• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 05:39
CET 11:39
KST 19:39
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners11Intel X Team Liquid Seoul event: Showmatches and Meet the Pros10[ASL20] Finals Preview: Arrival13TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting12[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11
Community News
Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada2SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA6StarCraft, SC2, HotS, WC3, Returning to Blizzcon!45$5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship7[BSL21] RO32 Group Stage4
StarCraft 2
General
Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA Mech is the composition that needs teleportation t Craziest Micro Moments Of All Time? RotterdaM "Serral is the GOAT, and it's not close"
Tourneys
Constellation Cup - Main Event - Stellar Fest Tenacious Turtle Tussle Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship Merivale 8 Open - LAN - Stellar Fest
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 499 Chilling Adaptation Mutation # 498 Wheel of Misfortune|Cradle of Death Mutation # 497 Battle Haredened Mutation # 496 Endless Infection
Brood War
General
FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL20] Ask the mapmakers — Drop your questions Where's CardinalAllin/Jukado the mapmaker?
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Grand Finals [BSL21] RO32 Group A - Saturday 21:00 CET [BSL21] RO32 Group B - Sunday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Current Meta PvZ map balance How to stay on top of macro? Soma's 9 hatch build from ASL Game 2
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Should offensive tower rushing be viable in RTS games? Path of Exile Dawn of War IV
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Canadian Politics Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion Series you have seen recently...
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Dyadica Gospel – a Pulp No…
Hildegard
Coffee x Performance in Espo…
TrAiDoS
Saturation point
Uldridge
DnB/metal remix FFO Mick Go…
ImbaTosS
Reality "theory" prov…
perfectspheres
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1766 users

NASA and the Private Sector - Page 159

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 157 158 159 160 161 250 Next
Keep debates civil.
cLutZ
Profile Joined November 2010
United States19574 Posts
April 12 2018 21:01 GMT
#3161
On April 13 2018 02:15 Taf the Ghost wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 12 2018 21:03 cLutZ wrote:
Seems like another extremely optimistic projection.


While the Tech could be there, I don't see how the costs could get low enough to make it in anyway viable. Plus, it's still a rocket launch and what type of physical health do you need to be in to fly? Does buying a SpaceX ticket come with a cardiologist check?


What does "tech could be there" mean? Technically landing rockets and passenger rockets could work in the late 40s. The problem with rockets is that they are fickle, and they will freaking blow up. They blow up at launch, while fueling, etc. Even the best companies have a high failure rate of like 5-10% . That is really not worth saving 4 hours at any cost. Also costs will be high.

On April 13 2018 04:07 Sn0_Man wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 13 2018 03:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Costs would be subsidized by governments who want the tourism attraction of rockets landing in their country/city. And I think "fit" would be good enough for the health check. Not obese or having a bad heart.

Also, there are probably some underused airports that could be retrofitted to allow for rockets to launch from. If they used a ramp instead of a vertical liftoff, it may help, but I'm not an engineer, just an architect.

I disagree with basically all of this post.

Keep in mind that the reason their proposed rocket ports are offshore is because in case of explosion there needs to be a very large radius empty of potential collateral damage.


Indeed. Rockets are just freaking dangerous. That is the main problem. People don't want to die.
Freeeeeeedom
Mordanis
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States893 Posts
April 13 2018 07:13 GMT
#3162
On April 13 2018 06:01 cLutZ wrote:
People don't want to die.

Citation Needed.

Seriously though, this is an interesting area. 100 and a few years ago, airplanes were brand new. If there's a crash in a plane, there's a very large chance that you're going to die. Still, people have figured out how to make travel by air safer than car travel. I think the biggest challenge for rocket based travel is going to be getting the first several dozen flights. No one wants to travel on the maiden voyage of a suborbital transit rocket. Once they do a couple hundred without incident, and have some emergency escape system, I could see myself boarding one.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning... it smells like... victory. -_^ Favorite SC2 match ->Liquid`HerO vs. SlayerS CranK g.1 @MLG Summer Championship
DSK
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
England1110 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-04-13 10:25:05
April 13 2018 10:24 GMT
#3163
On April 13 2018 03:19 thePunGun wrote:
Rocket exhausts lead to chain reactions in the upper stratosphere, which ultimately lead to ozone loss and irreversible changes to the earth's atmosphere.
That's why rocket emissions are way worse than gasoline.

edit:
Hope this short summary helps, I'd go more into detail... but I'm high on cough medicine at the moment. Been coughing my lungs out the past 2 days ...everything's fuzzy right now and I can't even feel my face anymore..


I didn't know this, thank you for the explanation.

Also get well soon .
**@ YT: SC2POVs at https://www.youtube.com/c/SC2POVsTV | https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/SC2POVs @**
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 13 2018 10:57 GMT
#3164
Long. Boeing's article should be later today.

+ Show Spoiler +
In a year that should see both SpaceX and Boeing conduct the uncrewed test flights of their respective crew launch vehicles, Space Exploration Technologies, SpaceX, is making good progress toward its commercial crew goals. With specific launch target dates to be reevaluated next month at a standard quarterly review, SpaceX is currently aiming to conduct their uncrewed demo flight test of Crew Dragon followed by an in-flight abort test before the all-important crew flight test in the second half of this year.

While the specific target dates for SpaceX’s three main Commercial Crew events are still under review and will be reevaluated in May at a standard quarterly evaluation with NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, SpaceX is currently targeting August for their uncrewed flight test of the crew Dragon vehicle, a test flight known as Demo Mission 1 (DM-1).

DM-1 will be followed by an in-flight abort test, where a crew Dragon will be mounted atop a Falcon 9 rocket with an abort triggered by Dragon’s onboard computers at the moment the vehicle reaches MaxQ (moment of maximum stress on the vehicle) during ascent.

Once those two milestones are complete, SpaceX aims to conduct a crew test flight of Dragon, known as DM-2. This mission is currently slated for December 2018 but is likely to slip into early 2019.

Together, the DM-1 and DM-2 flights for SpaceX serve as the company’s certification missions for the Commercial Crew Program, leading to the standard 6-month duration crew rotation flights to the International Space Station. Those crew rotation flights are commonly known in the Commercial Crew Program as the Post Certification Missions, or PCMs. Despite the fact that the Demo missions have not yet flown, NASA is already working with SpaceX on the planning for the first two PCM flights of the crew Dragon.

“A lot of work’s been done ensuring that the spacecraft is ready to be able to move toward progress toward the uncrewed and then the crewed mission,” noted Kathy Lueders, Program Manager NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, during a briefing to the most-recent NASA Advisory Council meeting at the end of March.

“We’ve been working through a major fire suppression campaign, making sure that [Dragon] and its systems are controlling that key hazard,” said Ms. Lueders while overviewing the recent progress SpaceX has made in the construction of the crew Dragon capsules for both the DM-1 and DM-2 missions.

Some of these activities have included installation of Dragon’s radiators and intermediate radiator build up, end-to-end comm suit system testing, and integrated suit testing inside the Dragon training module to make sure the integrated system is working. Likewise, the critical C2V2 crypto-comm radio for vehicle communications is also undergoing testing in part to ensure that the effects of a water landing on the crypto-comm are understood – with the goal being that the water landing will not impact the comm system at all.

Intriguingly, given that NASA’s Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs all landed in water as will the Orion crew capsule, some discussion at the most recent NAC (NASA Advisory Council) update for commercial crew focused on SpaceX’s performance of water landings for crew Dragon and the agency’s lack of understanding of exactly how water landings will affect the crew.

When prompted by a NAC member on the surprising nature of this statement, Ms. Lueders said, “We’ve been working towards really understanding how the water landings are going to be affecting the [crew]. From an environmental perspective, one of the things people are worried about was the landing from a wave perspective. So we’ve been working through exactly how we model where and under which conditions we’d exceed those certified loads on the vehicle.”

The crux of the concern comes from understanding how the entire integrated system of the crew Dragon capsule performs under certain water landing conditions and making sure that the loads on the vehicle during various sea state conditions do not exceed the ability of the vehicle to protect the crew.

This led to a statement from Ms. Lueders that the Commercial Crew Program was working with SpaceX as well as Boeing to understand maximum sea state conditions for both Dragon and Starliner and the potential creation of Launch Commit Criteria for sea states in the down range abort zones underneath the flight track for both the Falcon 9 with Dragon and the Atlas V with Starliner.

When those Launch Commit Criteria for sea states come to fruition, it will be the first time since the 1970s that crew launches from the United States will hold the potential of being scrubbed due to high or rough seas hundreds of miles down-range from the launch site for sea states that could imperil crew rescue and crew safety in the event of a launch abort.

Something that will greatly help and further the understanding of sea state conditions and their impact on overall integrated vehicle performance and crew safety will come this fall when SpaceX conducts their water landing tests.

Moreover, crew interface displays are also progressing. “Crew displays is obviously a new capability the SpaceX folks are working through. Our crew members have been working hand in glove with SpaceX, giving them their lessons learned on how to build their displays and evaluating their new systems as they’re bringing them on,” said Ms. Lueders. “So step by step, the SpaceX folks are maturing and adding capabilities so that we can start beginning integrated system level test by the end of the summer.”

That systems-level testing will include Dragon’s propulsion module system. “They’re doing an integrated system test of one of their [thruster] quads to make sure they understand the propulsion system dynamics as they’re running through different abort sequences and other stressing cases on their propulsion system,” noted Ms. Lueders.

Moreover, the avionics bay for the DM-1 Dragon is fully populated and is going through checkouts. All cabin support equipment and propulsion components are installed. Final installation is also underway on the ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) as well as the oxygen and nitrox delivery panels.

As far as the crew dragons ability to generate its own power, 120 of the 240 solar arrays have been completed and are in the process of being installed onto the DM-1 vehicle. Overall, the docking system build for DM-1 is 90% complete and underwent testing at the Johnson Space Center prior to being installed on the vehicle for flight.

At this point, the crew Dragon for DM-1 will be shipped to Plum Brook Station for environmental testing at the end of May.

For SpaceX, the prime consideration for the DM-1 mission is not solely the crew Dragon capsule but also the Block 5 version of the Falcon 9 that incorporates all of NASA’s asked for upgrades, including new engine turbines and upgraded COPV (Composite Overwrap Pressure Vessel) designs.

Ms. Lueders noted that the crew configuration qualification for the Merlin 1D engines are underway, and the new Octoweb 3.0 design that houses the 9 Merlin 1Ds at the base of the Falcon 9 first stage has successfully completed ground test requirements.

Moreover, the Block 5 will consist of the new COPV 2.0 design for the helium bottle pressurization system. These systems will all fly on the first Block 5 mission next month that will loft the Bangabandhu-1 satellite for Bangladesh into orbit. For the specific Falcon 9 vehicle that will launch the DM-1 flight, Ms. Lueders related that this vehicle is in flow at SpaceX’s production facility in Hawthorne, California, with both of Stage 1’s tanks in vertical integration and COPV installation.

Presently, the DM-1 vehicle is understood to be Falcon 9 first stage number B1051. The Falcon 9 that will launch the DM-2 mission is also in manufacturing at this time, with the propellant tanks currently being welded.

As for the launch pad, most work to convert LC-39A for crew readiness was halted as SpaceX focused on its Falcon Heavy demo campaign. Once that mission was away in early February, work resumed to finish converting Pad-A for commercial crew readiness.

Most notably, this has included completion of removal of the Rotating Service Structure (RSS) from the Space Shuttle era, with the most recent photos showing most if not all of the RSS removal process complete.

While the RSS was vital for the Shuttle program, it is unnecessary for SpaceX’s use of the pad, and demolition of the structure was preferred over the cost of maintaining the massive hunk of steel in a salt air environment by the Atlantic Ocean.

Once the RSS is completely removed, pad teams will begin work to raise the slide wire basket escape system from the 195 ft level of the Fixed Service Structure (FSS) tower to the top of the FSS. The slide wire basket system was installed at pad 39A at the beginning of the Space Shuttle program for emergency use by final launch preparation teams and/or flight crews in the event that the need to quickly evacuate pad arose.

The same system will be utilized on Pad-A for SpaceX’s crewed missions of the Falcon 9, but as the Falcon 9 places the Dragon capsule far higher than the Shuttle’s crew cabin in terms of location along the FSS, the baskets must now be moved to the top of the tower. When asked by NASASpaceflight’s Chris Gebhardt when that operation would begin, NASA said they were uncertain but expected the process to commence within the next few months.

Moving the slide wire baskets is not the only addition to the FSS needed for SpaceX’s crewed missions. Installation of the crew access arm must also take place before the crewed DM-2 flight later this year. Current schedules presented to the NASA Advisory Council late last month show that installation of the crew access arm at LC-39A will occur in autumn of this year between the DM-1 and DM-2 flights.

(A second Commercial Crew Program update focusing on Boeing’s Starliner will be published tomorrow.)


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
9005 Posts
April 13 2018 12:09 GMT
#3165
On April 13 2018 04:07 Sn0_Man wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 13 2018 03:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Costs would be subsidized by governments who want the tourism attraction of rockets landing in their country/city. And I think "fit" would be good enough for the health check. Not obese or having a bad heart.

