchanges are not possible. In the Bowles of R&D it in many instances it is known what is required to take a technology or process to the next step. However there are intermediate technologies that need inventing first. Can you imagine how big the processors would have been in 1969 or even mid 90's for flight control of the falcon. The tech didn't exist huge increases in processing power and miniaturisation have had to take place, just in that area alone. Toaster said:
Eric Mc said:
On the shoulders of giants - as they say.
possibly but without former R&D stepchanges are not possible. In the Bowles of R&D it in many instances it is known what is required to take a technology or process to the next step. However there are intermediate technologies that need inventing first. Can you imagine how big the processors would have been in 1969 or even mid 90's for flight control of the falcon. The tech didn't exist huge increases in processing power and miniaturisation have had to take place, just in that area alone. 
Exactly - I think Toaster is so keen to argue that he is now arguing with himself.
Everybody is aware that technology grows and develops from work done by previous developers, engineers and designers. Nobody works in a vacuum and we all learn from the work carried out by previous generations.
Everybody is aware that technology grows and develops from work done by previous developers, engineers and designers. Nobody works in a vacuum and we all learn from the work carried out by previous generations.
MartG said:
So what is your point - you could argue that without former R&D NASA would have been chipping rockets out of flint
The point is most of Space X and Blue Origin is utilising fairly standard known tech, what is different is the commercial and manufacturing techniques, whilst there is commercial risk this is mitigated to a fair degree by funding (state funding via NASA). I am not depreciating the innovation behind what these companies are doing but there seems to be a lack of appreciation in this community that these developments have not happened in isolation. In other words nothing happens in a vacuum. Space X and Blue Origin have not invited re-useable craft, what they are able to utilise as many startup are a different commercial and manufacturing approach. There is no reason others won't be watching carefully and brining their own versions out which will match or even dare I say be better than Falcon. Handheld mobile computing and tablets were about before Apple, however Apple's innovative approach changed the market and now you can choose a whole range of similar devices out there to suit your budget and needs. Commercialising space flight will do exactly the same. Then with launch costs dropping it will be the race to the bottom for the cheapest launch, happens all the time in industry space will be no exception.
So for me its a re-hash of what has been learnt before repackaged, re developed and re designed, rather than a whole new raft of technology being invented.
Oh and NASA doesn't build Rockets or capsules they just contract out to the market so no they won't and never have used any flint
Eric Mc said:
Exactly - I think Toaster is so keen to argue that he is now arguing with himself.
Everybody is aware that technology grows and develops from work done by previous developers, engineers and designers. Nobody works in a vacuum and we all learn from the work carried out by previous generations.
"Everybody" you sure about that Eric quite a statement there. Its a view but not a realistic one Everybody is aware that technology grows and develops from work done by previous developers, engineers and designers. Nobody works in a vacuum and we all learn from the work carried out by previous generations.
Oh and if I do argue with myself who are you to say I cant, your not my Dad 
Toaster said:
The point is most of Space X and Blue Origin is utilising fairly standard known tech, what is different is the commercial and manufacturing techniques, whilst there is commercial risk this is mitigated to a fair degree by funding (state funding via NASA). I am not depreciating the innovation behind what these companies are doing but there seems to be a lack of appreciation in this community that these developments have not happened in isolation. In other words nothing happens in a vacuum. Space X and Blue Origin have not invited re-useable craft, what they are able to utilise as many startup are a different commercial and manufacturing approach. There is no reason others won't be watching carefully and brining their own versions out which will match or even dare I say be better than Falcon.
Handheld mobile computing and tablets were about before Apple, however Apple's innovative approach changed the market and now you can choose a whole range of similar devices out there to suit your budget and needs. Commercialising space flight will do exactly the same. Then with launch costs dropping it will be the race to the bottom for the cheapest launch, happens all the time in industry space will be no exception.
So for me its a re-hash of what has been learnt before repackaged, re developed and re designed, rather than a whole new raft of technology being invented.
Oh and NASA doesn't build Rockets or capsules they just contract out to the market so no they won't and never have used any flint
I still don't understand the point you are trying to make. Yes, both SpaceX and Blue Origin are making use of technology developed by others - as does anyone manufacturing absolutely anything these days. Handheld mobile computing and tablets were about before Apple, however Apple's innovative approach changed the market and now you can choose a whole range of similar devices out there to suit your budget and needs. Commercialising space flight will do exactly the same. Then with launch costs dropping it will be the race to the bottom for the cheapest launch, happens all the time in industry space will be no exception.
So for me its a re-hash of what has been learnt before repackaged, re developed and re designed, rather than a whole new raft of technology being invented.
Oh and NASA doesn't build Rockets or capsules they just contract out to the market so no they won't and never have used any flint
The difference is that, unlike ULA, they are actually USING the technology developed a decade ago to build boosters which return to a landing for reuse. Even now ULA are only looking at recovering the engine package of their proposed new booster - and you'd be living in la-la-land if you thought they'd even be doing that much if it weren't for the competition from SpaceX and Blue Origin. And don't forget, it was ULA in the form of McDonnell Douglas ( now part of Boeing ) who built the DC-X but then did nothing to implement the technology for actual use.
It reminds me of the US government's program back in the 90s (championed by Vice President Al Gore) for American car companies to develop energy efficient & electric cars. The Government gave them all billions of dollars for this initiative.
Not unsurprisingly, the companies basically just took the money and went through the motions. By the mid nineties they'd discovered the SUV, which was hugely popular, profitable and used conventional technology.
Ironically the US' drive to produce energy efficient cars spurred Toyota to do the same and the result was the Prius hybrid, which was really the only one that got made in any significant numbers.
General Motors did produce the EV1 all-electric car, but only about 1,100 of them before the project was finally cancelled in 2002. These had been leased to customers rather than sold & GM actually recalled them all. Some were donated to museums, but most of them were just crushed.
Then along comes a certain Elon Musk in 2003 to help found an electric car company.
Not unsurprisingly, the companies basically just took the money and went through the motions. By the mid nineties they'd discovered the SUV, which was hugely popular, profitable and used conventional technology.
Ironically the US' drive to produce energy efficient cars spurred Toyota to do the same and the result was the Prius hybrid, which was really the only one that got made in any significant numbers.
General Motors did produce the EV1 all-electric car, but only about 1,100 of them before the project was finally cancelled in 2002. These had been leased to customers rather than sold & GM actually recalled them all. Some were donated to museums, but most of them were just crushed.
Then along comes a certain Elon Musk in 2003 to help found an electric car company.
Toaster said:
I am not depreciating the innovation behind what these companies are doing but there seems to be a lack of appreciation in this community that these developments have not happened in isolation. In other words nothing happens in a vacuum.
I think in the media in general you might have a point, on here the population seems well aware of what SpaceX and Benzo have and haven't invented... also I am pretty sure SpaceX do alot in a vacuum ;-)Toaster said:
Space X and Blue Origin have not invited re-useable craft,
Assuming you meant invented then define "invented" Who made and used the first reusable, self landing boosters? We all know the various stages have been tested, built and designed prior to SpaceX nailing one back on the pad but until that point no-one had done it... lots of people where playing with lightbulbs but we all "know" who invented them.
Invention rarely happens totally in isolation, in fact its hard to think of anything that has been invented where every part of it is completely new?
Toaster said:
So for me its a re-hash of what has been learnt before repackaged, re developed and re designed, rather than a whole new raft of technology being invented.
I think thats unnecessarily harsh analysis, both companies have taken a step- they have actually done it, multiple times ahead of anyone else. Their innovation is in putting it all together in a way that works, as per your example- everyone makes tablets and vacuum cleaners, but most people call them iPads and Hoovers for a reason.Falcon 9 return to flight may be delayed due to hurricane damage to the payload processing facility. Until it is repaired SpaceX may not be able to prepare payloads for flight
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/10/11/spacex-still-...
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/10/11/spacex-still-...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff