Lukaszenko
-
Posts
365 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Lukaszenko
-
-
Man of many talents!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
On 3/18/2020 at 10:57 PM, Flying dutchman said:
the way i see it the launch was succesfull in completing it's objective. the satelites were injected into the right orbit.
the landing was a failure. but this seems to confuse some people.
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).
-
15 hours ago, Wjolcz said:
If it ain't broke...
That kind of thinking will keep you stuck in the cave (or low-earth orbit, in this case
)
-
3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:
It doesn't really matter to me, I suppose, but is that "8.5 bar" in gauge pressure or absolute pressure? (The difference is about 1 bar.)
I don't think it would make sense to report it in absolute. Imagine for example, if it failed at 1 bar, absolute
-
9 hours ago, sh1pman said:You make reusable rockets, you get less money for them, seems totally fair!
Not sure I follow the logic here
-
On 10/1/2019 at 5:07 PM, tater said:
I think that SpaceX is open enough to data that they will eventually end up with pure space vehicles, and Earth<---->LEO vehicles.
Take a variant Starship. Remove all TPS. Remove fins. Jettison the entire fairing. You have a cylinder in space now that still has attitude control, solar power, and can be refilled with other Starships. You have a tug/ferry very much in the spirit of the original NASA STS concept (before shuttle stole the name of what was meant to be a SYSTEM of multiple vehicles). What's the dry mass of Starship minus all that stuff? 75 tons? Less?
Could Super Heavy make orbit with no usable payload? If so, launch it anyway and you end up with something even better. Subtract the fins and legs, and maybe replace a couple engines with vac variants to optimise.
You can then take the whole RTLS concept to the next level, where the launch site is low-Earth orbit. I wonder how fast that could get you to Mars?
-
On 5/25/2019 at 8:16 PM, Kerbart said:
What unit is that? Or do you mean cm3?
Yes, what you said.
-
On 5/10/2019 at 4:47 PM, DAL59 said:
radiation
It did cross my mind, but it can't be that hard to shield 3 cm^3. Besides, since the first sentence of this discussion is "about how humans would survive on long-term space voyage", we'll be using dna storage in one way or another whether we like it or not.
-
22 hours ago, DAL59 said:
dna is not optimal for space applications though
Why not?
QuoteFor data storage density nature currently has us well beaten - 1 gram of perfectly encoded DNA could theoretically store 455 exabytes of data, if you could keep it in a state that was both stable & somehow readable.
All sources I checked say that "215 petabytes of data in a single gram of DNA" is 85% of the theoretical limit. Where did you find 455 exabytes
?
-
"DNA Fountain" method can store 215 petabytes of data in a single gram of DNA. So, looking at the density of DNA, you could easily fit an exabyte into < 3 cm^3.
-
2 hours ago, Reactordrone said:
ETA-Appears to be a small umbilical cable that didn't detach cleanly at launch and got dragged up to orbit.
That has a bit of an ominous quality to it
-
3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:
Tho, according to Reddit via some random guy on twitter, this will actually be the first "long loiter" mission, the upper stage will fire again at apogee to partially circularize the orbit of the GPS sat, not just send it on a transfer orbit.
If that's the case, then maybe there IS a good reason for it after all. They'll probably need all the energy they can get.
-
14 hours ago, tater said:
They crashed many times learning how to land, and a couple after learning (FH, and one other, I think). So out of 65 launches, and maybe 40-something landing attempts, they have landed 32.
I don't think it's fair to count destructive tests during the R&D phase as "failures". Even after the first successes there's a grey zone.
Perhaps when they stopped referring to it as "experimental landing" and simply "landing" would be a good starting point to count failures/ successes.
-
16 hours ago, XB-70A said:
Hmmmm....is that a falcon?
-
10 hours ago, Green Baron said:
Thanks, which means they are well ahead of wind and waves even if they'd tug slower. Looks they thought it through :-)
Right. It's not exactly rocket science
-
5 hours ago, Xd the great said:
Routine launch, routine landing.
Yeah, they didn't even bother to do the countdown this time.
-
34 minutes ago, DAL59 said:
SpaceX doesn't care if some people protest. Those people aren't their customers.
Given how much effort they put into their PR, I'm guessing that they DO care. Maybe those people aren't directly their customers, but they have an influence on the people who are.
-
47 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:
Wouldn't carbon fiber be lighter than kevlar though?
Does anyone know how kevlar and carbon fiber degrade in space conditions over time?
Probably, I didn't realize that they made ropes out of the stuff. Makes sense though.
-
55 minutes ago, Rus-Evo said:
I suspect that the weight of cable is a big DV downside.
Based on this link, I estimate a kevlar cable would weigh about 5 kg/m for a 450 ton BFS at 1g. I don't know how much you want, maybe 100 m? So that's 500 kg, and that's probably waaaay over-engineered.
-
1 hour ago, NSEP said:
The BFS pressurized compartement should have stairs/ladders, without a doubt. Remember, the BFS is going to land and stay on Mars for several months or years, and you have to bring the people down and back from their cabins somehow when you are on Mars. The BFS will probably house people, and/or cargo even after the bases have been built, as extra room. If i had a giant spaceship with the internal volume of a big airliner, i wouldn't waste that space on nothing.
2 hours ago, Wjolcz said:Stairs? Why not ladders?
Yeah, maybe, but it's tall and ladders aren't the safest things.
But indeed, it will be on Mars anyway. Perhaps I overanalyzed. Still, if there is a big open common area, having space in 3d would be, well, more space.
)
SpaceX Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Profit from Starlink? Even if not, it's not THAT much money. Isn't it around what Falcon Heavy cost to develop?