• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2621 Excellent

1 Follower

About Nibb31

  • Rank
    Flight Director
  1. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    For how long has that situation been escalating ? It has nothing to do with long range rapid response because US has been deploying forces in military bases and sending carrier groups in the area for months. In situations like these, the slow deployment of forces is actually useful because it puts progressive pressure on the opponent in diplomatic timescales. If a conflict was to erupt, then forces could be flown in from Japan an South Korea in hours, but it would more probably be done by airstrikes from regional USAF bases and Navy carriers. They wouldn't fly in special forces from Fort Lauderdale on a rocket, because they are already in South Korea waiting for the word. Landing a rocket full of special forces on a Pyongyang would be a stupid idea. The rocket would be a sitting duck that could be taken out by an Soviet-era RPG, and also free technology boost for the North Korean missile program. It wouldn't. If the military has an interest in BFS, its for its inspection and interception capabilities. This is something that the military has been working on for decades: the ability to rendezvous with hostile satellites, intercept or disrupt communications, and eventually disable the satellite if necessary. The BFS could even kidnap enemy sats and bring them back (not very realistic though).
  2. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    You guys are forgetting that the lead time in "rapid response" isn't flight time. It's all the logistics that happen before and after the flight: deciding what equipment is needed, preparing, checking, and transporting the equipment to the staging base. This typically takes several days in the best cases because modern armies can't afford to have all their best equipment packed up in crates and ready to go. Then it's getting readying the equipment and getting it to where it's needed in a hostile environment. The flight time is only a small factor here, and it is offset by the additional complexity of loading and unloading the top of a rocket instead of rolling it out of a C-17.
  3. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    No. Loading and unloading would take much longer. There is no real need for sending a battalion to the other side of the globe with no notice. Military conflicts don't arise out of nowhere. They are always preceded by months or years of diplomacy and muscle flexing. Sending a carrier group or deploying forces is a strong message that has more value than a surprise preemptive strike. What times ? Can you think of a single event in the last 50 years where that sort of capability would have been worth the effort ?
  4. Wrenches, pliers, drill bits, are typically made of extremely strong forged steel, not 3D printer alloy or something that you can carve out with a CNC machine. The whole point of these studies is to figure out this sort of thing before people get stuck on Mars wondering what tools they should have brought along or what is the best layout for a hab module, or who gets to wash the dishes.
  5. SpaceX Discussion Thread

    How would that be any easier than loading, flying, and unloading a couple of C-17s ?
  6. Obviously, it's not about how much time it takes to use or maintain specific equipment that doesn't exist yet. This isn't about training for a mission. It's about learning about general organization and mission planning, things like the optimum number of crew members, skill sets, psychology, human factors, base layout, storage, communication, planning daily activities, as well as food, supplies, etc... These are all things that are better worked on beforehand than when people are actually on Mars or even in the planning stages of an actual mission. Are you implying that these human factors studies are unnecessary ?
  7. Batteries aren't the only parts that can fail. You're still going to want manual screwdrivers, spanners, and pliers. Of course they'll have power tools, but sometimes you just need a BFH.
  8. Don't be stupid. Any high-tech spacecraft is going to be designed with reliability in mind. That means the less possible moving parts and manual backup for most vital equipment. As a backup, why not ?., How would a pneumatic hammer be superior to a normal hammer or screwdriver ? The ISS uses special zero-torque screwdrivers for EVA because zero-G, but on Mars, they will be likely to have power tools with manual tools as a backup. Evaluating how practical it is to perform various tasks with various tools is pretty useful work.
  9. Because in space, simple is usually better. These simulations are mostly designed to develop procedures, so it's perfectly valid to evaluate various tools to find out what is practical and what isn't.
  10. Dragon starts flying in 2019. ISS is retiring in 2024. CCrew is divided between Dragon2 and CST-100, typically every 6 months. CCargo is divided between Dragon 1, Dragon 2, Cygnus and DreamChaser. I'd say 6 flights of D2 is optimistic. We've discussed it plenty of times. Hardware has a shelf life. It's government property and all control equipment is in Houston and can't be transferred. End of life is a normal part of a lifecycle. Gotta deal with it.
  11. Never gonna happen. With BFR on the horizon and powered landing out the door, Dragon 2 is pretty much a dead end at this point. Dragon 2 will only fly half a dozen times for NASA. There is one circumlunar flight booked (we have yet to see if that ever materializes). Once they get confident with it, they might refly a Dragon 2 one or two times, but that'll be it.
  12. NASA SLS/Orion/DSG/DST

    So instead of spending billions to develop a SM, you multiply the development cost by the number of different SMs. Surprisingly, that might be what ends up happening. The deal with ESA for the ESM covers a grand total of 2 service modules. After EM-1 and EM-2 have flown, either NASA extends the deal with ESA, or they go back to the Lockheed Martin design.
  13. NASA SLS/Orion/DSG/DST

    I agree. They'd rather develop a data recorder jettison and recovery system that will only be used once. How much does this extra development cost compared to just packing a new set of parachutes and getting extra data from that. This program is crazy.
  14. Space Island Concept

    It was a rubbish idea. The changes made to ET would have been huge and required a major redesign. For example, the foam would degrade and flake off, so the whole thing would end up floating in a massive orange cloud of debris.
  15. Globular Empires.

    I stopped here. Do you have any idea of how long 40000 years is ? We were still living in caves 20000 years ago. Look at how humanity has changed in just the last 1000 years. Look at how close we have come to extinction in the last 100 years. Do you really think that Homo Sapiens will still be around as a species in 40000 years ?