Page 159 of 166 FirstFirst ... 59109149157158159160161 ... LastLast
Results 4,741 to 4,770 of 4957

Thread: SpaceX

  1. #4741
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,697

  2. #4742
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,095
    Thrust simulator jacks removed from the pad, engine installation very soon.*

    Static fire NET Monday, April 19

    https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/...91890114813952

  3. #4743
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    16,873
    Then there's the noted wizard, Merlin!

    The last couple of NSF videos I watched featured disassembly of BN1. That guy driving the ring sections to the scrapyard on the multi-wheel transporter is getting his exercise!
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  4. #4744
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,095
    Marcia Smith is with Space Policy Online

    Hans Koenigsmann is now annoying his wife and every fish in the sea

    Marcia Smith @SpcPlcyOnline
    Crew-2 past FRR bfg underway. With Bill Gerstenmaier as the Space X rep! He's now SpX VP Build and Reliability, succeeding Hans Koenigsmann who held that job for so long and just "retired."

    https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/st...33710379245570

  5. #4745
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,095

  6. #4746
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    Something wrong with the previous set?

  7. #4747
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Something wrong with the previous set?
    There were no engines for the tanking tests, just 3 thrust-simulating hydraulic rams.

  8. #4748
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    There were no engines for the tanking tests, just 3 thrust-simulating hydraulic rams.
    Ok, thanks

  9. #4749
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,095

  10. #4750
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,480

  11. #4751
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,095
    SHOCKER!!

    First that they'd only choose one provider, second that they'd back such an unconventional vehicle.

    Actually flying, even crashing, big metal and having an elevator prototype which could be demonstrated likely didn't hurt. Also, NASA getting very comfortable with Crew Dragon.

  12. #4752
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    WOW!

    I really am shocked. The SpaceX effort struck me as a long shot, at least in its current state of development, dependent on developing in-space refueling among other things, given it is such a radical departure for a lunar lander, and successful development would mean even less reason for SLS to exist. I thought Dynetics had the best shot at being a practical near-term lander solution, but I doubted they had the political support. I expected the “National Team” to get top billing based on political clout and its conventional approach. Well, the chances for a true revolution in space development just increased a bit, I think, what with SpaceX getting more money to work on this.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  13. #4753
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    It will take awhile to process this. That was a nice surprise for the day.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  14. #4754
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,095
    Updated Starship HLS design....

    The waist landing thrusters seem higher up, the solar arrays lower down, and the legs are more F9-like but sturdy.

    20210416_173100.jpg

  15. #4755
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    WOW!

    I really am shocked. The SpaceX effort struck me as a long shot, at least in its current state of development, dependent on developing in-space refueling among other things, given it is such a radical departure for a lunar lander, and successful development would mean even less reason for SLS to exist. I thought Dynetics had the best shot at being a practical near-term lander solution, but I doubted they had the political support. I expected the “National Team” to get top billing based on political clout and its conventional approach. Well, the chances for a true revolution in space development just increased a bit, I think, what with SpaceX getting more money to work on this.
    I wonder if one of the other candidates might continue simply as a backup just because of those unknowns?
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  16. #4756
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    Quote Originally Posted by KaiYeves View Post
    I wonder if one of the other candidates might continue simply as a backup just because of those unknowns?
    Well, they would need to completely self fund. Apparently a big reason SpaceX won out is they were willing to spend so much on development on their own dime. Bezos has the resources to self fund, but I doubt he would without an indication there’s a point. I doubt Dynetics has the resources at all.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  17. #4757
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,097
    Quote Originally Posted by KaiYeves View Post
    I wonder if one of the other candidates might continue simply as a backup just because of those unknowns?
    Lueders: "I do not have enough funding available to even attempt to negotiate a price from Blue Origin that could potentially enable a contract award."

    And the final Dynetics proposal was apparently even more expensive, and also had major mass budget issues that it wasn't clear could be resolved.

  18. #4758
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    It doesn’t sound like Bezos actually wanted this very much. His company is sounding less impressive by the day. Too bad about Dynetics, I liked their concept.

    SpaceX does have the advantage that their lander isn’t a completely separate spacecraft design - much of the work on it applies to the regular Starship, which has considerable commercial potential, so it can pay for itself as long as they get it working.

    Musk is making me think of Heinlein’s The Man Who Sold The Moon. He might just pull it off. Of course, I expect Musk wants to be The Man Who Sold Mars.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  19. #4759
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    Something that just occurred to me, and no doubt already has to others:

    The Apollo LM landed twelve men on the moon, two at a time. The Starship derived lander could land twelve people in a single flight.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  20. #4760
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,480
    With 20-20 hindsight it sort of makes sense. SpaceX was already committed to developing a lot of the technology involved in the lander for the orbital and Mars versions, landing systems, life support, etc. The other were building a single purpose system from scratch so yeah not surprising SpaceX could keep the price down.

  21. #4761
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,523
    Why does this selection make me think of "been there, but didn't do that"?

    https://youtu.be/nMe7dRoPRVU?t=118

  22. #4762
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,095
    NASA will be procuring commercial "xEVA" spacesuits for Artemis.

