Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lukaszenko

  1. If you find a risk and just keep rolling the dice because you didn't lose 100 times, you're just asking for something to go wrong. Off the top of my head, I can think of ALL the NASA crew losses as an example.
  2. Probably now is the time to buy ICBMs from Russia
  3. Good explanation, but it leaves more questions than answers. For example, how did they find out about this "hole" if they lost the booster? Did they know about it BEFORE the launch?
  4. It's not just about throwing away boosters, it's about having a reliable and robust recovery of rockets, especially if they eventually plan to expand this into a reliable and robust recovery of 100+ people.
  5. Could be. But, the very things that allow them to perform their aerodynamic function also helps them perform their new structural function: they are thick and they are large. They are also made of titanium to contend with the heat. Even if I'm completely talking out of my ass, strengthening them up in order to take the loads would surely be less costly mass-wise than adding a bunch of legs.
  6. I'm guessing much sooner with the catch system. What's the point of perfecting landing on legs when you can start landing on the catcher? Why not test all the things in parallel, if possible?
  7. What's wrong with Falcon 9- type legs? Or, at least legs on the outside. Seems like it would solve a lot of problems. Why are they insisting on legs on the inside?
  8. What do half of these things mean?? Tri-vent, recondenser, TFR... I have an idea for the other things, but not sure it's a good idea
  9. If the past couple months was not enough time, I'm guessing an extra few minutes won't be either. i.e. not today.
  10. All legitimate answers which I considered myself, but for every answer I have even more questions... Again, all are legitimate but speculative answers; we don't don't what the real explanation is
  11. I'm trying to wrap my head around the decision to remove them. If it's for more payload, do they use the capability? If not, why not leave them in, just in case? Or, maybe removing them shows confidence in success?
  12. ....which somehow looked worse than some 240p videos I've seen
  13. Nice animation. What would be the point of landing it on a droneship though?
  14. I especially agree with the above; airliner turbine blades experience THE most difficult environments for materials to survive in.
  15. It's like watching the Falcon 9 rocket launches. They're getting less and less exciting by the launch, but it's not the launch itself that's interesting, it's the fact that each one represents a step on the ladder to making space cheap and accessible. I don't watch any other rocket launches, whether bigger or faster or whatever, because they don't represent progress to making us a properly space-faring civilization; they just represent the same 'ol excrements.
  16. Is it just me, or am I hearing less and less complaints about Starlink polluting the night sky as the constellation grows?
  17. Profit from Starlink? Even if not, it's not THAT much money. Isn't it around what Falcon Heavy cost to develop?
  18. Hell, for $1.5M/ flight, I wouldn't be surprised if some of us chipped in and bought one or two.
  19. Are they really sending him to the ISS? Seems unlikely, because wouldn't he need a camera crew and all the works? Besdies, they have a mockup of the ISS on the ground and CG and parabolic flights to more or less make it convincing.
  20. It's not for publicity in the advertising sense, where you're trying to win over customers. It's for publicity in the "hearts and minds" sense, where you're trying to win over support and inspire people to pursue space-related careers. It's more of an indirect and long-term benefit for the space industry. In a sense though, since the taxpayer IS the customer of NASA, it's also directly beneficial.
  21. Exactly, it LOOKS like a step back. It makes the statsics looks worse, and it adds a bit of weight to the notion that Elon is trying to accomplish the impossible. Cheap and reliable space access and rocket reusability is still a dream. That being the case, every time there's a failure you can't help but feel a little of that dream slipping away.
  22. True, but the whole satellite-launching stuff they (as well as others) seem to have down. The interesting point, and the one I presume keeps us glued to the webcasts and this thread, is the progress towards making space accessible. Every recovery is a step forward. It's hard to not see a loss as a step backwards (at least temporarily).
  23. That kind of thinking will keep you stuck in the cave (or low-earth orbit, in this case )
  • Create New...