Alfastar

A very simple fact is that how more stuff you put into something, how more change is that one of them going fail. 27 engines are just much, maybe too much. You can say that it can handle a engine failure, but would you as commercial company will launch you sat into GEO by a rocket who engine(s) fails at 50% of the flight history? (This is much more theoretical, but I try to let you understand my point) Well, I not saying that it can't use a dual payload system. I saying that its not really profitable if it don't got it. Would be it not even just useless to make a commercial heavy-lift rocket without having a dual-payload system.

Well, when most says the Falcon Heavy is great, I say that its now useless and not cheaper then a dual GEO payload launch from a Ariane 5. Why? Because the Falcon heavy don't got a dual payload system. The Ariane 5 got. If you count already the launch cost for the Falcon heavy (What is not really trustful) then it MAY be cheaper in the first place, but around the same price, you can launch something from the Ariane 5 with a dual payload system. And would so much engines be not even more risky? How more engines, how more chances that something can be wrong.

Well, first of all. The cost of a Falcon-9 1.1 launch are still unknown. SpaceX SAYS that it cost $54 million dollars, but do we seen any independent costs calculations of a Falcon 9 1.1 launch? And is SpaceX really busy with earning profits? Well, no. SpaceX just starting this year with the first commercial launches. But, there still goes on mostly with Dragon launches. And in LEO, you barely can make profit. The real profit makers are MEO/GEO launches. There spend million and million dollars with government funds to launch a new Dragon, a new Falcon 9 (and Heavy) rocket and maybe in the future even more rockets. Meanwhile, there will AGAIN have a new launchpad. First there was plans for launching Falcon 1 from Vandenberg, then it was that island somewhere by Kwajalein. Then there will go launch Falcon 9's from the Cape, then there will go back to Vandenberg, and now there got plans for a whole new launch site somewhere in Texas. And who going to pay that? NASA (Government funds) And then about the launch cost self of the Falcon 9 (1.1), I don't believe $54 million dollars are a realistic number. It maybe is so low now, because SpaceX is largely supported by government funds (NASA, with CCDev, and COTS). But when there is not more that. I surely bet the launch price of a Falcon 9 (1.1) launch would be between $70 million and $120 million dollars, and then I be mild about it. Some even tells that the launch price would be above $140 million dollars! No, I'm not a SpaceX-hugger.

I don't serious see a point why we must switch over to the Ariane-6. We got the Ariane-5 for GEO missions and the ATV launches, the R-7 Soyuz 2.1 rocket for the more around missions (MEO/LEO) and the Vega for the LEO missions. See you any point now still to have a forth rocket who don't can fill a hole.

Well, the Energia project was just the best and coolest idea if we don't count the R-7 family. Re-usable was one of the main plans, and it was also become not only used for Buran-launches. It was a good rocket (It launched 2 times correct, but Polyus has a failure what cause it was lost) for a low price. And don't forget the Energia-M plan, whats goal was to replace the Proton. Sadly that the Energia project was in the wrong time, at the wrong place at that moment. If it was in the 70's, or late 90's / early 00's, then it got more chance to be active then in end 80's.

Well, a (small) moonbase would cost almost even much as a manned mars landing AND return! The problem with going to Mars is that it cost more Delta-V, the duration is much longer then going to the moon. You need very big rockets (Even a one-rocket launch to going to Mars would be very unlikely and unrealistic at this moment, simple because the costs) to going to Mars, the lander and the return module on it. Also, would a moonbase give us more benefits in the long term then going to Mars to plant a flag and stay there some days? Think about it in the long term, when the moonbase become bigger and more and more Independence. Then a new world opens for exploration towards other planets. Asteroid mining sounds great, and I surely bet you all like that NASA idea to put a asteroid into lunar orbit. But, it would be serious make profit if you put that tiny asteroid into LEO. Simple because it would cost cheaper then to going to it then that NASA idea to put it into a orbit around the moon.

Well, the unique configuration was the Block DM-03 version for this launch. The rest was just like any normal Proton-M rocket. A autopilot error is not a very likely scenario, simple because the Proton-M was crashing too fast (sounds strange, I known) for it. The most likely cause is that one of the six engines of the first stage failed, and a serious cause for that is a failed turbopump. Some text found: "The analysis of the telemetry data has shown that the rocket's liftoff occurred nearly half a second ahead of time. Hence, the engines had not reached the necessary thrust capacity by this time," the source said. In this situation, "the automated emergency system performed nominally: upon receiving information indicating that the engines did not reach the full thrust capacity, it started an emergency procedure to direct the rocket away from the launch pad," he said. And this, something else found: "It's either the control system or the engine that has caused the accident. If the accident occurred in the first 10 to 20 seconds, than the engine is likely to be the cause," a source in the space agency told RIA.

