razark Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 (edited) Ah, yes. Comparing apples and oranges. You have a point. By the way, did you know that apples were cultivated before oranges? Edited August 8, 2016 by razark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duski Posted August 8, 2016 Author Share Posted August 8, 2016 5 hours ago, Firemetal said: As much as I love SpaceX, I must agree with @razark. BO did it first. However, that doesn't mean that SpaceX didn't get the idea first. Sure BO landed their booster first but spacex had a bigger rocket and a much greater goal than BO and that took longer to prepare. Yes you are right, SpaceX could've come up with the idea first (highly unlikely). However it is still like comparing the first man in space to landing on the Moon. which we definitely get our cheese from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Gaarst said: The fact SpaceX started with Grasshopper and is now recovering its Falcons shows that SpaceX is more advanced than BO. Learning to recover on smaller launchers is fine, but BO has yet to prove that its multiple recovery "tests" will be useful for orbital missions. The idea that the lessons won't apply is, quite frankly, absurd. The only major difference between what F9 does and what NS does is F9 has a significantly higher re-entry speed, the demands on most subsystems are about the same. The only thing F9 really has that NS doesn't is thick ablative TPS, and even then the TPS isn't some secret sauce bit of technology, it's bloody cork! If you're making this kind of argument, have a good long think about why you're making it; if you just want to defend St. Musk and his precious company, stop it, they really doesn't need it. Edited August 8, 2016 by Kryten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 3 hours ago, Duski said: Yes you are right, SpaceX could've come up with the idea first (highly unlikely). However it is still like comparing the first man in space to landing on the Moon. which we definitely get our cheese from. Again, very good point. BO was founded two years before SX so they had two years to think of it first. However they most likely thought it up at around the same time as SX did since they both started around the same time. As said above, they should not be compared. (Elon was a bit arrogant ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 On 03/08/2016 at 8:02 AM, Duski said: 10 minutes ago, Firemetal said: On 02/08/2016 at 11:57 PM, tater said: 10 minutes ago, Firemetal said: Again, very good point. BO was founded two years before SX so they had two years to think of it first. However they most likely thought it up at around the same time as SX did since they both started around the same time. As said above, they should not be compared. (Elon was a bit arrogant ) We know Blue were working on VTVL well before SpaceX, because we have patent fillings and early treat vehicles like Charon. All early SpaceX material referred to recovery by parachute, and that was the plan well into the early operations of Falcon 9. Maybe they had thought about it earlier, plenty of people had, but there's no proof of it being the actual strategy until about 2011. (Sorry about the extra quotes, forum bug on mobile. Can't delete them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 7 hours ago, AlphaKerman said: Those two size aren't even close. In fact, the entire New Shepard could fit inside Falcon 9's first stage oxidizer tank This video says it all. 17 minutes ago, Kryten said: We know Blue were working on VTVL well before SpaceX, because we have patent fillings and early treat vehicles like Charon. All early SpaceX material referred to recovery by parachute, and that was the plan well into the early operations of Falcon 9. Maybe they had thought about it earlier, plenty of people had, but there's no proof of it being the actual strategy until about 2011. (Sorry about the extra quotes, forum bug on mobile. Can't delete them.) Yup I clearly haven't put enough research into this topic. Ok so BO and SX built a rocket. They both intend to land this rocket vertically on land. (or a barge )SpaceX's rocket is the lower stage of their Falcon 9. BO's is the New Shepard which plans to take tourists to space for four minutes. BO thought of the Vertical landing before SpaceX did and landed theirs one month before SX. Then SX landed it and SX fans claimed that BO stole the idea. Yeah they didn't put enough research into the topic either. Anyway why are we still arguing? Its case closed! Nobody copied nobody! Both completely different space agencies with completely different goals and completely different rockets! They are also private space agencies so no one except themselves know when they thought up the idea but still it doesn't matter! End this argument! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaarst Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 5 hours ago, Kryten said: The idea that the lessons won't apply is, quite frankly, absurd. The only major difference between what F9 does and what NS does is F9 has a significantly higher re-entry speed, the demands on most subsystems are about the same. The only thing F9 really has that NS doesn't is thick ablative TPS, and even then the TPS isn't some secret sauce bit of technology, it's bloody cork! So thinking SpaceX is doing better than someone else on a single discussion and you're a SpaceX fanboy (I don't know if you often read what I post, but most of the time, I'm the first to say that Musk is a delusional dreamer). Also, despite not being the only difference between SX and BO missions, the "significantly higher re-entry speed" is, as it states, significant. So I still believe that BO's work on subscale launchers is not going to allow them to recover and reuse the first rocket they will launch to orbit. Quote If you're making this kind of argument, have a good long think about why you're making it; if you just want to defend St. Musk and his precious company, stop it, they really doesn't need it. Really? So because I don't agree with you, I'm defending St. Musk? I was just having an opinion but I might as well keep it to myself if you're going that way. I won't call ad hominem because this is my interpretation, but you won, I'm out from this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gaarst said: So thinking SpaceX is doing better than someone else on a single discussion and you're a SpaceX fanboy Saying that doing subscale tests isn't going to help makes you just about delusional, whether you call yourself a fanboy or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 25 minutes ago, Gaarst said: So thinking SpaceX is doing better than someone else on a single discussion and you're a SpaceX fanboy 75% of us here are SpaceX fanboys. But a couple of us don't want to go to war with BO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Firemetal said: This video says it all. Yup I clearly haven't put enough research into this topic. Ok so BO and SX built a rocket. They both intend to land this rocket vertically on land. (or a barge )SpaceX's rocket is the lower stage of their Falcon 9. BO's is the New Shepard which plans to take tourists to space for four minutes. BO thought of the Vertical landing before SpaceX did and landed theirs one month before SX. Then SX landed it and SX fans claimed that BO stole the idea. Yeah they didn't put enough research into the topic either. Anyway why are we still arguing? Its case closed! Nobody copied nobody! Both completely different space agencies with completely different goals and completely different rockets! They are also private space agencies so no one except themselves know when they thought up the idea but still it doesn't matter! End this argument! I thought of vertical landing of first stage around the time of DC-X was canceled, or why not use it as an first stage instead of an SSTO who we know is very hard. has been some thoughts about this but few thought of using the main engines to land an stage, mostly ideas for SSTO. I guess New Shepard was thought as an single stage too but they found it was safer to land the pod separat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 39 minutes ago, magnemoe said: I thought of vertical landing of first stage around the time of DC-X was canceled, or why not use it as an first stage instead of an SSTO who we know is very hard. has been some thoughts about this but few thought of using the main engines to land an stage, mostly ideas for SSTO. I guess New Shepard was thought as an single stage too but they found it was safer to land the pod separat Actually the booster stage has very little fuel after going sub-orbital and the pod is dead weight. It gets more DV without the pod which saves fuel for the landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKerman Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, razark said: Ah, yes. Comparing apples and oranges. You have a point. By the way, did you know that apples were cultivated before oranges? Nice point too though Btw, oranges and apples, i just know that now Edited August 8, 2016 by AlphaKerman Added comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 13 minutes ago, Firemetal said: Actually the booster stage has very little fuel after going sub-orbital and the pod is dead weight. It gets more DV without the pod which saves fuel for the landing. True however the safety issue is still there, they might also want to rotate the pod to get an beter view of earth too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firemetal Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 Just now, magnemoe said: True however the safety issue is still there, they might also want to rotate the pod to get an beter view of earth too. Yeah if the booster crashes with the pod on top, R.I.P tourists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 I'm a fan of both outfits, though if I was forced to rank capabilities I'd currently put SpaceX ahead of BO because I think they are doing something harder (and different, obviously). That said, in a few years I might say something completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 Unfortunately, after a brief discussion with the moderation staff following a spattering of reports, I'm closing this thread. Happy forumgoing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts