sh1pman Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Just now, DAL59 said: They need to make that martian soil usable for Earth crops. That’s gonna be incredibly hard. Like, ISRU for fuel is probably easier to do than making the Martian soil fertile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 4 minutes ago, sh1pman said: That’s gonna be incredibly hard. Like, ISRU for fuel is probably easier to do than making the Martian soil fertile. That's probably correct. An ISRU reaction involves about four chemicals. Plants growing in soil? That's far more complex, and it involves many different kinds of organisms. 4 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said: I've actually considered doing that, doing R&D and construction of Martian habitats (compact in the transfer ship, deployable, easily buildable, radiation resistant, pressure holding, modular, etc), which are something that would be needed once exploration of Mars starts. However, I have four things going against me - I don't know as much about those as I think I know, I don't have any money to start doing work, I have no idea how to manage a business in general, and I'm sixteen so nobody would take me seriously. I would be very happy if you someday make me a house to live in. Some of these issues might be something I try to solve when I'm in college, starting next year. One thing I've been thinking about a lot is how in space water needs to be dealt with in a very different way than on Earth, so you need to use systems like those on the ISS - special water bags, a toilet with a vacuum, special food warmers...But once you get to Mars you would want to go back to more traditional ways of dealing with water. I might want to take a shower, wash my hands in a sink, cook a meal on a stove, drink tea from a cup. Of course, everything falls slower and sprays farther on Mars than on Earth, so you would need systems that are less like those on the ISS but not quite the same as those on Earth - systems which currently do not exist. As soon as the problems of making Mars livable are solved, we will have the new problems of making Martian life enjoyable. Almost every facet of life will have to be reinvented, so if we don't design something to be used there basically from scratch, it will not make it there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Delay is weather. Sea state in the recovery area seems to be the issue. They're not going to throw a block 5 away unless they have to I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 14 minutes ago, tater said: Delay is weather. Sea state in the recovery area seems to be the issue. They're not going to throw a block 5 away unless they have to I think. Yet another advantage for ULA. "We throw ALL our boosters away so we can launch ANY time!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 2 hours ago, sevenperforce said: Yet another advantage for ULA. "We throw ALL our boosters away so we can launch ANY time!" ...to which Shotwell probably replies, "If you want us to fly our reusable boosters expendable, that's fine. Just pay a 50% upcharge...and, hey, you'll still be paying less than you'd pay ULA." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delay Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 2 hours ago, tater said: Delay is weather. (...) They're not going to throw a block 5 away unless they have to I think. Not sure if I should approve this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 7 minutes ago, Delay said: Not sure if I should approve this. Others are questioning this accesement as the sat owners said this might happen long in advance of NOAA sea state warnings which are only like 96 hours in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supercheese Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 On 4/26/2018 at 2:46 PM, tater said: (for anyone job-hunting) Oh man, oh man, oh man. SpaceX sure checks all the right boxes for me. I like my current job in design/manufacturing, but the prospect of employment at SpaceX is getting even more tempting than ever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 Got my new credit card today. Can't show the real one, obviously, but it looks like this: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 Now that's a cool design. It made me starry-eyed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 1 hour ago, tater said: You're telling me they've developed an invisible rocket?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 10 minutes ago, cubinator said: You're telling me they've developed an invisible rocket?! Stealth technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canopus Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-to-pay-more-for-less-cargo-delivery-to-the-space-station/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 So. SpaceX is to fly 20 resupply missions for about 3 billions dollars. The same 20 missions flown by OrbitalATK would cost over 5 billions dollars. If SpaceX was to fly all 31 missions, it would cost 4 and a half billion. Either my math and basic understanding of economy is wrong, or NASA is taking a weird path to space... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 13 minutes ago, Scotius said: So. SpaceX is to fly 20 resupply missions for about 3 billions dollars. The same 20 missions flown by OrbitalATK would cost over 5 billions dollars. If SpaceX was to fly all 31 missions, it would cost 4 and a half billion. Either my math and basic understanding of economy is wrong, or NASA is taking a weird path to space... If SpaceX has an RUD then they are going to be grounded for a while, realistically. You want multiple options to ship cargo in case of something like that. Or, what if one of the companies goes under? It's about having a backup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 It says SpaceX prices went up 50% for CRS2. Is this normal? Shouldn’t they decrease because of better reusability of F9 B5 and Dragon 2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, sh1pman said: It says SpaceX prices went up 50% for CRS2. Is this normal? Shouldn’t they decrease because of better reusability of F9 B5 and Dragon 2? IIRC Dragon 2 is way more expensive than Dragon 1, and it was originally going to be offset due to increased reusability. However, now D2 has to land in the ocean, which means it's going to be harder to reuse. I also recall that there were a few NASA mandated changes that drove up dev cost. Also, there is inflation to account for. That's no small issue. Over the past ten years the USD has inflated by 16%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 There is also a lower flight rate to account for. from 3/yr @150M, to 2/yr at 225M... 3*150=450 2*225=450 Coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: IIRC Dragon 2 is way more expensive than Dragon 1, and it was originally going to be offset due to increased reusability. However, now D2 has to land in the ocean, which means it's going to be harder to reuse. I also recall that there were a few NASA mandated changes that drove up dev cost. Also, there is inflation to account for. That's no small issue. Over the past ten years the USD has inflated by 16%. Makes sense. People are meant to fly in that thing. And salt water is probably not nice for any spacecraft. Tbh NASA could probably get lower prices if they agreed to the much riskier powered vertical landing, but that's a no-no because crew. A space capsule coming down on its own power would be soooooooooo amazing to see though. I really hope they at least test that approach at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jouni Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 14 minutes ago, sh1pman said: It says SpaceX prices went up 50% for CRS2. Is this normal? Shouldn’t they decrease because of better reusability of F9 B5 and Dragon 2? SpaceX is a business. If they can charge more and still win the contract, they will try to charge more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 59 minutes ago, Scotius said: So. SpaceX is to fly 20 resupply missions for about 3 billions dollars. The same 20 missions flown by OrbitalATK would cost over 5 billions dollars. If SpaceX was to fly all 31 missions, it would cost 4 and a half billion. Either my math and basic understanding of economy is wrong, or NASA is taking a weird path to space... Yes, but what is the total upmass for each contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 Just now, Jouni said: SpaceX is a business. If they can charge more and still win the contract, they will try to charge more. Yeah, right. "You don't have to outrun the bear, you only have to outrun your friend". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted April 28, 2018 Share Posted April 28, 2018 36 minutes ago, Wjolcz said: Makes sense. People are meant to fly in that thing. And salt water is probably not nice for any spacecraft. Tbh NASA could probably get lower prices if they agreed to the much riskier powered vertical landing, but that's a no-no because crew. A space capsule coming down on its own power would be soooooooooo amazing to see though. I really hope they at least test that approach at some point. SpaceX will also use dragon2 to qualify it for crewed missions. You want the customer to pay for this development. 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.