But the coverage was irritating as hell. From the world's premier space company: "The satellites have to go really really fast because they kind of fall around the Earth!" "But won't they fall over the side?" "No, because what most people don't know is that the Earth is round like a ball!" "It is?" "Yes! I looked it up on Wikipedia!"
I think it was carefully gauged for the general population's knowledge level. It may encourage some kids to take math and science in school by not talking over their heads. The black MC chick was hot.
As I recall, the space shuttle program used to cost NASA between 450 million and 1.5 billion a launch, more or less. Meanwhile Musk said it cost his company around 60 million to build a Falcon 9 rocket, and that the fuel cost another 200,000. The variable seems to be how much it costs to effectively refurbish the rocket stage and then they gotta successfully re fly the stage. Fuckin' awesome. Maybe NASA is better off being relegated to propaganda tool for america's church of global warming bishops and priests. How much are we spending on the Space Launch System anyway, when you include all the extra trimmings like the bureaucracy, legacy costs and pet projects? Oh, yeah, and expendable rockets instead of reusables . Talk about ideas that sound awful on paper.
The Space Shuttle was a failure, both operationally and economically. I'm skeptical about the Space Launch System too, but it does provide lifting capability that private companies aren't willing to invest in (20% greater than Saturn V). Why any mission would need this much lift today is a good question. Many launches of smaller rockets (reusable Falcon 9s?) and assembly of an exploration craft in orbit would seem safer (more egg baskets) and more economical. Sounds like another Shuttle debacle in the making. Don't think private industry will pull off a manned-mars mission. The money isn't there. Even if Bill Gates were to fund the mission, I think he'd have reservations about allocating so much money to something that may not benefit as much as using the money for philanthropic purposes here. While SpaceX has the tech skills (or will have) I don't think they'll have the money. Maybe China will bankroll them.
SpaceX is going to soon launch the Falcon 9 Heavy. It has a liftoff thrust of 4.5 million pounds (versus 7.5 million for the Saturn V) and puts 58 tons into orbit, which is well over twice the payload of the Space Shuttle or the Delta IV Heavy. It will also cost a third of the Delta IV Heavy, and that's without factoring in any re-usability, yet SpaceX's illustrations of the Heavy show landing legs on the boosters and center core. The non-reusable launch price is estimated to be about $135 million. In pounds to orbit, that's probably cheaper than the SLS's core stage engines that get dumped into the ocean.
Here's a not very deep article on SpaceX's likely refurbishment issues and costs. The Space Shuttle is not a good vehicle for comparisons.
Elon says the stage is fine and good for a relaunch. I see some paint adhesion problems that need to be addressed. The blue and red came through it pretty well but the black is flaking off.
Can't wait to see the FH launch. Although that video is a little outdated. IIRC, the current plan is for the two side boosters to return to the launch site, while the central core will do a barge landing.
In case you missed sunday's launch (January 17) Falcon 9 and Jason 3 were successful. This time from Vanderberg's Pacific launch site. The landing? Not so much: the booster made it back to the barge, soft landing, but one of the legs failed and it toppled. Here's a good article. Worth the read.
The problem is that they're trying to land using four legs instead of five. That leaves no stability in the event of a gear failure, which is why modern roll-around office chairs have largely switched to five legs - to save lives and equipment. I doubt NASA could even man-rate a four legged office chair anymore.
Since four legs tip over when there's a gear failure, they're not much better than three legs (and arguably worse from a teeter-totter aspect on uneven ground). Structurally I'll bet it has to do with the square-peg round-hole area ratio. The lunar lander had to be packed into a cylindrical shroud. A square shape works much better than a triangle for filling the circle and thus better for fuel volume. Beyond that perhaps hit increasing complexity - or the added difficulty of drafting a pentagonal design with a T-square.
Lunar landers also made do with only a single descent engine and one ascent engine. When NASA decided to design new lunar landers in the late 1980s the new landers featured no less that FIVE descent engines! Why? Because NASA wanted them to land even if two of the engines failed. And for thrust symmetry you had to have five if two of the five failed.
SpaceX Dragonrider passed hover test with flying colors The test was back in November, but they've only now released the video.
Ok that's done. What next? edited to add: the video gave me goosebumps. Here's a link to Spacex's HD webcast recorded earlier. The launch sequence starts at 18 minutes into the vid.