Also, there are probably some underused airports that could be retrofitted to allow for rockets to launch from. If they used a ramp instead of a vertical liftoff, it may help, but I'm not an engineer, just an architect.

I disagree with basically all of this post.

Keep in mind that the reason their proposed rocket ports are offshore is because in case of explosion there needs to be a very large radius empty of potential collateral damage.

The rocket ports can be offshore for the cities that have the space for them to be there. Where there isn't that kind of space, then the proposed solution would be to find a way to ramp it into the sky and then fire the main engines. Like I said, not an engineer. I just want to design a frickin' rocket port.

As we've seen with SpaceX, the rate of their rockets failing have all but diminished since their first few attempts. They're throwing rockets into the sky like a kid on the 4th of July here in the States. As for people not wanting to die, how many do you think would ditch Earth and go to Mars at the first chance? There are and will always be risk takers and explorers who see the opportunity to be the first or to go someplace that no one has ever gone before.
Simberto
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany11629 Posts
April 13 2018 22:40 GMT
#3166
On April 13 2018 21:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 13 2018 04:07 Sn0_Man wrote:
On April 13 2018 03:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Costs would be subsidized by governments who want the tourism attraction of rockets landing in their country/city. And I think "fit" would be good enough for the health check. Not obese or having a bad heart.

Also, there are probably some underused airports that could be retrofitted to allow for rockets to launch from. If they used a ramp instead of a vertical liftoff, it may help, but I'm not an engineer, just an architect.

I disagree with basically all of this post.

Keep in mind that the reason their proposed rocket ports are offshore is because in case of explosion there needs to be a very large radius empty of potential collateral damage.

The rocket ports can be offshore for the cities that have the space for them to be there. Where there isn't that kind of space, then the proposed solution would be to find a way to ramp it into the sky and then fire the main engines. Like I said, not an engineer. I just want to design a frickin' rocket port.

As we've seen with SpaceX, the rate of their rockets failing have all but diminished since their first few attempts. They're throwing rockets into the sky like a kid on the 4th of July here in the States. As for people not wanting to die, how many do you think would ditch Earth and go to Mars at the first chance? There are and will always be risk takers and explorers who see the opportunity to be the first or to go someplace that no one has ever gone before.


Yes, but how many very rich people are there who are willing to take the risk of a random death to get to save a few hours on a flight and look cool on a rocket? Because that is the target group you are talking about here.

You would surely find some people who would take such a rocket, but the question is how large the overlap between that group and the group of people who could afford that flight is.
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
9005 Posts
April 14 2018 00:39 GMT
#3167
Remember that shuttle that they used at NASA? That plane looking thing? Why would you think that couldn't be adapted to suit a large number of people? The amount of people who could afford that type of flight, with new tech, increases, no?
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24740 Posts
April 14 2018 01:08 GMT
#3168
I think it's important to point out that two out of five of the shuttles were lost. Spaceflight is still quite dangerous.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
9005 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-04-14 01:16:55
April 14 2018 01:14 GMT
#3169
Those happened almost 30 years ago. Updated tech and material handling has decreased those substantially.

Edit: Why does it seem that people are against the advent or sub-orbital space flight? This is huge and should be treated with speculation, not trepidation. Feel free to dream a bit. We're witnessing a new age in human transportation and all I read are doom and gloom posts.
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States14047 Posts
April 14 2018 01:27 GMT
#3170
On April 14 2018 10:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Those happened almost 30 years ago. Updated tech and material handling has decreased those substantially.

Edit: Why does it seem that people are against the advent or sub-orbital space flight? This is huge and should be treated with speculation, not trepidation. Feel free to dream a bit. We're witnessing a new age in human transportation and all I read are doom and gloom posts.

Because hijacking a sub orbital plane is an Apocalypse situation and hijacking a plane is 9/11. Also there really isn't much to justify it when you're still using rockets to get to orbit. Danger plus huge cost means that theres not much interest. I don't want to even imagine the ecological impact of rocket launches.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24740 Posts
April 14 2018 01:35 GMT
#3171
On April 14 2018 10:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Those happened almost 30 years ago. Updated tech and material handling has decreased those substantially.

Decreased what?

In both cases, the root problems were not technology, and the root problems haven't necessarily gone away (although one hopes lessons learned aren't forgotten). With rocket launches, the margin to failure is always razor thin and the stakes are very high.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
9005 Posts
April 14 2018 03:06 GMT
#3172
Decreased human error. They landed a damn rover on a comet. I think a lot of people are too cautious and not bold enough when it comes to this.

