KSK Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 1 hour ago, mikegarrison said: I believe SpaceX is heading toward discovering that it is very hard for one company to be good at everything -- building rockets, flying rockets, building satellites, running an internet company, being an airline, colonizing Mars, etc. etc. They seem to be making a decent fist of the first three and they'd better git gud at the fourth if they want to fund their Mars ambitions. After that - agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, mikegarrison said: Historically, the trigger for the anti-trust laws that prevent airplane manufacturers from running airlines came about when Boeing refused to sell 247s to TWA because they were reserving them all for their own airline, United. This had two consequences: TWA convinced Douglas to build the DC-1 and Boeing had to sell United (and also Pratt & Whitney). I suppose the same thing would be if somebody else wanted to run a P2P rocket business and tried to buy rockets from SpaceX, but SpaceX refused to sell them any in order to protect their own P2P business. Except that wouldn't be the reason, the reason would be because Rocketry technology is ITAR protected. If spaceX makes sympathetic noises while blaming the military, the military will protect SpaceX's monopoly. Edited January 10, 2020 by Rakaydos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Don't see it mentioned, so... AFAIK this was a planned test-to-failure, no official word yet on how it went. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Rakaydos said: Except that wouldn't be the reason, the reason would be because Rocketry technology is ITAR protected. This argument is weaker than weak. I take ITAR/EAR classes every year because, guess what, a lot of airplane technology is classed as dual use and/or export controlled. We still not only sell planes to airlines, but even to foreign airlines. This discussion is reminding me of the dot-com bubble, where many people were absolutely sure that internet startups were some kind of magic exemption to economics and law. But they weren't. Or when people thought Google was some kind of magic exemption to murky corporate ethics because their slogan was "don't be evil" -- and now? A lot less trusted. I get it that some of you are massive SpaceX fans, but businesses are businesses and the law is the law. Edited January 10, 2020 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I get it that some of you are massive SpaceX fans, but businesses are businesses and the law is the law. Yeah, this is a legit concern for any P2P plans---though honestly I think law (in this sense) is the low bar compared to demonstrating safety. Personally, I'd prefer to not have the government get in the way, if airlines that made their own planes had an advantage---it would simply encourage more aircraft manufacturers to make their own airlines (or airlines to start making their own aircraft). I don't know the answer as to which way is "better" (no regulation in this regard, or what we have), but I think there are unintended consequences of both that are possible. Ie: had Boeing made an airline, United, would their sales have dropped in aircraft Mfg? Would AA (PanAm, Eastern, whatever) have gotten into bed with Lockheed and had their own planes? We don't know how that alternate history turns out (not that I think the law is going to change, just spitballing). Edited January 10, 2020 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 23 hours ago, mikegarrison said: Or when people thought Google was some kind of magic exemption to murky corporate ethics because their slogan was "don't be evil" -- and now? A lot less trusted. Gods but I loathed that stupid slogan. It killed any sort of nuanced debate about many topics, in that anything that a given person disapproved of on the internet immediately got described as 'evil'. Not to mention that half the time, if Company X did something it was fine, but if Company Y (who typically operated counter to whatever groupthink was prevalent on a given forum) did that same thing, they were 'evil'. Edited January 11, 2020 by KSK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Spoiler They just omitted the final part of the slogan. "Don't be evil. Consider this as normal." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, tater said: Ie: had Boeing made an airline, United, would their sales have dropped in aircraft Mfg? Would AA (PanAm, Eastern, whatever) have gotten into bed with Lockheed and had their own planes? We don't know how that alternate history turns out (not that I think the law is going to change, just spitballing). We kind of do know. Boeing *did* make their own airline (and yes, it was United). TWA wanted to buy 247s, but Boeing wouldn't sell, so they convinced Douglas to build a replacement. The DC-1 led to the DC-2 and then the DC-3. So yeah, refusing to sell to competitors did cause the market to find alternate solutions. When WW2 came, Boeing mainly stopped building commercial airplanes and built bombers. Douglas also built war-time planes, but one of them was the C-47 (derived from the DC-3) and so, in the end, Boeing's refusal to sell the 247 led to Douglas building 10,000 C-47s. On the other hand, Boeing's legacy of bombers led to the 707, so.... Edited January 10, 2020 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Just now, mikegarrison said: We kind of do know. Boeing *did* make their own airline (and yes, it was United). TWA wanted to buy 247s, but Boeing wouldn't sell, so