    I can just imagine a lunar version of Starman 😎

    https://twitter.com/KathyLueders/sta...87930228826113

  23. #4763
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Lueders: "I do not have enough funding available to even attempt to negotiate a price from Blue Origin that could potentially enable a contract award."

    And the final Dynetics proposal was apparently even more expensive, and also had major mass budget issues that it wasn't clear could be resolved.
    It was more than that. On reading the Source Selection document it's clear parts of Blue's bid severely hurt their chance of being selected, Leuders explicitly calling them out.

    https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...ment-final.pdf

    >
    However, the SEP did identify two instances of proposed advance payments within Blue Origin’s proposal. Pursuant to section 5.2.5 of the BAA, proposals containing any advance payments are ineligible for a contract award.
    >
    Finally, I note that within Management Area of Focus 7, Data Rights, the SEP identified two weaknesses within Blue’s proposal with which I concur and find to be noteworthy. In both cases, Blue’s approach to data rights is likely to result in protracted intellectual property (IP) disputes during contract performance and generally creates a high risk that the Government will obtain lower IP licensing rights than it is otherwise entitled to under the contract.
    >
    Blue’s proposal further impugns the Government’s potential rights in data
    by proposing to deliver data created in conjunction with NASA with less than a GPR license; this is prohibited by the solicitation.
    >
    Last edited by docmordrid; 2021-Apr-17 at 08:01 PM.

  24. #4764
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,169
    If you return to the moon, you might as well go big.

    Tintin's moon books seem more reasonable by the day. Just add booster stage.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  25. #4765
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    I really don’t understand what Bezos is thinking. I’d like to see another nimble, innovative and hungry New Space competitor but Blue Origin feels an awful lot like Old Space, or maybe not even as good as Old Space.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  26. #4766
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,095
    Same here...Bezos has way too much gradatim and far too little ferociter.

    SN15 schedule...

    Michael Baylor @nextspaceflight
    A Starship SN15 launch Temporary Flight Restriction has been posted for Tuesday (4/20).
    https://t.co/84wDmMcow1

    https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/...67084383129600

  27. #4767
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,095
    Lori Garver @Lori_Garver (former Asst. NASA Admin.)
    Apr 16, 2021
    Minds being blown across the aerospace industry! NASA team is doing a good job threading the needle about the transition from SLS/Orion to a more sustainable system, without being so blunt. Nevertheless, it is now up to @SpaceX to deliver. If they do, the writing is on the wall.
    |
    Tim Griepentrog @Lego_naut
    Will be odd seeing SLS/Orion taking 4 astros at a time (max 1x per year) when Starship will be able to take many more for much less. Many heads will be scratched.

    https://twitter.com/Lego_naut/status...61084903821316

  28. #4768
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I really don’t understand what Bezos is thinking. I’d like to see another nimble, innovative and hungry New Space competitor but Blue Origin feels an awful lot like Old Space, or maybe not even as good as Old Space.
    I agree - it makes a big difference to have two or more companies innovating with reusable rockets.

    I was actually quite impressed by the recent New Shapard test last week. So lets see how quickly they are able to send people up. Worth watching the landings in the last few minutes of the You Tube coverage below.

    You Tube - Blue Origin New Shapard flight test, April 2021

  29. #4769
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,992
    I’m glad it works, but I’m not really that interested in suborbital. Get the passenger cost down to no more than $10,000 and I’d be willing to take a flight, but I doubt that will happen soon. I will say, though, aesthetically I prefer SpaceX’s Golden Age SF look super rocket over the Blue Origin unfortunately anatomical look suborbital rocket. I know aesthetics aren’t a priority, but still.

    I’m watching to see if there is progress with New Glenn, which interests me far more. Last I heard, it didn’t sound like they were very far along.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  30. #4770
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I’m glad it works, but I’m not really that interested in suborbital. Get the passenger cost down to no more than $10,000 and I’d be willing to take a flight, but I doubt that will happen soon. I will say, though, aesthetically I prefer SpaceX’s Golden Age SF look super rocket over the Blue Origin unfortunately anatomical look suborbital rocket. I know aesthetics aren’t a priority, but still.

    I’m watching to see if there is progress with New Glenn, which interests me far more. Last I heard, it didn’t sound like they were very far along.
    Thanks Van Rijn. Starship/New Glenn scale is more important. But there still may be a sub-orbital market.

    It is clear that SpaceX is ahead of the competition at the moment. And does seem to be benefitting from first mover advantage - as shown by it earning money sending astronauts to the ISS and the recent lunar lander decision. But, in a dynamic, innovating market like this, second movers can benefit from sometimes expensive learning lessons learnt by first movers and, given a longer term perspective, can catch up over time. Schumpeterian economics can probably help us here - some of the concepts were explored in my Post 29 of the Emerging Space Economy thread.

    On rocket technology, 3 questions come to mind.
    - How far is SpaceX ahead of the competition?
    - How well resourced are its nearest competitors? (including Blue Origin and Chinese based companies)
    - How easily can these competitors replicate the SpaceX successes over time?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •