Jump to content

Meecrob

Members
  • Posts

    375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Meecrob

  1. Ok, tractor beams are fine in sci-fi, but in real life are kinda stupid. They still have to impart the same delta v a burn would...why would you bring whatever fuels your tractor beam runs on instead of just bringing fuel? Also Newtons Laws being you'd suck yourself into your target and all that.
  2. Ok, but someone is gonna have to pay for the release mechanism, all related hardware and associated R&D? Or you can send it on one that is already certified. Edit: I missed your solar panels bit...same deal though....who is paying for that? Like I know SpaceX wants to be a bus service as they have done to LEO, but right now, they can't exactly open a profitable line to Earth-Moon L2. Like its not some untapped market nobody can reach, its just not useful for lots of purposes.
  3. In theory, yes, but you still have to certify a new type. Like they aren't sending something like the JWST on an untested, expendable variant "just cuz" the reusable one worked. But In hindsight, they are making the HLS...so maybe? I guess we need to see how big the new satellites are.
  4. My point is that the fact of the matter is that if the US wants a solid propellant ICBM, they get it, regardless of what the civil space program is doing. If you haven't noticed, most civil rockets are adapted from military ones, not the other way around. Edit: just to stop the pedants...yes, recently this is shifting, but when they were developing the SRBs for the space shuttle, they had thousands of solid-fueled missiles pointed at what the US called enemies in the cold war. They were NOT waiting for the STS program to develop solid fuel missiles....same boosters as are on SLS, to keep it on topic.
  5. Wait, are you under the impression that the USA needs an excuse to produce ICBM's? Like the same USA that had the cold war with the Soviets?
  6. I say this totally in jest, but perhaps this is why Boeing currently seems to be plagued with being late? Full disclosure, I've worked in flight test, and @mikegarrison is correct; it is standard practice to not leave anything to chance, such as a situation where low lighting levels could impact operations. SpaceX seems to really want to re-write all the rules here! Fingers crossed it doesn't end up biting them in the butt!
  7. True, but if every smartphone owner donated just one dollar, we would be two-thirds the way to a second JWST or similar. Sorry its a bit off-topic, but @kerbiloid brings up a good point. Namely that space really isn't that expensive, it only is when one expects a handful of parties to foot the entire bill for something everyone on the planet benefits from. I dunno, I'm impressed we can even see it so well. I imagine this was taken after the sunshield was deployed and we are seeing reflected Sun's rays?
  8. I think Mike is trying to say that if you push too hard on the equivalent of an empty popcan, it crushes. Or you have to waste payload mass to add structural mass.
  9. Its pretty logical. You go around all day touching dirty things with your hands. Your junk stays in your pants (hopefully) and stays clean. Urine is sterile. Get off your high horse and don't jump to conclusions like: Have you ever eaten spicy food? Got hydraulic fluid on your hands? That stuff BURNS your junk! TL;DR Just because you don't know why someone is doing something does not mean they are an inconsiderate jerkwad.
  10. The Eiffel Tower has delivered over its lifetime, for sure. However when it was first completed, Parisians allegedly claimed that the best view in all of Paris was atop the Eiffel Tower, simply because you could not see the eyesore that is the Eiffel Tower from there.
  11. I forgot to mention: thanks for that interesting tidbit!
  12. I think we are derailing the thread. So I'm guessing not, but anyone have any word on B4 static fire?
  13. Look man, I've read every word of your replies to me, you can do me the same courtesy, rather than literally paraphrase what I said in your reply to me. Full disclosure: I am a pilot. We don't have any sort of escape systems because they are heavy, and 999,999 times out of a million, you are better off flying the plane to the site of the crash in the event of a failure, as opposed to jumping out. Its pretty simple - pilots are trained to be pilots, not skydivers. As far as military aviation goes, I feel I'm pretty safe to say that ejection seats qualify as not only "launch", but "all phases of flight" abort system. And this is entirely my point. What is the point of having a system that protects you from something that is statistically not of concern? At least military aircraft are toting around all that weight for a useful purpose. Rockets take a performance hit for their entire flight for something that only has a purpose for like 90 seconds. Bottom line is it is reduced TWR off the pad. Upthread, I explicitly stated that I do not think launch abort systems are stupid or useless, I merely am trying to say that I think they have been given an outsized importance. To be honest, I really don't care if Starship ever launches with humans aboard because whatever happens, they can rendezvious crew in orbit. That also allows for crew to not be aboard for the bellyflop at landing, because I'm sure even the most sycophantic SpaceX fan will admit that is a cool maneuver, but its not the smartest to have humans at risk during it. You say you do not understand my point of view. I feel you, brother! I cannot understand why you think that rockets blowing up on the pad is something that happens with frequency. I know you do not believe me, so I say look up the statistics. You are correct in that there is the greatest potential for "destruction" at launch, but that does not give any indication of the likelyhood of failure.
  14. I get what you are trying to say, but just because something feels "right" does not mean it is correct. It is logical to think that launch is a dangerous phase of flight. After all, we have the maximum amount of fuel and oxidizer, maximum weight and the minimum of performance. But that does not mean that historically people have had a lower survival rate during launch than other phases of spaceflight. I am asking you to look back in history. I ask this with the best of intentions. I'm not trying to antagonize you. Please show me an example where a rocket blew up on the pad and the launch escape system saved the crew's life? Upthread it has been mentioned that 5 lives have been saved. Compare that to the amount of lives that have been lost in spaceflight to reasons that could not have been solved with an LAS, such as Columbia, etc. Edit: Also I do not understand what is so difficult about the concept that Challenger saved its crew. They were alive until they hit the water. The stack literally exploded! The crew was within what? 150 feet of the explosion and they survived! If they had a method to decelerate, they possibly would still be with us.
  15. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but back that up with data. All you did was say what you feel is dangerous about spaceflight. I cannot recall any fatalities on the pad from an actual flight. Give me one example of a fatality that would have been avoided had there been a launch abort system integrated. Also, including the ones mentioned upthread, add up all the lives that have been saved from LAS's vs how many lives have been lost in phases of flight where a LAS would not work.
  16. And all those modes you speak of do not utilize a launch abort system....which I am talking about. The point was made that someone thought that Starship could not be human rated due to lack of a launch abort system. Like obviously starship can do an abort to launch site, Europe, or once around, just like space shuttle.
  17. Again, thanks for correcting me, It makes total sense to use starship as an unmanned cargo/fuel vehicle until it proves a human-rated failure rate.
  18. We are arguing the same point, I think. My point is Launch Abort System is important, yes, but its as important as all other abort plans, yet it seems to have gained a grater emphasis lately. STS had zero launch abort, but we flew it anyways, so the argument that Starship has no LAS is incorrect. Period. NASA has proven they will fly without one for 30 years!
  19. Totally fair enough...I'll take my lumps, but my point was more that x amount of people have died on launch whereas x+y people have died in phases after launch. But we only have a launch escape system...no other escape systems.
  20. Uh oh, I feel a thread split coming haha! I see your point on redundancy. Rather than argue you on your area of interest, I'll instead refer to the jet age, as you are totally correct on radial engines. The fact of the matter is that if you have an equal chance of engine failure on a twin vs. single multiplied by the number of engines, all things being equal. Of course, on a twin you can shut the malfunctioning engine own, but on a single you would just not shut it down and ride the reduced power home. Someone can argue me, but please go look up the ratio of single vs twin crashes due to engine failure...I believe it is similar to a coin toss. To bring it back to topic, I do not believe that a launch abort system is really that necessary. Seems as fanciful as the zip lines on the pad towers. Like if the rocket blows up, the astronauts are really gonna have enough time to allow gravity to accelerate them out of the blast radius? I must have not made my point clear. I am not asking for examples of times a launch abort system was useful. I am trying to contrast the amount of deaths in the space industry that have occurred that an LAS could have prevented vs. the amount of deaths that have occurred that an LAS would have had no use. I also already mentioned challenger. All they needed were parachutes. the crew vehicle separated from the rest of the stack and the crew survived until they impacted the water. No LAS required!
  21. Exactly. Rockets blowing up on the pad is not the usual method of failure. It boggles my mind that people insist on a Launch Abort System, but no Re-entry Abort System. One is somehow "mandatory" and the other is an extraneous idea that is a waste of weight and engineer's time and resources. Which do you think Columbia would rather have had? Edit: (from the linked wiki page) "...the launch vehicle was destroyed on the launch pad by fire on 26 September 1983 [...] It is the first case in which a launch escape system has been fired with a crew on board." I dunno. Gagarin flew in '61. And the rocket equation is notoriously unforgiving about extraneous mass. Am I the only one who sees a disconnect here? Challenger arguably had a launch abort system, but no parachute since the crew were proved to be alive up to point of impact with the water. I'm not saying LAS's are stupid, just that they have an outsized emphasis based upon their importance.
  22. Neither did STS...or Gemini. Craft with pad abort systems were Mercury and Apollo programs. This is just like the debate with regards to Navy fighter jets. Some say they require two engines for redundancy...totally forgetting WWII was fought almost entirely by the Navy with single engine fighters. Not to mention roughly half of the aircraft that have operated from carrier decks since WWII. Edit: Think about it...go through the entirety of humanity's adventure with spaceflight. Tell me how many people have had their lives spared by a pad abort system?
  23. Very close to what I was thinking. I'm worried that it might be a scenario in which the method of contamination is an unknown unknown to us, and no matter what we do aside from leave Mars alone, we will have the same outcome. Now the question is whether that outcome is "good" or not, and in a way, that is just re-stating the terms of the original question. And the further I go down the rabbit hole, I only get solutions that are paraphrases of the original, so The fairest way could be as crude as a coin toss. (yeah, DM me, and I'll link you to my dealer, hahaha!)
×
×
  • Create New...