Well, a engine failure is the most likely cause for this failure then something like the autopilot software. Maybe the turbopump failed, caused the weak thrust in one of the engines, and that caused this crash.

This sounds maybe strange, but failures are the human part of spaceflight. We are humans, so we make sometimes mistakes, no matter of it become a tiny or a large problem. Even robots makes mistakes, because there are made by humans. So, become a alien

Well, how much would cost that? And would be it serious useful for failures as this? Remember that the Proton-M use not LOX/RP1 or something, but N2O4/UDMH. And that are not very funny stuff to have in the air. No matter of you add a self-destruct system or not, the result would be the same as now: debris and toxic stuff in the air / ground. Maybe it would be even worse with the debris if there was a self-destruct system, because the debris would be smaller, but more, and can hit the two launchpads.

Aerodynamic stress. Its something what makes my angry. See how much people jokes about things as this, but there don't known how dramatically bad this is for all people who worked for this launch. Because Russia don't got something like a self-destruct thing. The only thing it does normally by a failure is shutting down the engines. I thing a most likely reason for this failure is that one of the six engines failed in thrust. Simple: If you got one of the six engines don't make a good thrust to make it stable, then the object (rocket) goes towards the side where there is the less thrust (the failed engine) But, there can be other reason(s) for this launch failure. (God no, Kryten don't steal my answers )

What a shame that there don't count the Energia in the list! Why do so much people forget the coolest heavy-launcher Russia / Soviet union ever made?!

Well, I don't serious got the thrust that SpaceX re-usable goal become true in 2023. It would TBH even dumb to use government funds (again) for years and years for a re-usable first stage, and finally a re-usable second stage, who both terms of re-usable counts only for LEO missions, missions where there is almost no profit! Planetary resources orbital fuel stations are almost fiction, and who supply the fuel station? I don't see any real fact that Planetary resources fuel station become true. SpaceX can't solve the problems. If spaceflight was so easy, then NASA already landed already people on Mars in the 70's.

- The Stinger: Shielding has been done countless times, I think we know how much it needs. I think you miss a big difference between shielding probes for Mars, and shielding a manned spacecraft on Mars who must stay a very long time. Yes, you can say: But the ISS... But fact is that the ISS is in LEO, under the radiation belt. So shielding the ISS is a lot more easy then shielding a manned spacecraft who must land on Mars. - The Stinger: You mentioned heavy equipment, I think they don't need it at all. You don't need it because they've got time on their side. Well, something like digging stuff is not 1000 kg. Digging stuff on Mars would cost ca 15000 kg, aka 15 tons. That would be very uneasy and not cheap. - The Stinger: The base expanse via new settlers with their habitat modules and additional supplies. This is one of the most hilarious thing I ever hear. New settlers means more supplies, more supplies means more mass, more mass means more costs. - The Stinger: sponsors, TV rights, investments, technology licenses, etc. Well, would you serious spend you money towards a non-profit project what got a high chance that it fails? I think 99,99% of the people don't will fund them. Mars one already cost 6 BILLION $, at least! - The Stinger: Why waste money on a Moon base, when Mars provides condition similar to Earth? The Moon no mentionable atmosphere, a much lower gravity, higher radiation and it's tidally locked to Earth almost 30 days of Sun. A moonbase would be not a waste. It would be in the long term maybe far more cheaper and better then a Mars colony of 20 people. Also, it would cost less Delta-V, less money, more realistic and more safer then a Mars to stay mission. And don't forget the crew got only a communication delay of only 3 seconds, and can return to earth more easy then return to earth from Mars. And you got a ton of science and exploration if you build a moonbase. Maybe in the long term, it would even be very useful to build spacecrafts on the moon, and let them to the other planets.

It would be even very unrealistic at this moment to do that. Even in KSP its very hard to dock in less then a hour. So on earth, with real-life spaceflight, would it even very unrealistic. You need to deploy the stuff, tests, critical burns to going to the space station ect. It would not only be unrealistic, but it would cost also more fuel then a normal plan to going to it in a few days.

