- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,136
- Reaction score
- 2,626
SpaceX
- Thread starter FluffyMcDeath
- Start date
His finances and accounting methods are not exactly on the up-and-up, but it's pretty surprising how well he delivers on actual product. SpaceX has been taking advantage of the chance for commercial space service, and doing incredible things for years now. They deserved to get that chance for human transport, they took that responsibility seriously, and that launch (and the preparation on the first try that was scrubbed due to weather) was flawless. Everything by the book, and you just can't do anything about weather changes. The Falcon 9 / Dragon Crew combo looks like they've raised the standards for manned flight by quite a bit.
As for Starship, well, they are in very early tests for that. It is a bit distressing how many SpaceX vehicles have been lost in fueling, though. Earlier Falcon 9 revisions had some problems there, too.
As for Starship, well, they are in very early tests for that. It is a bit distressing how many SpaceX vehicles have been lost in fueling, though. Earlier Falcon 9 revisions had some problems there, too.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,314
- Reaction score
- 6,263
And with bells on. The most impressive part of the whole operation for me is the part that has been almost completely ignored; landing the first stage on a floating barge in the sea. If they can do that that repeatedly when flying humans it's a game changer (well, yet another one).
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,042
- Reaction score
- 2,042
ASTRONAUT: SPACEX RIDE NOT AS “SMOOTH” AS NASA SPACE SHUTTLE
“And our expectation was, as we continued with the flight into second stage, that things would basically get a lot smoother than the space shuttle did,” he added. “But Dragon was huffing and puffing all the way into orbit, and we were definitely driving or riding a dragon all the way up.”
“And our expectation was, as we continued with the flight into second stage, that things would basically get a lot smoother than the space shuttle did,” he added. “But Dragon was huffing and puffing all the way into orbit, and we were definitely driving or riding a dragon all the way up.”
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,314
- Reaction score
- 6,263
I don't know anything about aerodynamics but perhaps the shape of the shuttle helped?
OTOH, maybe the falcon 9 engines are a bit rougher?
Either way, I miss the shuttle.
I think it is a combination of much less mass and that powerful single Merlin 2nd stage. I get the feeling the 2nd stage startup is lively, too. Apparently you go from 3g first stage to 0g main engine cutoff, drop it, and very quickly back to 3g 2nd stage. While the shuttle always ran the main engines for the full ascent, (dropping the SRBs while still under thrust) so no bang.
Still, the Falcon 9 seems mighty quick to low Earth orbit. I can't fine actual times for Space Shuttle vs Falcon/Dragon, but it just "felt" a few minutes quicker. Of course, part of that might be so much better cameras nowadays give so many more interesting views than we could see live from Shuttle launches, it keeps us more interested.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,042
- Reaction score
- 2,042
Yup. I wish NASA would have simply improved upon the old design rather than scrap it entirely. I get it that 2 crews were lost and there were design issues. But could it not really be fixed?
Either way, SpaceX will probably need to make changes for their main goal of space tourism. This rough of a ride for elderly billionaires probably won't fly (pun intended).
Well, I miss the Shuttles, too. They were pretty magical to see in some unexplainable way that the more conventional rockets aren't quite.
But, it is pretty damning that both crew loss accidents with the Shuttle would have been entirely avoided in a more conventional configuration. Riding on the side of a fuel tank is much more dangerous than on top of it. You just can't fix that with the shuttle orbiter. There is no other place to put the thing.
And the evolution of the shuttle program is SLS, which despite way too much funding and no clear goals (until it was assigned that lunar gateway payload) still has delivered nothing, despite the decade head-start. But SLS at it's heart is the shuttle stack, minus the orbiter, the shuttle engines moved to the bottom of the tank, and a payload on top of the tank.
And, it is worth noting that total US investment in SpaceX (not counting payment for services delivered, but research investment) is less than half the marginal cost of a single shuttle launch.
Sadly, putting the orbiters into museums was the only responsible thing to do, from both a human life, and financial accountability standpoint.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,042
- Reaction score
- 2,042
How will such a rough ride go over with space tourism though? I'd assume only billionaires could afford the trips and they tend to be elderly? Could an elderly person's heart handle those shifting G's?
I think that is more what Starship and future programs are for. Falcon 9 is designed for satellite launches and to launch Dragon / Crew Dragon to the ISS. Ride on it is pretty comparable to Soyuz at a fraction of what the Russians were bilking us for.