And ten times less expensive.Yes, it's now by far the most capable rocket in the world. 60t into space is nothing to sniff at. The reusable aspect is one for the future but it's a bit of a gimmick for now.
Still not even half as powerful as the Saturn V was though
Astronomy & Space Exploration
- Thread starter MrMarcello
- Start date
I should hope so too. They've had 60 years of experience to draw from in building it.
That's true, of course. However, at the beginning of SpaceX they did a lot of reinventing-the-wheel in order to make this commercially viable and not only reserved to big government bucks projects.
Yeah, Falcon 9's essentially been disruptive, forcing others like ULA and Arianespace to change their approach or get priced out. But if (big if) BFR works as planned, everything else basically becomes obsolete.
What I've really enjoyed over the last few days is the number of people who previously had no interest in Space flight, telling me that SpaceX shouldn't have launched a car into space because it's a waste of money/bad for the environment/a waste of resources/going to annoy aliens/etc
Think it'll be a case of next year*Musk just mentioned that they might have the test version of the Mars ship starting test-hops early next year
If they get that all working it'll be the real game changer.
*elon time
So probably mid 2020's.
Still, if the Falcon Heavy has proved anything, it's that even if Elon's concept of 6 months is a bit wonky, he gets things done.
And the BFR will be biggest game changer in space flight since the V2 rocket
Can't wait for that
.On another note, Boeing will have to rethink what they are doing with the SLS.*CongressCan't wait for that
And Congress won't have a rethink on anything really
It's not that easy for them in that case. SpaceX is also an American company, employing Americans, manufacturing in the USA. If it provides the service at a substantially reduced cost, it would be difficult to justify the larger expense. Certainly it would be better than paying Russia for this service.
SpaceX may be the ones to launch the James Webb telescope since they now have the Falcon 9 and Heavy. It's one - tenth the cost as well. The SLS costs about $1 billion per launch. SpaceX can do it for just $90m.
That looks like the Saturn V cost in 2018 dollars. You sure about that number?
To be fair, I wouldn't trust SpaceX with the James Webb Telescope. Got to be either a Soyuz, Ariane or Atlas.
The JWT has cost what so far... $6.5bn? If ULA are going to charge an addition $50mn over SpaceX, but increase the reliability from 98% to 99%, that seems $50mn well spent. (1% of $6.5bn is $65mn)
That's more than the average cost of a shuttle flight w.r.t total program cost, adjusted for inflation.
SLS will become untenable before long. It'll get a couple of face-saving launches but that's about it.
JWST is going up on the Ariane 5 I think.
JWST is going up on the Ariane 5 I think.
Yeah. They shut down the factory that made the Space Shuttle rocket engines, decided they were going to use them for SLS, decided to refurbish ones they had lying around, decided to reopen the factory and so on and so forth with ridiculous bureaucratic costs.
I've always been somewhat supporting of SLS because Orion looks like this
and is precisely what you need to put 5 people in Solar or Martian orbit for a couple of years.
Problem is, the SLS should have been built 20 years ago. It looks ridiculous compared to the plans SpaceX and Blue Origin have
If I were NASA, I would either cancel or mothball the SLS and the ISS, and put money systems that can carry 50 to 100 people to Mars.. i.e. the BFR, New Glenn or any competitor systems that ULA, SNC and others can come up with
Unfortunately, a couple of face saving launches will cost another $10-15bn
Yeah, it's dumb (not to mention frustrating - just think of the science probes that could be built for half that with the rest going to BFR), but those Senators in Alabama, Florida and Utah aren't going to let it die until it's burned through all that money in their states.
Will get extra bizarre when Starliner and Dragon put astronauts into orbit (slated for the end of this year but will inevitably slip to 2019).
That's what you get with a severe lack of long term vision, and several pivots along the way. A cool-looking spacecraft.Yeah. They shut down the factory that made the Space Shuttle rocket engines, decided they were going to use them for SLS, decided to refurbish ones they had lying around, decided to reopen the factory and so on and so forth with ridiculous bureaucratic costs.
I've always been somewhat supporting of SLS because Orion looks like this
and is precisely what you need to put 5 people in Solar or Martian orbit for a couple of years.
Problem is, the SLS should have been built 20 years ago. It looks ridiculous compared to the plans SpaceX and Blue Origin have
If I were NASA, I would either cancel or mothball the SLS and the ISS, and put money systems that can carry 50 to 100 people to Mars.. i.e. the BFR, New Glenn or any competitor systems that ULA, SNC and others can come up with
NASA really need to concentrate on the actual "exploring new worlds" part of their mission objectives (wait is that Star Trek?).
SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, Boeing, and SNC have the lifting people up into space part down now.
SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, Boeing, and SNC have the lifting people up into space part down now.
Rocket: Blue Origin's New Shepard Rocket
Capsule: Blue Origin's New Shepard Capsule
Capable of delivering 0 crew to orbit
Rocket: Atlas V, Ariane V or Falcon 9/Heavy Rockets
Capsule: SNC's Dream Chaser
Could carry 2-3 or more astronauts to LEO (currently not crewed certified)
Rocket: Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy
Capsule: SpaceX's Crewed Dragon (Dragon 2.0)
Capable of taking up to 7 crew to Earth Orbit or even further (it'd be a bit cramped to do a solar mission, but you could do it
Rocket: Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9 or Vulcan
Capsule: Boeing CST-100 Starliner
Capable of taking up to 7 crew to Earth Orbit or even further (it'd be a bit cramped to do a solar mission, but you could do it
Rocket: New Glenn (in planning)
Capsule: New Glenn Capsule (in planning)
Can carry an unknown number of crew
Rocket: SpaceX BFR (in pre production?)
Capsule: SpaceX BFR (in pre production?)
Will carry up to 100 people to Mars
Blue Origin New Armstrong
Status Unknown
Capsule: Blue Origin's New Shepard Capsule
Capable of delivering 0 crew to orbit
Rocket: Atlas V, Ariane V or Falcon 9/Heavy Rockets
Capsule: SNC's Dream Chaser
Could carry 2-3 or more astronauts to LEO (currently not crewed certified)
Rocket: Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy
Capsule: SpaceX's Crewed Dragon (Dragon 2.0)
Capable of taking up to 7 crew to Earth Orbit or even further (it'd be a bit cramped to do a solar mission, but you could do it
Rocket: Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9 or Vulcan
Capsule: Boeing CST-100 Starliner
Capable of taking up to 7 crew to Earth Orbit or even further (it'd be a bit cramped to do a solar mission, but you could do it
Rocket: New Glenn (in planning)
Capsule: New Glenn Capsule (in planning)
Can carry an unknown number of crew
Rocket: SpaceX BFR (in pre production?)
Capsule: SpaceX BFR (in pre production?)
Will carry up to 100 people to Mars
Blue Origin New Armstrong
Status Unknown
Last edited:
To be fair, it's cool looking space craft with a reason to exist. It's just it should have been built in 1981 rather than 2021
It's great we have people and companies like Space X/Elon Musk/Richard Branson/ESA/Mars One looking up to the stars, pushing Space tourism/trips to the Moon/Mars etc.
For years we've only NASA and Russia and whilst they've done great things, they've not pushed Space Exploration how we all hoped, 50 years ago NASA put a man of the Moon, we should have had not only a person walk on Mars but the first human settlement on Mars by now.
For years we've only NASA and Russia and whilst they've done great things, they've not pushed Space Exploration how we all hoped, 50 years ago NASA put a man of the Moon, we should have had not only a person walk on Mars but the first human settlement on Mars by now.
Yeah, except it was all STS back then, after a severe budget cut after Apollo. NASA's plans were grandiose after the success of the Moon missions, but Congress decided that since the race with the Soviets was won, it's better to fund other projects. Like things that drop things that go boom. Undetected.
Last edited:
Poor smart rocket, surviving all that journey back to earth, just to be destroyed by a dumber, smaller relative.So, I was just watching footage and reading up on the Challenger Space Shuttle launch.
The crew had apparently survived the explosion and were alive inside the crew cabin which had separated from the rest of the shuttle and from the main rocket. The side boosters had separated immediately after the explosion. The crew apparently died as a result of the impact of their cabin slamming into the sea at about 200-300mph. Why did the crew cabin not have parachutes or anything else in events such as these or if it did have them, why were they not deployed? Because of lack of electric power, computers being destroyed as a result of the explosion?
I know the space shuttles deployed parachutes whilst landing. Did the crew cabin not have any as well?
The crew had apparently survived the explosion and were alive inside the crew cabin which had separated from the rest of the shuttle and from the main rocket. The side boosters had separated immediately after the explosion. The crew apparently died as a result of the impact of their cabin slamming into the sea at about 200-300mph. Why did the crew cabin not have parachutes or anything else in events such as these or if it did have them, why were they not deployed? Because of lack of electric power, computers being destroyed as a result of the explosion?
I know the space shuttles deployed parachutes whilst landing. Did the crew cabin not have any as well?
No chutes. Crew cabins were not designed that way. Yeah; apparently they survived till they hit the sea.
They added the ability to bail out of the crew section and parachute back after the Challenger accident, but prior to that there was no means to escape (I think Columbia had some ejection seats for the two command seats, but it was impossible to do for all 7 crew). The flippant answer is that they didn't believe the Shuttle could blow up in such away, or at least that the risks were tiny. They thought that in the vast majority of cases they'd be able to abort to orbit or a runway. Shuttle was an amazing piece of engineering but so flawed it's crazy.
The Columbia accident is a similar case of refusing to acknowledge the drawbacks of a system - they thought it was impossible for a piece of tank foam to puncture a hole in one of the orbiter's RCC wing edges. They'd seen the strike happen on the ascent footage but didn't get someone to do an EVA and check for damage. If they had, it would still have been a tough ask to save the seven astronauts, but possible.
Could have been one of the United States greatest triumphs, of just a gallant tragic defeat anyway. We'll never know.
You'll be pleased to know that both the Starliner and the Dragon have launch abort systems in place.
https://www.space.com/34086-spacex-boeing-test-crew-vehicle-abort-systems.html
Not that I would really want to be in a capsule descending to earth with it's parachutes whilst the rest of the rocket blows up around me.
The Soviets have apparently used their launch abort systems to save the crew three times! (I had no idea)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_abort_modes#Launch_Abort_Modes
But launch abort systems aren't much good outside of the launch anyway.
I remember reading (or watching) somewhere that after the projectile foam issue was analyzed in the aftermath of the Columbia disaster, they went back through all the previous launches and revised the probability of catastrophic failure during launch. It turned out to be something in the realm of 30%.
I think the human problem with space exploration heavily depends on what type of government is in charge.
It's difficult for western powers to do this long term as they're affected by the 4 year term in politics. They don't really want to commit refunds or time on something they won't get the credit for.
The Chinese on the other hand can send a team further a field as they'll still be in charge whether it takes the mission 10 or 100 years
It's difficult for western powers to do this long term as they're affected by the 4 year term in politics. They don't really want to commit refunds or time on something they won't get the credit for.
The Chinese on the other hand can send a team further a field as they'll still be in charge whether it takes the mission 10 or 100 years
Apparently, after NASA got to know that a piece of tank foam had managed to puncture that hole in the wing edge, they had a meeting on whether to inform the shuttle crew or not. They decided in 30 seconds to inform them. They decided to tell the crew that it was not a big deal and would not cause problems on reentry. But in private, they debated whether an EVA (space walk) was necessary by one or two of the crew to inspect the wing edge and determine whether it could be fixed or not. But the problem was, a robotic arm that might have been needed for that had been taken out of the Columbia before the mission because they felt it would not be needed on that mission! Bad luck all around. Either that or complete oversight.
How else could the Columbia crew have been brought back to Earth safely without using the Columbia for reentry? They could have gone to the ISS and stayed there till another shuttle came and picked them up?
Colombia was ok the wrong plane to reach the ISS wasn't it? Or something like that
But apparently they could have spead up SS Discoveries preparation and could have just about rescued them
There was also the option to try and patch up the wing in a procedure that would've made Apollo 13's square-peg-in-round-hole look like child's play, before re-entering and the crew bailing out with Columbia ditched into the pacific.
Another option to survey the wing damage was to use DoD spysats, and requests were made, but NASA refused them (three times).
One thing about BFS (not that one) that's a bit worrying is that there's seemingly no ascent abort option for crew. Musk's view is that if you're on the way to Mars then if there's a probably you're gonna die anyway, but that doesn't account for a catastrophic failure prior to leaving Earth's gravity well.
Yeah. But musk originally said that the crew weren't even going to be in the thing at launch, instead maybe using a dragon to get to there.
Now he's planning to use the BFR as a earth to earth holder so reliability in that case will have to approach 99.999% let alone to 1/240 they NASA are after
What?
That's a bad thing. It doesn't matter where the mission is to. That is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if they're going to LEO, ISS, the Moon or Mars. Every capsule should have a launch abort system to get the crew safely out. What happens if something goes wrong during launch?
Columbia's orbit was at a different angle relative to the equator to the one that ISS orbits at (ISS is different so that it's easier for the Russians to reach). Columbia wouldn't have the fuel to transfer to the ISS orbit.
Orbital plane. or Orbital Inclination. i.e. it couldn't have reached the ISS.
The ISS is at an orbital inclination of 51.6 degrees. It didn't have anywhere near the fuel to reach the ISS unfortunately. It would have had to match orbital perigee and apogee and also change it's inclination (Kerbal Players Unite!)
But they did have Atlantis (Atlantis, not Discovery as I said up there) that could have possibly rescued the crew
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...that-might-have-saved-space-shuttle-columbia/
I think if there is a lesson from both Apollo-13 and Columbia, it's that supplying the crew with additional power and carbon dioxide recyclers, is a good idea. Apollo 13 wouldn't have survived without getting the CO2 scrubbers working. Colombia could have if they had had extra.
Of course that is easier said than done when every kg of weight, you pay for 20 times over in fuel
Of course that is easier said than done when every kg of weight, you pay for 20 times over in fuel
Last edited:
Oh okay, I didn't know you were referring to their orbital planes. Yeah, moving from one orbit to another requires large amounts of fuel so going to the ISS which has an inclination of 51.6 degrees would be out of the question. The only thing that could have been done to bring back the crew would have been to send another shuttle up, maybe the Discovery.
It's still unfathomable that NASA gave the go ahead to the Space Shuttle programme when there were so many faults in terms of safety etc. Also the SS programme started in the early 80s and the Columbia disaster happened in 2003. But even after Challenger, they didn't develop in Launch Abort System for the shuttle?! I'm not sure about how useful those ejection seats were.
Edit: Wiki gives something about this. I'll just leave it here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes#Post-Challenger_abort_enhancements