Space Exploration

[Grand58742]

I have no doubt in my mind that had the OP tempo of NASA maintained following the Apollo missions we would have already had people on Mars and would probably be looking at manned explorations of the moons of Jupiter.

This. It's almost like we got bored with the whole idea of space exploration after the Apollo Program and just went stagnate. Sure, there was the STS, Skylab and a whole slew of unmanned probes, but it's like the concept of manned spaceflight and exploration headed for the back burner. I understand the lunar landings were a point of national pride, but we seemed far more content to orbit the earth and little more.

[Grand58742]

Elon Musk is a genius.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.U4j6UflSYUo

First cargo, now crew – the uber-modern "space taxi" known as the Dragon V2 is ready for passengers. At an unveiling ceremony yesterday, complete with smoke effects and coloured lights, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk gave the world its first glimpse of the upgraded Dragon spacecraft.

The current version of Dragon deploys a parachute as it descends and splashes down in the ocean. Dragon V2 instead comes with a set of incredibly powerful SuperDraco engines, each capable of producing more than 70,000 newtons of thrust. The engines will allow astronauts to better manoeuvre in space as well as control their trajectory for re-entry.

"You'll be able to land anywhere on Earth with the accuracy of a helicopter," Musk said during the event at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, California. The engines are encased in protective shells, and they are set up in pairs so that if one fails, the other can give a boost of power to compensate.

[chuckman]

The downstream effects of NASA are vast: there are businesses that were created during the time of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo that are still around, the tech advances, the weather-related research, etc. Absolutely we should pursue this.

[ramairthree]

The downstream effects of NASA are vast: there are businesses that were created during the time of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo that are still around, the tech advances, the weather-related research, etc. Absolutely we should pursue this.

I am all for it and have a buddy currently in the astronaut program.

Considered it myself, but another buddy with similar background did not get picked up and did not apply. But my other friend did a couple of years later.

Anyways-
Let's see,
a program that funnels tax dollars into an industry requiring hi tech manufacturing, large low tech processing, and highly educated professionals and also requires high skilled workers.

We actually need this.

The worst that could happen is that the dipshits that panic when their EBT cards are out of money or want 15$ an hour to flip burgers might get jobs cleaning offices and sweeping hangars for 15$ an hour with benefits.

[Grand58742]

I don't necessarily want to start a new thread, so I'll just tack it on this one:



Seeing things like this is like studying the days after the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk. It's taken several decades for the private sector to finally get going in the space realm, but the first companies are bravely taking new steps into the cosmos. And I'm thinking you will see a whole lot more companies getting started in the near future just like there were dozens of companies that formed to create marvels that travel through the skies. All it takes is one person with some vision and a crazy idea of going into space.

Things like this are exciting. And again, a bit embarrassing since the private sector is doing what our government isn't right now.

[Grand58742]

Thread bump.

How is it Boeing spends another $1.5 billion on the commercial launch vehicle, is six months behind SpaceX and can't even reach the ISS?

https://www.space.com/boeing-starlin...ect-orbit.html

Boeing's Starliner astronaut taxi suffered an anomaly today (Dec. 20) during its flight to the International Space Station during the Orbital Flight Test (OFT) mission.

About 90 minutes after blastoff, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said on Twitter that the capsule will not be able to reach the space station because it burned too much fuel during the anomaly.

The Atlas V rocket from United Launch Alliance successfully launched from Space Launch Complex 41 here at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida at 6:36 a.m. EST (1136 GMT) as planned. But, as of about an hour after launch, the mission team had announced an anomaly with the uncrewed capsule's orbit.

"Starliner in stable orbit. The burn needed for a rendezvous with the ISS did not happen. Working the issue," Bridenstine tweeted,following the announcement of the anomaly.

[TehLlama]

Thread bump.

How is it Boeing spends another $1.5 billion on the commercial launch vehicle, is six months behind SpaceX and can't even reach the ISS?

https://www.space.com/boeing-starlin...ect-orbit.html

Realistically, an ADCS anomaly leading to loss of good insertion timing isn't that terrible an error in terms of design capability, and this is why you test by flying instead of testing on a computer.

It does show that their trajectory setup is inherently safe, and they're getting a free shakedown of their contingency landing systems.

The answer to your question is that comparing everything into a documentation driven contract to a capability driven venture project, you find that all the legacy procedure-driven stuff and cost of updating old ideas ends up getting outran the agility of just making new ideas work and being willing to fail (vice trying to maintain things like the amazing record of the Centaur upper stage)... flight legacy is only helpful to a point, and in many regards NASA is pushing them towards that.

[Grand58742]

Realistically, an ADCS anomaly leading to loss of good insertion timing isn't that terrible an error in terms of design capability, and this is why you test by flying instead of testing on a computer.

It does show that their trajectory setup is inherently safe, and they're getting a free shakedown of their contingency landing systems.

The answer to your question is that comparing everything into a documentation driven contract to a capability driven venture project, you find that all the legacy procedure-driven stuff and cost of updating old ideas ends up getting outran the agility of just making new ideas work and being willing to fail (vice trying to maintain things like the amazing record of the Centaur upper stage)... flight legacy is only helpful to a point, and in many regards NASA is pushing them towards that.

I think the better question is how can a relatively new upstart in the industry (SpaceX) do it faster, cheaper and with a better success rate than a company with over 50 years in the space industry? Boeing owns every company that's ever produced a manned craft since Mercury and should have nailed this test with flying colors.

I mean, if I'm the NASA Administrator, I'd start asking some real pointed questions going forward about why they seem to be falling behind and coming in over budget on nearly everything my agency contracts them for. Let's face facts, SpaceX doing it for a billion and a half cheaper makes for some nice money saved in my annual budget.

[militarymoron]

I think the better question is how can a relatively new upstart in the industry (SpaceX) do it faster, cheaper and with a better success rate than a company with over 50 years in the space industry?

Well, at least Boeing hasn't blown up a Starliner yet.

[Grand58742]

Well, at least Boeing hasn't blown up a Starliner yet.

No, just a Space Shuttle...