Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lukaszenko

  1. Yeah indeed this is getting tedious reading the same argument about why it won't work, over and over. It's an interesting argument, point taken, but we ultimately don't know and the answer is still a giant "maybe", no matter how much we keep on beating this dead horse.

    On one side we have kerbiloid from the internet, on the other we have SpaceX and to an extent NASA.

    I'd be willing to bet money that SpaceX has a better idea about this than keribiloid. I'd be willing to bet billions, in fact. Of course, I'm talking out of my ass since I don't have billions.

    However, some people do, and that's exactly what they did with it.


  2. 9 hours ago, Flavio hc16 said:


    I wouldn't change that, especially not during an human flight, not after it worked 100+ times

    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. 

  3. 20 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

    I don’t think I saw this posted here; finally a cause for the last failed landing:


    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? :wacko:

  4. 11 hours ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

    I don’t think this will delay Crew-2 or any upcoming CRS missions, but does anyone have an idea if the landing anomaly will push back some launches as they investigate? They obviously don’t want to potentially throw away boosters if they can help it.


    USSF-44 (Falcon Heavy) has been delayed to July, probably unrelated. Also, it seems like Starlink will be 75% of SpaceX’s manifest through Q1 and Q2 this year.

    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. 15 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

    People are pointing out that the grid fins are designed to take very large aerodynamic loads, which is true. But those are distributed loads, not point loads. Which could be another issue.

    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. All legitimate answers which I considered myself, but for every answer I have even more questions...


    If the payload is mass-limited and not volume-limited, then they could use the same cabin and get more to orbit without the Superdracos.

    If. But, is it?


    Also, you can save on cost be eliminating them. The small unused space in the pods is hardly worth worrying about.

    True. But, it's supposed to be fully reusable.


    Another factor is splashdown, not having the 9 engines trough the hull make it easier to waterproof the capsule.

    True, but again it's supposed to be reusable. So, is it really that big an issue?


    No point in reducing payload mass for a launch escape system on an uncrewed cargo capsule. The SuperDracos aren't used in the course of a normal mission anyway.

    SpaceX's own history shows that it would be nice to have a way to salvage the payload in case something goes wrong. The question is, at what cost? Here it seems like they're actually going out of their way to remove a perfectly good system of salvaging it. Lost payload mass is indeed a serious cost; do they actually utilize it?

    Again, all are legitimate but speculative answers; we don't don't what the real explanation is

  7. 45 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

    Cargo Dragon 2 looks weird without Superdracos! Still has the porthole that isn't a porthole though, lol.


    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? 

  8. 57 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

    ...and don't use highly refined rocket engines which experience some of the most difficult environments for materials to survive in. 

    I especially agree with the above; airliner turbine blades experience THE most difficult environments for materials to survive in.

  9. 18 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

    I hate be a wet blanket and all that, but what's so exciting about this? I watched that video and those guys were giddy with excitement. It's basically the same thing we've already seen, isn't it?

    I'm sure for the engineers involved it is very exciting because they just doubled their store of flight data. And probably they tested some new stuff. But as an observer, it's just not terribly entertaining.

    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.

  10. 8 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

    Sure. Who's paying for it, though? SLS is government funded. As SpaceX fans are so fond of pointing out, Starship isn't.

    Profit from Starlink? Even if not, it's not THAT much money. Isn't it around what Falcon Heavy cost to develop?

  11. 43 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

    What kind of fly rate will they need to have to drop the cost to $1.5M/flight? It sure sounds great but where to find so many payloads?  

    Hell, for $1.5M/ flight, I wouldn't be surprised if some of us chipped in and bought one or two.  

  12. 4 hours ago, Shpaget said:

    Regardless, the publicity point is kind of moot. In a market that is as small as space launch biz, being featured in a movie (or even a prominent placement) does not help. All the potential customers in the space business know about SpaceX, and the decision to use them over another one will not hinge on a Tom Cruise flick.

    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.

  13. On 3/21/2020 at 9:29 AM, Flying dutchman said:

    Why would it be a step back? It's a good oppertunity to improve the rocket and make it more reliable.


    It may look like a step back but really it's not.

    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.

  • Create New...