Mars one. I call it more the biggest spaceflight fraud I ever seen. Serious, the first problem is that the MSL was already very close what we can put the maximal mass we can soft land on Mars at this moment. So with our today tech, its unrealistic to put something ca 2500 kg landed soft on Mars. Second of all, the only things what are really clear are the lander, and the launch rocket. But for the rest, there are totally unclear about there stuff. Third point is that the mars one team is just a wild gripped group of people who got no experience in the spaceflight business, and those who have, joined only this project simple because there will attention to the mass. Fourth point is that this mission cost circa 6 BILLION US DOLLARS! That's a lot of money. The donations are only on $100,000 dollars. Don't think companies are going serious support them. It would just cost too much, and it have a high risk that it not even become true also. And the last point is more my opinion. We don't must go to Mars to make it a big brother planet. We must go in the name of humanity, science and exploration. With a return to earth included. I surely some go say: But there got SpaceX. But don't forget also that SpaceX does this only because there own PR. It cost them almost nothing, and it gives SpaceX a good PR for the mass. And would be it not even just dumb to let SpaceX again in a non-profit project, who needs much millions of NASA funds to support (again) SpaceX non-profit projects?

Well, I don't take that words serious, and to be honest, I don't hope that he is totally mostly focus about the moon and mars at this moment. How SpaceX exist at this moment, is mostly thanked by NASA funds. If there was no COTS, and CCDev2, then the whole Falcon-9 family and the Dragon not even exist! If you serious will become a private spaceflight company, then you will focus about launch contracts with communication satellite companies, DoD and government space agencies. Its the only way to really make profit in the world of spaceflight. Look, nothing wrong with the Dragon, but you totally can't make profit from it! There is never really serious plans to going with a Dragon to the moon. The Falcon heavy is not even man-rated, so you can't use that rocket soon. Maybe on the long term, but I don't really see that happens. Also, going to Mars with SpaceX is much more a wish of Mr Musk self (and also a bit good for some PR for SpaceX to saying things as going to Mars), but who will pay it again? Uncle NASA. SpaceX need first to build up and make profit, and then we can a bit more serious talk about non-profit project by SpaceX.

Well, in KSP, asparagus staging works good, at least, it depends about the rocket. However, when we talk about real, earth drag, then it become a total other story. So, asparagus staging can help a lot in some cases, but in some other cases, it don't really helping anything.

Well, don't forget also that the Estonia cubesat (ESTCube-1) is the first satellite who testing the concept of the E-sail. Anyway, it was a nice launch. Vega second launch was also a success!

Well, the Delta-V needed to escape Kerbin is the same as the Delta-V needed for a short sub-orbital trip on earth

Be I the only one who see in this big brother base on mars problems? 1: Its a one-way trip to mars. There see never there family and friends on earth again in real-life, how there will deal with this social problem? 2: What for rules are there? And whats happens to a person who broke the rules? 3: Who go pay this big brother base in mars? 4: Food and drinks are go in a Modified Dragon mars version cargo spacecraft, but is this not very risky and (too) much expensive method? 5: This Big brother mars base is go be used for reality TV show, But are there really humans interesting to watch a lifetime a reality TV show? I really advise to not read the Mars-one project as a beautiful dream, but skeptical and realistic.

You call Orbiter a game? Its the best space simulation ever made by humans!!! On-topic: To the add-on maker of this spaceport: How can this mobile launchpad leave kerbin?

Yea, especially China likes livestreams for spaceflights...(Sarcastic)

01001001 01000110 00100000 01110011 01101111 01101101 01100101 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01101011 01101110 01100101 01110111 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00101100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100111 01100100 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01100001 01100010 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101111 01101110 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110100 01110010 01100001 01101110 01110011 01101100 01100001 01110100 01101111 01110010 00101110 00100000 01001001 01000110 00100000 01110011 01101111 01101101 01100101 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01101011 01101110 01100101 01110111 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00101100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100111 01100100 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01100001 01100010 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101111 01101110 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110100 01110010 01100001 01101110 01110011 01101100 01100001 01110100 01101111 01110010 00101110 00100000 01001001 01000110 00100000 01110011 01101111 01101101 01100101 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01101011 01101110 01100101 01110111 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00101100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100111 01100100 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01100001 01100010 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101111 01101110 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100101 00100000 01110100 01110010 01100001 01101110 01110011 01101100 01100001 01110100 01101111 01110010 00101110 00100000 Ok, whats here so funny about saying: 010010010?

Yea, after months of setting a new launch date for the Dragon COTS 2, there can\'t still launch a Spacecraft to the ISS. Sorry but I trust now SpaceX for 0,0000000000001%. Also, can we not ask whats the next \'\'problem\'\' for the Falcon-9 And/or the Dragon?