Raven Industries

Members
  • Content Count

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

376 Excellent

About Raven Industries

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,998 profile views
  1. Heh, true. I'm a bit more optimistic though. If that does happen, then I'll be happy to lambaste SpaceX with everyone else.
  2. If I recall correctly, all the issues with astronomy and the Starlink satellites have occurred while the offended satellites were still raising their orbits, right? Regardless, the article seems to be complaining about problems that SpaceX has said they're working on fixing, but then it whines that they haven't been able to instantly implement those fixes. One of it's proposed solutions is literally something Elon Musk has said they're trying to do (reduce reflectivity). The concerns are valid, but it sort of completely ignores that SpaceX has had their head honcho directly respond to those concerns and offer some solutions they're working on.
  3. Turn that dome upside down, fill it with milk, and it will have been a flying saucer. I'll see myself out.
  4. Camera 3 from the livestream has a nice view of it being blown off and falling back down.
  5. Ah, but we're primarily concerned about the coolness factor, for which the SRBs are essential.
  6. Maybe build a nice long-term habitat housing 100 as a welcoming gift.
  7. Solid fuel alone is apparently 11 of the 25 launches. That stuff is heavy.
  8. My back of the napkin math says that assuming SpaceX reaches its 100 ton to lunar surface goal, and ignoring volume constraints, it could take an entire fully fueled SLS to the surface of the Moon in ~25 launches. If you dump the fuel, it only takes ~3 launches. Who knows, that might actually be cheaper than making SLS fly.
  9. Or instead of an accidental button push, someone knows how closely we watch for that sort of thing, and decided to have a bit of fun.
  10. "Our project has not found a way to prevent detection of a large object reentering the atmosphere, but instead of writing off the whole thing, here's a way to send hundreds of 500 million dollar dummy Starships into the same area so that the enemy doesn't know which is the real one."
  11. That was a valve failure, I'm thinking more along the lines of a hole in your fuselage.
  12. That's a fair enough criticism, but airline levels of safety in any vehicle that has to go through re-entry is not something I think is possible in the foreseeable future. The nature of re-entry is not very gentle. If you lose pressure in an aircraft, the oxygen masks drop and the pilot dips down to safer altitudes. You lose pressure in a re-entry vehicle, your passengers are dead, and you're lucky if the ship lands in less than 10,000 pieces.
  13. And possibly some impressive leaps in aerospace technology.
  14. I think the airline comparison breaks down more often than we'd like. Space travel is inherently more dangerous than air travel, and vehicles meant for the space environment may need to break a few rules that airlines hold to.