they convinced Douglas to build a replacement. The DC-1 led to the DC-2 and then the DC-3. So yeah, refusing to sell to competitors did cause the market to find alternate solutions. Interesting. Just now, mikegarrison said: When WW2 came, Boeing mainly stopped building commercial airplanes and built bombers. Douglass also built war-time planes, but one of them was the C-47 (derived from the DC-3) and so, in the end, Boeing's refusal to sell the 247 led to Douglas building 10,000 C-47s. LOL, it's like Boeing losing on on the military transport to Lockheed (C-5), and then having to settle for using the 747 as an airliner, instead. (this is what I remember the story being, didn't bother to google to check, I might be wrong). Just now, mikegarrison said: On the other hand, Boeing's legacy of bombers led to the 707, so.... Yeah, makes you wonder what the airline business would be like. Instead of standardizing on a few types of very similar planes, maybe some might have tried novel approaches (competing on travel time, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, tater said: Yeah, makes you wonder what the airline business would be like. Instead of standardizing on a few types of very similar planes, maybe some might have tried novel approaches (competing on travel time, etc). This has been tried. Concorde. Tu-144. "Sonic Cruiser". Now Boom is pushing a supersonic small jet concept. While people prefer shorter flight times, they seem to prefer lower-priced tickets even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 33 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: This has been tried. Concorde. Tu-144. "Sonic Cruiser". Now Boom is pushing a supersonic small jet concept. While people prefer shorter flight times, they seem to prefer lower-priced tickets even more. Most do... I miss air travel not feeling like Greyhound. Back in the 80s I used to wear a sport coat on planes, because otherwise I felt like a schlub. I'd also much prefer shorter long-haul flights, hours and hours flying is brutal (partially because I can't sleep sitting down). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) I honestly didn't think they would build and test that small tank that quickly. Maybe the SS will actually be mostly complete in 2-3 months from now. Although, I still don't expect the flight to happen before mid-spring. Probably closer to summer. Also, what's the whole crew safety factor? I assume that at least 1.0 is needed for the crew to board the rocket? E: this didn't look very dramatic. I guess that's a good thing Edited January 10, 2020 by Wjolcz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Well. "PUFFFFFF" instead of "BANNNGGGG". Definitely an improvement i'd say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Is there any info around about what pressure the first tank failed at? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Dale Christopher said: Is there any info around about what pressure the first tank failed at? Just curious. Oh, yo mean Mk1? Not sure we ever heard officially. Edited January 11, 2020 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacke Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 11 hours ago, mikegarrison said: Or when people thought Google was some kind of magic exemption to murky corporate ethics because their slogan was "don't be evil" -- and now? A lot less trusted. I get it that some of you are massive SpaceX fans, but businesses are businesses and the law is the law. The way I saw it quite a while back was Google took that slogan and effectively interpreted it as "By definition, everything Google does isn't evil." Google does a lot of good. But some things.... Now, SpaceX is doing a lot of good too. They have a lot of fans. But there's still the possibility of some things.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) About the silos. Just realized. The current Starship 1st stage size (afaik, 9 m x 60+ m) is almost equal to the UR-500 aka Proton full size (wingspan ~8.5 m x height 60+ m ). And UR-500 was originally designed as a silo-based ICBM. Its silo was successfully built and tested. So, at least the first stage of Starship is definitely silo-compatible. So, they can leave only the upper stage above the ground, mounting a required one just from rails. *** Another idea is:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Coupole Spoiler In this case they could also land the stages on an elevator platform and get them down right into the facility. Also it's about the lunar and Martian sites. Spoiler Why lunar is lowercase, while Martian is uppercase? Just because the Moon is not a planet?? It's a discrimination. *** Imho, the main (if not the only) purpose of the intercontinental Starship passenger hops is to make a chain of spaceports to land the first stages not on a barge, and to pay the local taxes. So, unlikely this is a viable plan to replace the aviation. Edited January 11, 2020 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Static fire! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) Edited January 11, 2020 by CatastrophicFailure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurja Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, tater said: What's that landing pad on a boat? A barge ship for ants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 Just now, kurja said: What's that landing pad on a boat? A barge ship for ants? Helo pad for crew missions. Secure capsule. Crew boards helo and flies home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.