RealKerbal3x Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 (edited) I'm a little bit late but here's the videos of the Starship hotswap: Both SN5 and Starhopper are cheering SN6 on! You can do it buddy! I don't know why but I really enjoy anthropomorphising (that word is hard to spell) Starship prototypes Edited August 12, 2020 by RealKerbal3x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codraroll Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 18 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said: I imagine it giving SN6 a pep talk: "Go on! It'll be fine! You might even get higher than me!" Meanwhile, the ghost of SN4: "Don't listen to them! You might even get scattered in more directions than me!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Codraroll said: Meanwhile, the ghost of SN4: "Don't listen to them! You might even get scattered in more directions than me!" Hah, now I'm imagining the ghosts of Mk1, SN1, SN3 and SN4 haunting the launch site... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 20 minutes ago, tater said: Presumably SN6 will get a mass simulator after cryo proofing, like SN5 did. This is only tangentially related to SpaceX so I put it in a spoiler: Spoiler I'm designing a crane for Mun/Minmus base building in my KSP career, and I decided that there was only one company that could supply a dependable crane... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 (edited) Spoiler First posted this in another thread, but look! So familiar... (From 03:00) Edited August 12, 2020 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 SN6 is going to be lifted onto the test stand: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 3 hours ago, kerbiloid said: Hide contents First posted this in another thread, but look! So familiar... (From 03:00) It even looks like there's a tent above them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Makes sense to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Feels like it's been coming for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Dunno, maybe they upgrade the pad at Vandy for FH... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 I would have thought flying polar missions from Vandy improves the possible cadence from Florida, but maybe and extra 2-3 flights a year isn't worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 15 minutes ago, RCgothic said: I would have thought flying polar missions from Vandy improves the possible cadence from Florida, but maybe and extra 2-3 flights a year isn't worth it. The big question is can they get all desired payloads (even with extended fairing) to the target orbit with a dogleg. If they can do it. not much need for VAFB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Peabody Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 7 hours ago, kerbiloid said: Reveal hidden contents First posted this in another thread, but look! So familiar... (From 03:00) Barbicane and Maston approve. Heartily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 That's really unrelated to what should be the complaint with getting the 40% of the 60/40 split—F9 actually exists, while ULA won 60% based on a rocket that has never flown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 1 hour ago, tater said: That's really unrelated to what should be the complaint with getting the 40% of the 60/40 split—F9 actually exists, while ULA won 60% based on a rocket that has never flown. It's still a valid point, though. Reusable rockets are the future, as shown by the European, Russian and Chinese space agencies attempting to catch up to Falcon 9/Heavy even as SpaceX develops their next-generation launch vehicle. Of course, Vulcan has SMART reuse, but the fact that it'll only recover the first stage engines makes it a less cost-effective form of reusability (AFAIK) But yeah, Falcon being more than just a paper rocket is the big thing here. ULA is undoubtedly an extremely reliable contractor, but awarding their completely unproven rocket the majority of a defence contract over a proven existing rocket seems like a step too far in their direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 18 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said: But yeah, Falcon being more than just a paper rocket is the big thing here. ULA is undoubtedly an extremely reliable contractor, but awarding their completely unproven rocket the majority of a defence contract over a proven existing rocket seems like a step too far in their direction. I know ULA is flying all the components aside from the actual airframe/tanks and Be-4 ahead of actual launches, but that doesn't cut it. I'm fine with the AF wanting to pick an upcoming LV that has little chance of failure, but to give that LV the majority of launches seems like a bizarre double standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 Well, a political decision being bizarre from a logical point of view should not be unexpected.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 41 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: Well, a political decision being bizarre from a logical point of view should not be unexpected.... I'd use the terms "technical" and "economic". Political decisions are often quite logical, just not in ways known to non-politicians, or by the criteria they care about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 (Recalls the Shuttle lateral boosters, and how they had gotten thiokolled from the initial liquids...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXBLOX Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 They're probably doing this because these are national security launches. Who has more experience working with the military, Lockheed and Boeing, or SpaceX? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 20 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said: They're probably doing this because these are national security launches. Who has more experience working with the military, Lockheed and Boeing, or SpaceX? Contractor experience is useful, but the AF has zero experience with a nonexistent rocket. The point is not "should ULA get any of the launches," the point is "why give 60% to an unflown design vs a flown design?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXBLOX Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 Just now, tater said: Contractor experience is useful, but the AF has zero experience with a nonexistent rocket. Yep. But the company has experience with handling large government contracts. You have to demonstrate that you aren't wasting taxpayer money. (I hear your objection...) Also, ULA has more experience with classified...stuff. Easier to stick with a known contracter than to invest in training another one. Rocket performance is a comparatively small factor by contrast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said: Yep. But the company has experience with handling large government contracts. You have to demonstrate that you aren't wasting taxpayer money. (I hear your objection...) Also, ULA has more experience with classified...stuff. Easier to stick with a known contracter than to invest in training another one. Rocket performance is a comparatively small factor by contrast. I agree, hence there was a 0% chance ULA would get neither of the 2 spots (OmegA, and NG in that boat). The question is why give 40% to a known vehicle vs 60% to an unknown vehicle. It would not be surprising for any new LV to have teething problems. Any early failure on the part of Vulcan would delay AF payloads by many months. Seems like the safer play would be 60% to the existing LV. Edited August 13, 2020 by tater 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.