Albert VDS

Let's call it PINAP, I'll let you guys figure out what that stands for.

Space battles will be pointless. There is no reason to send up spaceship up into space to attack another spaceship in space. What would even lead to such a situation?

How would it waste fuel if the propulsion is more efficient but takes longer to do a burn than chemical rockets? Also, the optimal time to get a escape trajectory would be taken in to account with any burn time, specially with a long burn.

Sure it can put the spacecraft into an escape trajectory faster than anything else, but it doesn't matter if you do it in a few minutes, hours or even days. Anything more efficient than chemical rockets, that can put the craft in to an escape trajectory with the same travel time, is a better choice. Mainly because it would mean more payload can be used for supplies(food, spareparts, etc).

I'd like to note that launches peaked in 1968 and went down hill from there. But they have gone up since 2006, and hopefully we'll keep this trend. [source] Creating cheaper rockets is just one way of increasing the market, it will make it possible for companies with a smaller budget to launch. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a satellite can cost from the low $50 million to $500 million. So if a company made a satellite for $50 million wouldn't want the launch to cost 5 times as much. So now we have cheap rockets, that doesn't mean that satellite costs will come down? I think it open up the possibility of massproducing satellites, like what already happend with the Orbcomm satellites. Of course they aren't mass produced as any consumer product, but enough to lower the cost. Science space missions should also follow this way of producing probes. Look at the 2020 Mars rover it's basiclly Curiosty, but atleast 1/5 cheaper. $1.9 billion compared to the $2.5 billion. Also a more modular approach would make satellites, probes and rovers more versatile and causes a mass production type of operation. This will cause a feedback loop of decreasing cost, where even a bigger market can be opened so that price goes down even further. Things like planetary missions, Earth satellites, tourism, some way to clean up space, maybe even mining, etc. That's what needs to happen.

Cuky, just paste the link and then hit enter to post Youtube videos. That video is so cool, who needs wings.

Actually it's not a Windows cursor, it's a Linux cursor. SpaceX doesn't use Windows. Seriously.

You don't need to go fast to get to Mars, because that means you are favoring propellant over supplies and you can't get a free-return trajectory. Which every you choose you want that free-return trajectory.

It's because they solutions are very obvious and can be done with proven hardware. A colony on Mars only needs the right tools to be self sustaining.

So is a Venus colony ever going to be self sustaining?

Except fir asparagus staging.

The Raspberry Pi is actually a good desktop computer for basic internet browsing(no flash or heavy HTML5), e-mail and office applications. It can also be used as a media center or play old games(for example via DosBox).

Well if that kid had a self sustaining hab and all the tools needed to keep it running then yeah it's not a bad place. Sure it won't bring the other family members back, but it would safe the family line.

Thanks for the tip, had some Steam cash over and didn't know what to do with it.

Sure, but that's why I said "As long as the Falcon 9's 1st stages aren't reused".

As long as the Falcon 9's 1st stages aren't reused, and thus the price isn't going down, then a non-reusable Falcon 9 launch is good enough for heavy payloads which require the extra delta-V. Who's going to pay for a Falcon Heavy if it's easily launched on a non-reusable Falcon 9?

There could be flights where they need all the delta-V they can get and landing is not even possible.

Elon Musk on Instragram: Falcon lands on droneship, but the lockout collet doesn't latch on one the four legs, causing it to tip over post landing. Root cause may have been ice buildup due to condensation from heavy fog at liftoff.

The barge is already extremely stable even in storm conditions. It didn't tip over because of the barge, but because of the leg. A land landing would have had the same result.

Reusiblity of the Falcon 9 was mentioned way before it flew: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/musk-ambition-spacex-aim-for-fully-reusable-falcon-9/ Everything on the first Falcon 9 was designed to be reusable, although it didn't have any capabilities to be reused. IIRC the surprised engineer part was when they started designing the Falcon 9. A good reason to not have integrated landing legs is so a disposable Falcon 9 has more delta-V. Having 2 different tanks with integrated legs and no legs would defeat the whole cost saving aspect of mass production.

But "not much" is a whole lot for a rocket. It's a reason why the external tank of the Space Shuttle wasn't painted.

The F9 was designed to become a reusable rocket, so the landing legs are hardly an afterthought. SASSTO and ROMBOS both have relativly flimsy landing legs compared to the F9. Besides, the F9 legs widens the base while keeping most of the mass at the bottom and center of the stage.

It doesn't need to be sturdier if it lands vertical all legs bare the same weight. The legs need to be more reliable. Sturdier means heavier, and that's not what a rocket needs.

I've heard that it could have been ice build up in the leg due to the thick mist. The previous landing leg failure was due to most of the weight being on that leg, which was caused by a valve not responding fast enough, which made the rocket readjust itself into an angle.

They fail to see how many things did go right and how hard it is to actually land a rocket on a barge at sea. Also negativity sells.