PDA

View Full Version : OT:SpaceX to give it a go



wierdscience
08-15-2011, 09:42 PM
Looks like they are gonna attempt a re-supply misson to the ISS come November.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_SPACEX_SPACE_STATION_?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-15-18-55-31

loose nut
08-16-2011, 02:37 PM
Another advance backwards.

Black_Moons
08-16-2011, 02:53 PM
Advance backwards? Theres no way in hell spacex could scam the government for as much money as nasa did per shuttle launch....

Mainly because the military isent forcing spaceX to make thier shuttle capable of launching HUGE military sats into orbit, and then deciding not to actualy use it to launch said huge sats that could be send up by conventional unmanned rockets at a fraction of the cost. (Like the military did to nasa..)

John Stevenson
08-16-2011, 03:09 PM
I wonder if they have third party insurance in case they bump into it ? :rolleyes:

macona
08-16-2011, 03:43 PM
I wonder if they have third party insurance in case they bump into it ? :rolleyes:

How would they get a insurance claims adjuster up there to check it out?

wierdscience
08-16-2011, 03:51 PM
How would they get a insurance claims adjuster up there to check it out?

Is there a qualified body and fender shop nearby,and will they have to get three estimates?

Black_Moons
08-16-2011, 04:12 PM
Im sure they would just pay out. However, Shiping and handling for replacement parts would not be covered :rolleyes:

Evan
08-16-2011, 05:29 PM
This is what we should be using. It was canceled because it was much too cheap to build and operate. It was a huge threat to the aerospace establishment.

In this video the Delta Clipper takes off, hovers at altitude for a while, translates sideways a few miles, returns by transitioning to horizontal flight and then lands on the pad it took off from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o

This is another view of flight 8 taken from an orbiting F-18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2w2EH8lr8

This all took place almost 20 years ago. The way the entire space program is run makes me want to barf.

Black_Moons
08-16-2011, 05:47 PM
This is what we should be using. It was canceled because it was much too cheap to build and operate. It was a huge threat to the aerospace establishment.
*clip*
The way the entire space program is run makes me want to barf.

You want to really barf?

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/sn54hc04-sp.html
Simplest logic IC in existance, a hex (6) inverter.
Price: $115.12 in quanity 1000.

Compair that to the commerical version of the exact same IC.
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/cd74hc04.html
Price: $0.29 to $0.60 in quanity 1000

How about mil spec:
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/cd54hc04.html
Price: $1.51/$1.94 in quanity 1000.

I really can't tell any diffrence beween the 3, other then the 54 variants come in ceramic.

Now, Beween the 3 devices, What one do you think would be used in an $2 billion dollar aerospace product 'because it has to be the best!!'

And what do you think the total cost of this $2 billion dollar aerospace product would be, if they used $0.29 cent inverters insted of $115 inverters? Or even just the $1.51 mil spec inverters (And other such reduction of insane waste)
Incressed likeyness to fail, sure, but at those cost savings, we could launch twice as many, if not more.

Sure, if it fails, its likey to kill someone, But thats also true of a few hundred cheaply made parts in your car.

loose nut
08-17-2011, 01:12 PM
Thousands die in car accidents everyday and few care. Why should astronuts be any better than them. Space will never be opened up unless costs are cut and who is better at accepting the lowest bid and undercutting specs. then private industry.

Evan
08-17-2011, 01:37 PM
Consider this: The actual amount of energy required to lift one pound of mass to geosynchronous orbit is 7.3 KWH. That's around 75 cents per pound.

There is only one approach to improve efficiency significantly.

Everything must be reusable. Rockets suck in the atmosphere, especially so in the lower atmosphere where the heaviest load must be lifted. The craft needs to fly until it runs out of air and then switch to rockets.

A fly up and back booster system can be operated for a mere thousands of dollars per cycle instead of millions. Burt Rutan knows this.

Thruthefence
08-17-2011, 05:51 PM
Here's another Delta Clipper movie.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8967396963929400263

Telemetry Guy 1: " Landing sequence beginning"

Telemetry guy 2: " Landing gear checked, 'Three-in-the-green!' "

Telemetry Guy 1: " Uh.....aren't we supposed to have 'four-in-the-green'?"

Telemetry guy 2: " Say Again, Telemetry Guy 1................???"

I liked this thing because it reminded me of the Science Fiction Spaceships of my youth.

I also think it got a bad rap because of this one incident.

Rustybolt
08-17-2011, 06:25 PM
It was canceled because it was much too cheap to build and operate. It was a huge threat to the aerospace establishment.


I thought it was because NASA preferred the Venture Star earth to orbit vehicle because it could be flown great distances upon reentry. The delta Clipper required more fuel to maneuver on reentry.

Evan
08-17-2011, 09:27 PM
The landing accident was used as an excuse to cancel the project. In no way did it reflect badly on the concept.

The DC-X was initially conceived as a sub scale single stage to orbit test prototype. However, if it were used together with a fly up/back launcher it would have been close to being able to making orbit. The overwhelming advantage of the design is that it can provide full space to surface capability both on the Moon and on Mars.

The DC-X program was ridiculously cheap. The initial program went from concept to first flight in under two years for only 58 million dollars.

Rustybolt
08-17-2011, 09:46 PM
I think it was because in a polar orbit, if there was a problem and it had to abort, it could not manouver very far outside its orbit. Apparently this was important for military flights.
Venture Star had the advantage that it could glide very far and land in friendly territory.
in either case we got the space shuttle. A government contractors dream.

RancherBill
08-18-2011, 11:29 AM
Now, Beween the 3 devices, What one do you think would be used in an $2 billion dollar aerospace product 'because it has to be the best!!'

And what do you think the total cost of this $2 billion dollar aerospace product would be, if they used $0.29 cent inverters insted of $115 inverters? Or even just the $1.51 mil spec inverters (And other such reduction of insane waste)
Incressed likeyness to fail, sure, but at those cost savings, we could launch twice as many, if not more.

Sure, if it fails, its likey to kill someone, But thats also true of a few hundred cheaply made parts in your car.

I used to sell electronics.

Four rails of chip would be shipped in whatever was convenient.
Four rails of Mil grade parts would be in a special box that was large enough to hold the chips and the paperwork.
Missile grade parts would be in a huge box with paperwork.
The parts are different, Mil parts have better construction and are tested with a much larger temp range, and thus yield is lowered. Missile parts are actually built internally much stronger (bond out wires, substrate etc) and are tested for longer periods with very stringent specs.

Given the vibration and acceleration involved in launches, my guess is most missles would not get 100 feet off the ground before they had multiple failures if they used commercial parts.