tater Posted October 1, 2020 Author Share Posted October 1, 2020 Scrub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 1, 2020 Author Share Posted October 1, 2020 1 minute ago, mikegarrison said: You mean, if they can't launch today? I was wondering if hey could recycle at all today given the startup. That seems to result in days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 On 8/29/2020 at 11:35 PM, mikegarrison said: Minimum of 7 days for the recycle, I read. This was the information in August. They just called a scrub and recycle, so I guess this won't be going until October. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 Looks like it's going to be a three-dog night and a four-wolf moon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropian Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 I'm telling you guys, the wolf is chewing on the sensors... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 3 hours ago, Entropian said: I'm telling you guys, the wolf is chewing on the sensors... Apparently the wolf has been chewing on some SpaceX sensors too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropian Posted October 1, 2020 Share Posted October 1, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said: Apparently the wolf has been chewing on some SpaceX sensors too... We all know ULA blows up SpaceX's rockets... Edited October 1, 2020 by Entropian Das Kapitalization Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 Apparently they have it in for Antares as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 13, 2020 Author Share Posted October 13, 2020 Delayed again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Self sustaining lunar economy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 29 minutes ago, sh1pman said: Self sustaining lunar economy! LOL. Both for the idea that a lunar base would be self-sustaining by 2035 and that the point of going there is capitalism. I will also note that their idea of "self-sustaining" involves luxury tourism from extremely wealthy people who made their money somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just now, mikegarrison said: I will also note that their idea of "self-sustaining" involves luxury tourism from extremely wealthy people who made their money somewhere else. It’s fine, there are countries that have staked their entire economies on international tourism! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 13, 2020 Author Share Posted October 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: LOL. Both for the idea that a lunar base would be self-sustaining by 2035 and that the point of going there is capitalism. I will also note that their idea of "self-sustaining" involves luxury tourism from extremely wealthy people who made their money somewhere else. Yeah, how to make chickens when you have nether chickens, nor eggs to start with. The old cislunar "economy" arguments were driven by the one customer with deep pockets—the US government. The idea was that they would pay for stuff there, but it would cost less than taking it from Earth. Same guy writing the checks, though. All that said, I actually think if the goal is people, tourism is the killer app—the problem of course is that the safety needs to move from a 1:270 chance of death to airline level (which is a ridiculously low level of risk), which seems... unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, sh1pman said: It’s fine, there are countries that have staked their entire economies on international tourism! But they aren't "self-sustaining". 3 minutes ago, tater said: Yeah, how to make chickens when you have nether chickens, nor eggs to start with. The old cislunar "economy" arguments were driven by the one customer with deep pockets—the US government. The idea was that they would pay for stuff there, but it would cost less than taking it from Earth. Same guy writing the checks, though. All that said, I actually think if the goal is people, tourism is the killer app—the problem of course is that the safety needs to move from a 1:270 chance of death to airline level (which is a ridiculously low level of risk), which seems... unlikely. Enough rich old people would take a 1:100 chance of death to go to the moon. Why the hell not? What are you going to do otherwise? Cruise to Tahiti? What would really hurt this model is if some kind of life-extension became available. Trade your last 10 years for a trip to the moon? Sure. Trade your next 100 years for a trip to the moon? Um... Edited October 13, 2020 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 13, 2020 Author Share Posted October 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Enough rich old people would take a 1:100 chance of death to go to the moon. Why the hell not? What are you going to do otherwise? Cruise to Tahiti? Yeah, you are right, there is a market for limited "adventure" tourism that holds high risk. The number of people on marginally dangerous summits in summer is large—but the death rate on 14ers in CO looks to be ~8/year, and any given day in summer there are dozens of people on the summits (100s on places like Long's). Wow, 4 months times 30 summiters times 57 summits would make the death rate basically 100X less than the commercial crew 1:270. There's certainly a place where there would be a sweet spot, but the old people would also need to be fairly healthy. 5 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: What would really hurt this model is if some kind of life-extension became available. Trade your last 10 years for a trip to the moon? Sure. Trade your next 100 years for a trip to the moon? Um... LOL, yeah, very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, mikegarrison said: What would really hurt this model is if some kind of life-extension became available. Trade your last 10 years for a trip to the moon? Sure. Trade your next 100 years for a trip to the moon? Um... Speaking of radical life extension, we may actually be very close to it. (BTW, I love the term “longevity escape velocity”) https://www.marketwatch.com/story/we-are-nearing-longevity-escape-velocity-where-science-can-extend-your-life-for-more-than-a-year-for-every-year-you-are-alive-2020-02-24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just now, sh1pman said: Speaking of radical life extension, we may actually be very close to it. (BTW, I love the term “longevity escape velocity”) https://www.marketwatch.com/story/we-are-nearing-longevity-escape-velocity-where-science-can-extend-your-life-for-more-than-a-year-for-every-year-you-are-alive-2020-02-24 We've been "very close to this" my whole life. It's like fusion power plants. Always 30 years away, for the last 60 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 21 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: We've been "very close to this" my whole life. It's like fusion power plants. Always 30 years away, for the last 60 years. Well, sure, I’ll believe it when I see it too. But there have been some breakthroughs recently. Gene editing with CRISPR, organ printing, telomerase inhibitors, induced cell pluripotency and reprogramming. I think we’re actually getting close this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropian Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 hours ago, sh1pman said: It’s fine, there are countries that have staked their entire economies on international tourism! I'm from one of those countries. It's really not that fine; one thing gone wrong and the whole economy collapses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, Entropian said: I'm from one of those countries. It's really not that fine; one thing gone wrong and the whole economy collapses. Yeah. Well, I can relate, I’m from one of those countries that have staked their economy on hydrocarbon exports. You can imagine how fine it’s been lately... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 (edited) ULA has received more than $80 million to demonstrate in-orbit refueling for their Centaur stage. ACES is effectively back!! https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/solicitations/tipping_points/2020_selections Edited October 14, 2020 by Spaceception Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropian Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 3 hours ago, Spaceception said: ULA has received more than $80 million to demonstrate in-orbit refueling for their Centaur stage. ACES is effectively back!! Wow, compared to the $50 million SpaceX got that seems pretty disproportionate. What's their reason for giving ULA so much more profitssssssss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 Don't we already have in-orbit refuelling capacity? Which is used every time cargo ship tops off ISS fuel tanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 9 minutes ago, Scotius said: Don't we already have in-orbit refuelling capacity? Which is used every time cargo ship tops off ISS fuel tanks. The ISS uses hypergolic fuel which is easier to store, but more difficult to manufacture in space. these contracts are for cryogenic fuel (LH2 or LCH4) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 Understood. Pumping liquid hydrogen from one ship to another - IN SPACE - does pose some interesting engineering problems. Like leak-proofing the armature to minimize propellant losses etc. 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.