Nibb31

Since InSight is basically a clone of Phoenix, except for the instruments: The only difference in the video is that Phoenix was launched on a Delta II and InSight was to launch on an Atlas V (the Delta II variant used for Phoenix is no longer available).

Spacecraft don't use laptops or generic PCs. The PCs on the ISS don't control any of the actual flight parameters. They are for office work, controlling experiments, and providing a UI for the embedded systems that control the ISS. Avionics computers are embedded systems with programs that directly address the hardware or use a dedicated real-time OS, either custom-built or an off-the-shelf RTOS like VxWorks.

Launch, cruise, and EDL are identical to Phoenix and MPL.

Nobody has flown reusable rockets yet, so no, nobody know if it's a risk or how much of a risk it is. Things are more likely to break down on their first test run than after several operation cycles. An aircraft is more likely to have trouble on its first test flight than during after several hundred hours of operation. Reliability actually goes up with continued usage, not the opposite. Whether this applies to rockets is something that we don't know, since we don't have any criteria for comparison (although we can extrapolate that statistically STS-1 had a much higher risk of failure than the following missions). Car insurance doesn't typically cover technical failures. They take age and model of the car to determine its insured value, not the risk. The risk is usually calculated on the profile of the operator/driver (age, gender, history of accidents...). Launch insurance is a different model. The insured value covers the launch cost and the payload. The risk of technical failure is evaluated based on the success/failure rate of the launch system. Whether that system is reusable or not is irrelevant as long as you have a launch history. Your analogy is irrelevant. Launch customers don't buy rockets, don't operate rockets. They buy a service. They already buy a service. It's no different from paying UPS to send a parcel or buying an airline ticket.

In 10 years, ISS will be end of life, and therefore so will the commercial crew and cargo programs. I don't see how this can ever be cost effective for random space junk. How much are you going to spend to go after something the size of a screwdriver or a bolt? It's easier to make disposal part of the mission profile and to minimize debris by design. Soyuz/Progress demonstrated that decades ago.

The mission is cost-capped, meaning that if they don't get a budget extension (which isn't allowed on cost-capped missions) to find out why the SEIS instrument leaked and fix it, then cancellation is a possibility.

Why spend money on PR when the mission is on the verge of being cancelled?

Except that you're not redesigning anything. You're designing it from scratch from predetermined requirements that can be easily calculated with pretty much any CAD software, which is something that you would have to do whatever the design. It's Engineering 101. We're just going to have to disagree on this, because neither you nor I have run the calculations and done the engineering work, so we are basing the argument on assumptions and preconceptions. Someone would need to run an extensive comparative study between the two architectures to make an educated decision.

Used or unused doesn't matter much when it comes to the consequences of an accident. Both will hit the its reputation and insurance payments. We don't really know if a reused booster presents more risk or less risk at this point. Insurance companies could consider the entire system or the launch provider as a single entity.

What I meant was that the customer doesn't need to be aware of the flight history of the booster. When you buy a plane ticket, you don't get to know the flight history of the plane you're flying on. Maintenance costs, size of the aircraft, and leasing contracts are transparent for the user. You just buy a plane ticket to go from A to B. The same is true for pretty much every service. When you subscribe to broadband or a cell phone contract, you agree on a level of service for a given price. You don't get to choose what equipment the operator uses or the backbone that your data goes through. That's the job of the service provider, to keep a balance between quality of service and cost efficiency. I'm willing to bet that SpaceX's model will be based on charging customers for putting a payload A into an orbit B. How it's done will remain the sole business of SpaceX, who will set prices and manifests based on the market and the actual cost, just like any other product.

That's the plan. Development is privately funded, but that doesn't mean that SpaceX investors don't expect a return on investment. Throwing away money into a sink isn't much of a business plan, and whatever you might think, Musk is still a businessman and he doesn't have unlimited funds. In the end, once they've designed the MCT, it won't be cheap to build and operate, so they still need to find someone willing to pay for the trip. They might be able to fund development of the MCT from sat launches but I'm not convinced that the current margins are that high (I suspect that any advances in reusability will be aimed at increasing revenue rather than lowering prices) and I don't beleive that an internet constellation is that much of a cash cow.

That's nothing you can't engineer your way around. You could put your thrusters on Canfield joints as mentioned previously, or you can just use lots of "microsecond" burns, it will take longer, but we're talking about interplanetary timescales. Or you can accept to carry more propellant as part of the tradeoff of doing without all the complex joint/bearing/seals/motors/lubricants/radiators/spares associated with a rotation section. You can't say that it will never be done. The stresses aren't anything that can't be designed into the ship. There are plenty of engineering solutions to stress load problems. You could add spring loaded flexible hinges to take up a part of the load like on the Orion solar panels, as previously mentioned. There are plenty of designs of spin stabilized spacecraft in the past and future concepts too. Remember ISEE-3 ? It's still operating after 30 years in space. Its thrusters are dead and fuel is depleted, but it's still spin stabilized, online, responding to commands, and its radial solar panels are still producing power. No moving parts. Even if it's not pressurized, you're going to need connections between the axial structure and the rotating section. And making it unpressurized doesn't make things like lubrication or heat dissipation any easier. It also doesn't prevent a catastrophic lockup. Remember the SARJ failure on the ISS in 2007? They were able to fly up spare parts, but an interplanetary vehicle would have to carry spare bearings and replacement parts.

It also loses energy through friction. And using it for energy storage means that you vary the RPM based on power requirements, which makes you have to choose between power draw and an optimal health environment. That's a bit counterproductive. I'm pretty sure that batteries with no moving parts are a more reliable and efficient way to store energy. Oh, and what happens to all that stored energy if a bearing in your rotating joint locks up and jams? It's not going to be pretty. On the other hand, spinning the entire ship stabilizes the ship. No need for CMGs and less RCS propellant required. More weight saved. Why do you insist on despinning for maneuvers? Any decent avionics computer should be able to maintain yaw and pitch while maintaining positive roll instead of zero roll. Even for docking/undocking it's no big deal as long as your docking ports are longitudinal.

