Well done SpaceX - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 02:02:30 am
content: We salute you!https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CWyzGUKUkAAzwk0.mp4

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 02:08:41 am
content: Third times a charm. Keep it up!

author: Thorondor
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 02:20:24 am
content: Ever since the Curiosity landing, I never miss a chance to watch a live stream of a space mission . There's nothing quite like it.

author: jwm_
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 02:27:43 am
content: There is this good quote about the difficulty of predicting the future i think is due to Asimov, but i can't find the exact wording. It goes something like..Science Fiction authors have predicted we would eventually go to the moon for centuries, yet no one predicted the average person would be able to watch it live from their living room as it happens.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 03:09:42 am
content: Unfortunately missed the live stream, but just watched the recording, and amidst all the cheering there's distinct and well-deserved "holy shit we did it!"

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 03:32:43 am
content: +1 Well done.

author: boz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 04:51:09 am
content: Well done guys...Proudly wearing my SpaceX hoodie to see star wars this evening (even though its mid-summer here!)

author: jh15
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 07:49:09 am
content: When first seeing Star Wars when first shown, I wondered if they were on a budget and dug up dusty props such as ww2 bomber parts. Also wondered why the hologram projection was a snowy 50 lines or so.The hairdo, well, never know what to expect from other gender anyway.Glad Star Trek was more science fiction than space opera.Anyway tonight was best feeling I got since the Mercury missions.Had to hold my wife's head up from book she was reading, guess not as exciting to some.The landed stage looked very uninteresting I'm sure to many news watchers, too bad they didn't have fireworks display come out the top after.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 01:43:00 pm
content: Epic!What a moment!

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 02:59:25 pm
content: The Force is strong with this one ...

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 05:14:50 pm
content: Very impressive indeed

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 05:55:08 pm
content: Quote from: Thorondor on December 22, 2015, 02:20:24 amI can assure you the exhilaration is even better when it's some of your own handiwork that's on board.

author: Tomorokoshi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 06:42:52 pm
content: Quote from: jh15 on December 22, 2015, 07:49:09 amThey should have landed on the wrong landing pad. Then they could compete with Miss Universe.

author: Tomorokoshi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 06:47:09 pm
content: Quote from: jwm_ on December 22, 2015, 02:27:43 amIt seems most everyone missed the development of the smart phone. There are too many plots that would be totally negated by possessing a small computer with instant access to knowledge, can run any number of programs, allows communication using several methods, etc. Perhaps it will cause more realistic situations. I can see where science fiction already looks dated when situations arise where problems could have been easily solved with one.

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2015, 07:35:49 pm
content: Quote from: Tomorokoshi on December 22, 2015, 06:47:09 pmThat's one interesting thing aboutThe Expanse--a big chunk of the day-to-day technology in that world is the clear evolutionary offspring of today's smartphones and tablets, and the connectedness of that technology is thoroughly woven into the plot. The books are basically classic near-future space opera but extrapolated from the technology and politics of today rather than those of decades ago, so if you're into that genre if highly recommend the series.(The series also covers the colonization of Mars, so it's not off topic here, right?)

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2016, 09:46:43 pm
content: Some slick new footage from the launch/landing.Man, this is cool.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2016, 10:07:31 pm
content: I have a difficult time understanding the real impact of this. Seems more of a gimmick.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2016, 10:20:54 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 13, 2016, 10:07:31 pm80% of the cost of the mission is the bit they just landed, 0.3% is the propellant cost. Reusing said bit amortizes the cost linearly with the number of reuses (+ refurb cost). FYI, recent inspection of this vehicle revealed no damage.Think of single-use jumbo jets as an analogy to expendable rockets.The Holy Grail, of course, is fully reusable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO). This isn't that, but it's a massive step in that direction.

author: jwm_
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2016, 10:55:35 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 13, 2016, 10:36:06 pmThe big issue with solid fuels is you cannot throttle. Once ignited, they keep burning with whatever profile you designed them with for the most part.John

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2016, 10:57:33 pm
content: Quote from: jwm_ on January 13, 2016, 10:55:35 pmYep, which complicates a lot of launch abort scenarios, especially on a crewed launch. One of the many neat things that SpaceX does is conduct a static engine test of every vehicle on the pad before launch, once a couple of days before the launch, and again between ignition and lift-off--they can verify the performance of the engines and if necessary abort the launch atliterally the last secondbefore the launch. Can't do that with solid fuel. You also can't re-light a solid fuel stage and use the existing engines to do a soft landing. There might be options to do that with a hybrid fuel system, but I'm not a rocket scientist. . .

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2016, 11:07:03 pm
content: I am sure someone somewhere did an analysis.QuoteFor everyone on the launching pad, the cost is about 1/3 the rocket, 1/3 the payload, and 1/3 insurance. Figure from early 1990s.QuoteA little bit more complicated. How much MORE did it cost to design and manufacture reusable rockets vs. single-use ones? The fuel needed to land the rocket, plus safety margins, were essentially part of the payload at launch time. So to lunch the same payload, you will need more fuel / rocket structural elements than you would if a single-use rockets were used. ....I suspect that something like this is good, at best, for LEO launches. For high-orbit launch like geo-stationary birds, the efficiency just isn't there.QuoteHow many times could it be reused? What repairs would need to be made before it can be reused? Is there any performance hit (like probability of failure) from reusing the rockets? ...Without seeing the analysis, it looks to be a marketing stunt to me.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2016, 11:11:25 pm
content: QuoteHome deliveries of your take-out orders from Amazon?safety is one concern, cost another, both financial and environmental.One I have thought about is automotive accident avoidance; or driver escape mechanism.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2016, 11:31:56 pm
content: QuoteThat's the least of your concerns: think about what a bunch of those can do, creatively.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 12:09:39 am
content: I suspect that the whole reusable rocket thing is less about lowering costs for commercial launches but more about getting potential military contracts / applications.For Musk to be able to reland a rocket (from orbit), he must have been able to control thrust (just trust, not thrust vectoring), potentially reignitable rockets.Reignitable rocket engines would allow satellites to be repositioned while in orbit, making them difficult to be destroyed by anti-satellite missiles. It would also make possible in-orbit / standby missiles that can greatly reduce the time for them to be deployed, making them less likely to be intercepted. Or it could be mounted on re-entry vehicles, ...

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 01:24:51 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 14, 2016, 12:09:39 amI don't see why the distinction. The cost of getting a payload into orbit is based on it's weight, not it's purpose ... and if SpaceX do start doing launches for military customers, you can bet your boots it will be for commercial reasons.QuoteI don't see why you would exclude thrust vectoring. I'm no rocket scientist, but that would seem to be kinda critical, especially for re-landing.QuoteRepositioning satellites in orbit is not likely to make much difference as a target for an anti-satellite missile. The tracking on such a missile has to chase down something travelling at over 17,000 mph, so a change in position that could be afforded by on board rockets isn't a big challenge. As for missiles parked in orbit (if that's what you are saying) - I think they would be rather over-exposed.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 01:46:23 am
content: Quote from: jwm_ on January 13, 2016, 10:55:35 pmThat is a big issue for small systems, but not such a big issue for large systems with multiple motors. Systems like the space shuttle have used cheap refillable solid boosters to do most of the grunt cheaply, and an expensive liquid fuelled motor to do the fine adjustments.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 01:50:48 am
content: No manned mission to Mars unless a rocket can be landed and later reignited, right?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 01:54:30 am
content: Maybe later - but I was under the impression that the first human mission to Mars was a one-way trip.Or is that not the case?

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 02:26:00 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 14, 2016, 01:50:48 amSolid fuel engines are only used to boost rockets from Earth, where it's no problem to just use them up (except in abort cases). Higher stage and return vehicle engines are always liquid fueled.

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 02:27:10 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 14, 2016, 01:54:30 amHighly unlikely. Keeping the crew alive on Mars indefinitely is probably harder than bringing them back.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 04:08:41 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 13, 2016, 11:07:03 pm- The launching company does not own the payload.- the insurance is always there.so, for the launcher the material cost can be reduced to the fuel only and some consumables.the rocket costs more to develop but this is amortized over the number of flights. even if it costs 50% more to develop after one reuse you are in the clear.Falcon has trust vectoring capabilities. Just like grashopper. It can hover and fly sideways.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 05:43:06 am
content: The devil is in the details. As Musk says, they are going over the recovered rocket seeing if it is indeed re-usable. What parts will need to be replaced. What will need to be made more robust. Reusability costs payload for both the fuel and hardware required for return. If the costs of refurbishment are high, or if the mass cost of making refurbishment cheap are high it will make no sense.The space shuttle was supposed to reduce launch costs through reusability. When the actual costs of refurbishment for flight (under NASA rules) came in it was at best a wash. Then there was a fad for cheap throwaway launchers. When the costs came in for lost payloads there wasn't much if any savings. So we will have to see if SpaceX can actually make a difference. There is good reason to hope. Lots of bright people, lots of new materials and electronics technology to work with, and maybe even a dash of efficiency from commercial development. But spaceflight is really hard. So it may take a few more rounds of development to get there.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 10:15:24 pm
content: Some things worth noting (and general comments on points made above):Even though it cost SpaceX more to develop reusability to this state, they still offer the lowest cost per pound to orbit in the industry evenwithoutreuse. Even the Chinese can't beat their price. Falcon Heavy will cut the Falcon 9 price more than in half.SpaceX is not taking an expendable booster and trying to see if it can be reused. It was engineered to be reusable right away, as best they could do. The actual procedures and requirements for doing this are what the test program has been about. When they first started trying to re-enter the 1st stage, they couldn't even keep it from shredding in the supersonic wind. Many incremental refinements followed. They are obviously making progress.There are no boosters of any size that do not have thrust vectoring. Gimballed nozzles are used even on solid-motor ICBMs. One such can be seen here:Most of the DeltaV to orbit from the booster (regardless of destination) comes from thesecondstage. Typically in the vicinity of 4/5ths. The first stage just gets you past the "knee" in the rocket equation graph. Despite this, it's still the most expensive part of the vehicle, due to it's size and the fact that 90% of the engines on an F9 are in the first stage.The Space Shuttle was expensive because everyone from Apollo kept their job. A typical US Government "save the civil servants" operation. It took an army of 30,000 employees to get that thing serviced, turned around, re-stacked and launched. It stretched the definition of reusability to the breaking point. Even the cockpit windows had to be unmounted and sent back to the manufacturer for polishing off micrometeoroid damage between flights. SpaceX has an order of magnitude fewer employees than Shuttle alone required, and couldn't spend money like that if they tried.There is no question that the Merlin motor can be reused and restarted. The first stage undergoes a full flight duration hotfire on a test stand in Texas before it's sent to the cape.http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities. So the motors used in any flight (expendable or otherwise) arealreadybeing reused. To land the recent booster required the launch burn, a boost back burn, an entry burn then a landing burn (4 separate engine starts).Later this year, we could well be treated to seeing this:

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 10:37:09 pm
content: "Even though it cost SpaceX more to develop reusability to this state, they still offer the lowest cost per pound to orbit in the industry even without reuse. Even the Chinese can't beat their price. Falcon Heavy will cut the Falcon 9 price more than in half."I would say that slightly differently. Musk is not nproven at this point. Umtil he can deliver the same economics as promised after 20 or 30 launches, you have to take his words with a grain of salt.The fact that no one else is developing reusable rockets makes me wonder about his claims.Again, I think landing a rocket itself is not that big a deal. It is the capabilities that enables that landing (thruttle control and potentially reignitable solid fuel rockets) and their potential military applications that are far more valuable. Ie. Even if reusable rockets turn out to a commercial failure, space itself can still be a huge success.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 10:48:53 pm
content: SpaceX is betting on the demand side of rocket launches being very elastic, which should mean lower price = more launches. I am not certain it will play out that way. I think the reality is likely to be somewhat less, as satellites still cost a lot, but this might bring changes to the market are hard to foresee. For example much cheaper satellites, if the rocket cost is no longer significant.AFAIK the rockets start paying off about 4-5 flights in because of the additional hardware, logistics, and fuel required (all mean lost payload). If the rocket survives its first flight with only minor wear I can't see why 20+ flights per rocket isn't possible. And even if there is increased risk this may well be covered by the lower launch costs.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 11:13:42 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 14, 2016, 10:37:09 pmFact? Does ULA count?http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ula-unveils-its-future-with-the-vulcan-rocket-family/Blue Origin?https://www.blueorigin.com/technologySkylon?http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.htmlESA?http://spacenews.com/meet-adeline-airbus-response-to-reusable-spacex-rocket/Russia?http://www.space.com/18046-russia-reusable-rockets-2020.htmlThat's a long list with "no one" on it.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2016, 11:53:39 pm
content: Update on the ISS SpaceX/Orbital/Sierra/Boeing cargo contract:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/musk-s-spacex-splits-nasa-contracts-with-orbital-sierra-nevadaIt's hard to believe the Boeing/Lockmart got left out in the cold on this one. Mighta been the Russian motor issue. I'm happy to see Sierra wasn't left out.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 04:03:51 am
content: Close...but no cigarTopples over after "landing". Looks like a leg didn't latch properly. Damn close though.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 04:19:20 am
content: Just about there. If this was easy it would have been done years ago. They are so close they can taste it.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 04:42:09 am
content: Still a significant difference between "fell over" and "total loss".This is far better than any of the so-called "reality tv" shows, so keep it coming!

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 08:59:55 am
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on January 13, 2016, 09:46:43 pmQuote from: dannyf on January 13, 2016, 10:07:31 pmI don't understand it.A global banker makes nuclear powered cars, so he can use all fossil fuel to burn in rockets, and then makes a Kim-Jong-Un style video about it (2:18) where everyone is payed to applaude on command.But it must be me. Misprogrammed, I guess.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 09:46:10 am
content: Quote from: Galenbo on January 18, 2016, 08:59:55 amMust be you, they were being paid regardless of how proud they were for getting the job done.Are you seriously connecting SpaceX to Kim Jong Un?

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 10:17:28 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 18, 2016, 04:03:51 amThe earlier part of the coverage showed fairly rough sea and the barge rolling quite a bit. Not sure I'd have wanted to land something that tall on a platform like that!

author: MrSlack
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 10:34:43 am
content: Money shot:Good try! They will get there in the end. I read somewhere they reckon it may have been due to ice on the platform.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 12:46:56 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on January 18, 2016, 10:17:28 amThat's a pretty normal sea. If their barge can't maintain adequate stability like that, they need a new barge.

author: Nerull
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 12:57:51 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 14, 2016, 12:09:39 amFirst: The falcon 9 first stage is not returning from orbit. Not even close.Second: This is a problem that has been solved for decades. Most liquid fueled rocket engines can be throttled, since vehicle acceleration increases rapidly as fuel mass drops and its highly desirable to control G forces and aerodynamic loads during launch - this is a problem that was solved a long time ago. Most upper stages are re-ignitable, because most geostationary launch profiles include a coast period between LEO and GTO. Its also highly desirable for an upper stage to be capable of deorbiting itself after payload deployment, to avoid contributing to space junk. Satellites already have maneuvering thrusters, and they already reposition themselves. Geostationary satellites are pretty regularly moved around as needed, and there are often on-orbit spares ready to move into place of any failed satellite. LEO constellations like Iridium also have on-orbit spares, ready to move into position as needed. Satellites in LEO must regularly perform orbit corrections due to atmospheric drag, so they need thrusters too. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a satellite that doesn't already have a maneuvering system, unless its only designed for very short term operations.Learning the first detail about spaceflight might help, if you're going to offer opinions as to why SpaceX is doing what it is doing. Restartable engines, throttling, gimbaled engines, maneuvering thrusters - stuff we've been doing since the 60s - is not the reason.What's next, he's developing electric cars not because he thinks they're a good idea but because the military might be interest in this technology called the wheel? You managed to name all the least impressive things SpaceX has accomplished.Note: This is in no way meant to detract from what SpaceX has accomplished, its purely a response to ignorant speculation about developing new tech everyone already had.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 06:00:20 pm
content: Quote from: MrSlack on January 18, 2016, 10:34:43 amThat is not the most recent landing though, is it. Good try indeed...

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 06:40:59 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on January 18, 2016, 06:00:20 pmNo, it is the most recent (2016-01-17). I was watching the live webcast, and just as the orange glow was appeared on the far side of the landing ship the satellite feed cut out. When they first learned of the RUD, they thought they had a hard landing, but once the telemetry and video came in it appears the landing itself was nominal, but the one landing leg failed to lock open.Quote from: Nerull on January 18, 2016, 12:57:51 pmIndeed. Most of the technology SpaceX has developed is evolutionary, and you can draw a pretty clear line from the rockets of 50-60 years ago to the Falcon family, with a few nice boosts along the way from modern design, analysis, and fabrication techniques. That doesn't make it any less awe-inspiring, mind, but it's important to understand the company in its proper context. What isrevolutionary about Space X is that they've been doing everything with an unprecedented speed and leanness that NASA, with its projects perpetually mired in Congressional politics, can only dream of. Part of that has been enabled by much better design and fabrication technologies, part of it is the private capital, and part of it is surely company culture and Elon Musk himself. Whatever the cause, the aerospace landscape has already been remade by SpaceX's success to date--look at who NASA is buying transport from these days!--and the potential cost savings from a fully reusable first stage will drastically change the economics of space by lowering the barrier to entry.How, exactly, that all shakes out remains to be seen, but it's an exciting time.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 07:11:56 pm
content: QuoteTwo things to consider:1) NASA has a different mission than Musk;2) NASA has a track record to speak of. Musk has none.So it is difficult to compare Musk vs. NASA as the two are incomparable, until Musk has delivered a performance comparable to NASA's.Musk has a lot going for him, the re-ignitable rockets and thrust control for example are ground breaking stuff - no one has pulled it off before and it has a significant potential.Whether the reusable rockets make sense is not clear, as we have too little information to make reliable assessment from.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2016, 11:16:15 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 18, 2016, 07:11:56 pmNASA could do a lot better if it had one mission and it didn't change every 4-8 years. Is their mission earth observation, moon colonization, a visit to mars, an asteroid rondezvous, protection from asteroids, commercialization of space, or demonstration of core technologies for later use by industry? All of these have been brought to the front over the last 50 years, and then reversed or dropped in priority when a new administration comes along.NASAs track record is reflective of the above. They have launched a lot of stuff into orbit. And blown a lot of stuff up on the way up or the way back. Had a lot of successful missions. Had quite a few failures. And pulled some amazing rabbits out of the hat. Apollo XIII, Spacelab and the Hubble Space telescope were all on path to be spectacular failures that were brilliantly recovered by NASA.Musk has a much shorter record, but it compares very well with NASAs start. It is hard to compare the first years of NASA with Musks first years because the techologies and unknowns are different, but NASA had a very rocky start. Had to have a lot of help from the Army to actually get into space. Embarassed everybody since NASA was supposed to be the civilian, peaceful space program and they kept blowing up on the pad.

author: Nerull
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2016, 12:46:59 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 18, 2016, 07:11:56 pmJFC.Here are two examples, since you refuse to believe that restart and throttling have been around for a while:RL-10 - 1959 (Atlas V and Titan Centaur/Delta IV/Saturn I/DCX VTOL lander) - RL-10 can throttle from 104% thrust to 8% thrust - the best range of any engine, far better than SpaceX Merlin engines. Multiple restarts.J-2S/J-2X 1964 and 2007. S and X variants both add throttle capability to existing J-2 engine used on Saturn V. Base J-2 had restart capability.If you want just throttling, many more engines are capable of that. Here are a few just off the top of my head:SSME/RS-25RD-171RD-180RD-181RS-68Hypergolic or monopropellant engines have restart capability built in and are often throttleable as well, and there are too many of those to list. Those are already used for your pipe dream of satellites with manuvering systems, as well as some rocket upper stages, with notable examples such as the Apollo CSM engine, the Lunar Module Descent Engine, the Lunar Module Ascent Engine, the Space Shuttle Orbital Manuvering System engines - actually a new generation of the same engine used on the Apollo CSM - Russian transfer stages such as Fregat, and many more.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2016, 01:04:58 am
content: QuoteNot only that, Musk benefited a lot from the pioneers like NASA, not to mention the guys he picked up there.Still, I think we should all wait and see how this re-usable thing turns out to be for Musk + company.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2016, 04:12:33 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 19, 2016, 01:04:58 amYes, and NASA benefited a lot from Tsaikosvky and Goddard and Von Braun, and oh yeah, they got Von Braun from the Germans. NASA was pioneering in their heyday, and Musk is pioneering now. It is just different territory they are exploring. Re-usability has been in the too hard column for NASA, as has low cost. They have tried, failed, and quit trying. We should all hope Musk is successful, but not bet our life savings on it.

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2016, 04:51:10 am
content: In case anyone cares.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2016, 06:16:20 am
content: Comparing NASA and SpaceX is like comparing the US Air Force and Boeing. NASA is the customer. Even during Apollo, NASA didn't build their rockets. The Apollo CSM was made by North American, the LM by Grumman, the Saturn V was built by Boeing, North American and Douglas. Sure (as customer of a big National Project), they had a lot of input into specifications and testing, but they didn't actually build any of the vehicles. Same with Shuttle.Comparing apples to apples, SpaceX can be compared to ULA or Airbus, etc.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2016, 02:15:58 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on January 18, 2016, 04:03:51 amFrom one of the comments:QuoteThis guy might just be on to something... I think I just figured out how to make a rocket that flys perfectly straight and always lands upright!So, we could replace the IMU with a cat and instead of heat tiles, we cover the outside of the rocket with buttered toast, butter side facing in. Since a rocket is a cylinder, the buttered side would always be facing another buttered side, thus forcing the rocket to stay upright. It would be kind of like magnetic levitation, only with butter, toast and cats. We'll call it...CatButtLev.Now, I'm thinking the cylinder of buttered toast may cause the rocket to have a tendency to implode, but that's something we can work on.I'm off to the Bakery Thrift shop to get some bread...Sent from my Smartphone

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2016, 01:49:03 am
content: There is a youtube video out there of the buttery toast and cat for endless energy.I think someone already did post it in this forum in some other thread quite a while ago.Edit: found the post:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/(video)-free-energy-over-unity-charging-circuit-the-scientific-method/msg743147/#msg743147and the video: