Damien_The_Unbeliever

Members
  • Content Count

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

131 Excellent

About Damien_The_Unbeliever

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And re-establishing a track record of doing the static fires with payload integrated. If the loss is far enough back and they're doing plenty of pre-integrated fires, they can persuade all but the most risk averse customers to go with it again and speed up their tempo.
  2. Call me silly, but they probably don't intend to always run production in a field. They're building throw-away prototypes. They're already on version 2 and these things don't currently require precise engineering (of the bodies at least) nor much in the way of servicing.
  3. I know this is "after the fact", and the launch was successful, but your "net win" analysis seemed to completely ignore that if there had been a failure in DM1, it would have been a CRS-7/Amos-6 scenario. Something unexpected happened. They'd have been shutdown, possibly from all ops, and a lengthy analysis period would have ensued. It's not KSP, you don't just dust yourself off and have another try.
  4. And I think that would be precisely why they *wouldn't* go inert in the upper stage. You need to prove that the abort works even with tonnes of liquid kaboom in close proximity to the Dragon.
  5. Nope. I think they're still planning the "catchers mitt" net recovery. They're using a helicopter for the practice *drops*.
  6. I thought this was the Science and Spaceflight section of the forum. Where we'd only get reasoned opinions on things that can reasonably be specced out. Rather than people randomly speculating on future vessels. Why do I always have to wade through pages of people speculating about what SpaceX *might* do based on marketing materials rather than (as I'd expect here) people only talking about *proven* abilities. Seeing people randomly speculate at what SpaceX might do in the future is uninteresting to me. I want to find somewhere I can just find SpaceX **news** (and other providers) news. Where do I find that?
  7. You could read the article. This is discussed.
  8. back haul is the comms between the towers and the rest of the network. They're talking about being able to deploy cell towers to remote locations without having to get fibre to them or to arrange line-of-sight for microwave links.
  9. Space isn't cold. It's well insulated, since there's nothing to conduct or convect heat away. There's a reason why radiators on e.g. ISS are huge deals.
  10. But they need to stop making changes in order for it to get man-rated for Crew Dragon. So it's likely that this will be a stable design for some time, unless the early block 5 flights uncover some catastrophic unanticipated issues.
  11. I think you vastly overestimate how easy it is to make something waterproof when it's a complex piece of equipment that also has to deal with re-entry issues. As with most things discussed here, your everyday experiences are unlikely to be directly relatable to the issues experienced by aerospace equipment. Say we could make the fairing waterproof by spraying a thick layer of plastic over it - but now the outside layer doesn't have the characteristics required whilst it's still acting as a fairing during powered ascent and we can no longer mate the two halves of the fairing in the manner in which they need to work. Okay, so a thick layer of plastic won't work to make this thing waterproof. You have to come up with a design (as indicated above) that works *both* whilst in use during normal flight regime *and* works during re-entry *and* doesn't significantly degrade through all phases of use and means it's actually reusable. Do you have such a scheme in mind beyond believing that a lot of fairly smart people have ignored common everyday experiences?
  12. You're using you experience of mass production to try to think about bespoke products. All space launches are bespoke, even when they follow a recognizable pattern.
  13. What do you think their contract actually states? I'd almost guarantee that it's to deliver their space object safely into a particular orbital trajectory (with various particulars as to allowed variations) and not any particular launch vehicle. As has been established, fairings cost of the order of ~5m per piece. It's unlikely they have or need spares sitting around.
  14. Well, since up until now (and still now) there's been no real fairing recovery, if they've moved to building fairing 2.0, it's not likely that they *have* fairing 1.0s in stock.
  15. Whilst I agree with the general sentiment, this is actually untrue for SpaceX specifically. Getting the payload into the correct orbital position is the outcome that's required. Whether or not they get a flight-proven first stage back means that there are shades of good. (Still vastly outnumbered by the number of possible bad outcomes)