SpaceX doesn't sell boosters, it sells a launch service.The customer price is based on the weight of the payload and the orbit where they want it, and each mission is taylored around that requirement with a specific flight profiles. The price will probably vary based on whether they use a FH, a F9, a land recovery, a barge recovery, or no recovery, but ultimately, I don't think the customer will need to know how many times the booster has flown. That's SpaceX's business. They are already the cheapest launch service around, and they need cash (lots of it) for their Mars projects. So why would they slash prices even more? Why kill the cash cow? It won't get them more customers and they will lose revenue. Reusability is a way to maximise revenue

Science fiction = Magic. Just dream up whatever makes a good story.

As long as the ISS is around, NASA isn't going anywhere. The only way to fund any of NASA's exploration goals is to cancel the ISS asap. Ariane 64 is supposed to be 10,5 tons to GTO, which puts it right between Ariane 5 ME and ECA variants, way below Falcon Heavy. It might end up slightly cheaper than Ariane 5, but I doubt it will be competitive against Falcon 9. The main purpose of Ariane 5 is the GTO comsat market and a couple of institutional payloads. H-365 is a law. Congress can do and undo laws. Nothing is cancellation-proof. If it sits around costing billions with nothing to launch, common sense will prevail, even with Congress. Then again... That's why I really think that it has a 50% chance either way. If they do have to keep SLS, then I think NASA will have to reorient itself towards the Moon instead of Mars. Whichever way you turn it, SLS and Orion are designed and scaled for cislunar missions, not Mars. It doesn't make any sense to shoehorn them into any other role.

Jet fighters pull negative and positive Gs, at some point in between, they are at zero-G. The same is true for Vomit Comet aircraft. Slosh is slosh. It's far from an unsolvable problem from an engineering standpoint with some clever use of the baffles, bladders or membranes. I really don't see what the big deal is. If you can't design something as simple as a tank with an anti-slosh system, then there is no point in even trying to go to Mars in a spacecraft with a rotating section and pressurized joints.

10 years from now? 10 years is a short time in space history. The ISS will be ended in 2024, or severely winding down. NASA funding with be transferred to the next best thing. Russia: still broke, with big plans for a new lunar space station, maybe a module or two, but I don't think PPTK will make it to 2026. USA: I see two major paths: Either the next president instructs NASA to refocus on the Moon in order to find a purpose for SLS/Orion. I don't think we'll have an actual Moon landing in 10 years, but work on landing infrastructure will be underway and we might have an EML gateway. ESA will probably be trying to cooperate in order to get some European flags up there. Meanwhile, SpaceX is still dabbling with reusable rockets. Since there is little competition, launch prices will pretty much stay the same because they are still the cheapest shop in town, by far. They might have started building mockups for their MCT, but they will still be looking for a business plan or a customer willing to pay for it. Or The next president cancels SLS/Orion. A lot of internal debate and major budget reductions ensue, heads roll, and NASA is instructed to focus on Mars. NASA issues a Commercial Mars Development Program, that SpaceX wins with its MCT proposal. By 2026, we might be nearing the first unmanned test flight of the rocket. I don't expect a Mars landing until NET 2030 in any case. China: They'll still be happily flying Shenzhou to their station, which might have 2 or 3 modules by 2026. They might also have done a circumlunar flight with Shenzhou, now that I think of it. India: They might have launched a couple of astronauts into space. ESA: I really don't see them going anywhere. They'll still be providing instruments and unmanned exploration I guess, bartering for seats on whatever NASA is doing by then.

Colonies are stupid. I would support a lunar outpost though. It would be a much more achievable next step than Mars, and we really need achievements rather than distant goals that are always 30 years into the future. But it's not going to happen, or at least not led by ESA. Woerner was being naive by proposing it. There is no political support for large manned projects in Europe.

Still not a huge deal. We have know how to make tank baffles for decades. Otherwise, airplanes would be falling out of the sky from fuel slosh each time they turn. Any ullage is better than no ullage. If you know that the propellant is going to be sticking to the walls of the tanks, that's where you put your fuel outlet. And who says you have to spin down for maneuvers ?

EM-2 is not certain to be manned. That'll make another 8 years from now before we see a manned Orion flight...

I know, and they seem to handle 1G gravity (and several Gs of acceleration) pretty well AFAIK.

Pretty much, yes. How many Hollywood screenwriters have filed patents with the USPTO? Did Apple pay royalties to Kubrick for the iPad ? Did NASA credit Jules Verne for Apollo? Would robots exist without Asimov's influence? There are probably a couple of exceptions (like the Lexus Hoverboard...) but most of the time where a plot device turns out to ressemble real world technology is either coincidental or the technological evolution was predictable.

Didn't I already counter those ?

"Information" was teleported with smoke signals and semaphores. Those predated Star Trek by centuries. The Alcubierre drive has nothing do with the Warp drive as described in Star Trek. It's like saying that we invented CCTV cameras because of Sauron's Eye. It's ridiculous. [Citation needed] Oh, I guess this is what you're referring to: Urban legend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Cooper_(inventor) "While it has been stated Cooper's vision for the handheld device was inspired by Captain James T. Kirk using his Communicator on the television show Star Trek,[13] Cooper himself later refuted this, stating that his actual inspiration was Dick Tracy's wrist radio.[14]" But if Martin Cooper hadn't come up with DynaTAC, somebody else would have eventually. The design just makes sense. Oh and by the way, Walkie Talkies existed in WWII, way before Star Trek.