Posted on 04/01/2013 6:12:17 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
They already have reached the ISS twice in a row. Since they aren't planning to go to Saturn anytime soon, I'll settle for when they start taking business away from the Europeans, Russians, Indians, and Chinese.
Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup Grumman, Space X. What’s the difference?
What Spacex is doing is cool but at what cost? I strenuously object to the way they are getting funded at the expense of thousands of engineers with a proven record. Of course those engineers just tended to be conservative and from states which don’t support Obama.
Sure NASA has made mistakes, heck they still employ Hansen, but they’ve done and are doing some incredible awe inspiring things.
They barely made orbit twice in a row.
I understand that, but how much have they done that is commercialized?
Doing science, for the sake of science, is great in theory.
“Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup Grumman, Space X. What’s the difference?”
SpaceX is run by an Obama bundler.
” I know the problem with the foam heat shields, that destroyed Columbia, were due to NASA being ordered to be green.”
Those deaths need to be laid at the doorstep of the EPA.
“I understand that, but how much have they done that is commercialized?”
You’re joking right? The technologies developed by NASA and associated commercial organizations effect every aspect of our lives.
How much payload will Musk sacrifice in order to land his rocket? Gravity isn’t cheap. It will take a good bit of fuel to land that first stage. That fuel will come at the expense of payload.
BTW, NASA has been building and launching rockets for 50 years. What they have learned, they turn over to private industry. You know, people like Elon Musk and SpaceX.
Musk rubbed a LOT of people the wrong way by not giving credit to the people who figured out all of this space flight stuff.
All he is doing is refining what was discovered 40-50 years ago.
But he’s doing it in such a cool way
“Musk: It was a tiny design revision change from the supplier. The supplier made some mistakes and we didn’t catch those mistakes. Ran system through low pressurization tests, but didn’t run them through the high presssurization functionality tests. Didn’t get stuck in the low pressurization functionality tests. “
Quality control mistakes and inadequate testing are unacceptable when you have lives and billions of dollars at stake. They’ll be forced to add the same overhead NASA has been forced too.
Yeah, like that cool Tesla?
Musk is a salesman first, engineer second. He has already figured out how to seperate people (the US government) from their money (taxes money).
Everyone hears “SpaceX” and they think “private commercial”. They would be shocked to know how much money he has received in government contracts.
And the others aren't? Are you kidding me? They buy petrolum jelly in 55 gallon drums for use in Washington, DC and surrounding areas.
Difference is SpaceX didn't do a paper spacecraft. They are building hardware that mostly works a whole lot cheaper than all of the above.
/johnny
You’re ok with Obama cronies getting sweatheart deals while the govt is forced to GIVE him data, designs, and technical support?
Really?
And no, the thousands of engineers in Texas and Florida who have been put out of work by this are not Obama fans.
That kind of crap is the difference between the F-22 and the WWII era warplanes. Fly then fix costs lives. So be it.
Fix then fly means you stay on the ground.
I despise that crap. It's institutionalized thinking.
And even with the billions and billions NASA spent on quality control and testing, they managed to kill a lot more folks than Musk has.
It's a dangerous business.
/johnny
/johnny
Instead of reducing payload, they are making the rocket bigger. Notice they are talking about the Falcon 2 upgrade. I think about 1/3 of the fuel in the rocket will be used to return to the pad.
BTW, NASA has been building and launching rockets for 50 years. What they have learned, they turn over to private industry. You know, people like Elon Musk and SpaceX.
Yes, as they should.
You can do it with a spitfire.
With a system more complicated you end up with mission failure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.