Yes, costs are going to be a problem for some time. It won't be an everyday event. I understand that. The ecological impact of moving people quicker across the globe is better than what we have currently. Sure, let's try to save the earth, but unless everyone goes vegan, it doesn't matter.

Rockets are the least of our problems when it comes to changing the way we live. Plus, as has been the case with the ISS, the amount of research and knowledge gained, far outweighs the risks. The 2 incidents that stopped NASA from flying people and relying on RUSSIAN transport shouldn't be the only way.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 16 2018 19:19 GMT
#3173




Photos taken by Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin have confirmed that SpaceX’s massive Mars rocket fabrication tooling has been hiding in plain sight at the company’s Port of San Pedro tent facility.

Spotted inside the temporary structure thanks to open flaps and a human desire for a breeze amidst the warm Los Angeles springtime, the main cylindrical component is truly vast – large enough that the eye almost glazes over it at first glance. Dwarfing the humans clambering about it, very rough estimates using knowledge of the tent’s reported area (20,000 square feet) and size comparisons with machinery blueprints suggest a diameter of around 8-10 meters (26-36 feet), loosely conforming to the expected 9m diameter of BFR, as of CEO Elon Musk’s IAC 2017 update. Recently, however, President Gwynne Shotwell showed off an updated Mars rocket video at TED2018 that led to Musk hinting that BFR may have grown slightly since then.

The massive cylindrical structure teased by Musk earlier this month is most likely a mandrel, a tool that can be spun on its horizontal axis to weave predetermined structures. In the case of the Mars rocket mandrel, it will likely be used to carefully wind dozens or hundreds of layers of carbon fiber (known as prepreg), interspersed with layers of laminate and various epoxies and resins. It’s also possible, however, that the massive tool is instead a multipurpose mold and autoclave, where the composite layers would be lain on the inside of the cylinder, allowed to set, and eventually sealed inside and heat/pressure treated.

Images of the machinery are fairly ambiguous: they show a structure that could have connection points one might find on an autoclave, as well as what appears to be a thick and well-insulated internal wall. However, the external skin appears to be a relatively thin sheet of metal, which would point more towards a traditional composite mandrel, where certain sheets could be removed or modified as needed to create desired shapes in the composite while it’s being formed, less risky than machining a completed segment.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-04-18 23:45:29
April 18 2018 23:42 GMT
#3174
Another launch, another landing.





"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-04-19 10:31:37
April 19 2018 10:29 GMT
#3175
No new information, TED Talk not yet released.



As recently as 2013, Russia controlled about half of the global commercial launch industry with its fleet of rockets, including the Proton boosters. But technical problems with the Proton, as well as competition from SpaceX and other players, has substantially eroded the Russian share. This year, it may only have about 10 percent of the commercial satellite launch market, compared to as much as 50 percent for SpaceX.

In the past, Russian space officials have talked tough about competing with SpaceX in providing low-cost, reliable service to low-Earth and geostationary orbit. For example, the Russian rocket corporation, Energia, has fast-tracked development of a new medium-class launch vehicle that it is calling Soyuz-5 to challenge SpaceX.

On Tuesday, however, Russia's chief spaceflight official, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, made a remarkable comment about that country's competition with SpaceX.

"The share of launch vehicles is as small as 4 percent of the overall market of space services," Rogozin said in an interview with a Russian television station. "The 4 percent stake isn’t worth the effort to try to elbow Musk and China aside. Payloads manufacturing is where good money can be made."

According to an independent analysis, the global launch market is worth about $5.5 billion annually. Losing its half-share of this market, therefore, has probably cost the Russians about $2 billion, which is a significant fraction of its non-military aerospace budget.


Source

Bold claim even more than what Elon does.

Progress on Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket is "going very well," Smith said. A major asset to New Glenn is its large faring — the nose cone that protects the payload during launch.

"We have a 7-meter fairing, which is the largest in the industry," Smith said.

Expected to launch in 2020, New Glenn is built to serve any customer — civil, commercial or military, Smith said.

He said Blue Origin also hopes to launch tourists to space before the end of the year on the New Shepard rocket. He cautioned that the company will only "go when we're ready."

"We want to make sure it's completely safe for our passengers," Smith said.

While rocket building and space tourism are exciting to Smith, Blue Origin, at its core, is "a propulsion company," he said. This is because Blue Origin follows "a lot of the same pathways" as Amazon when building business capabilities, Smith said.

"Amazon goes and builds capabilities, gains some customer base, then continues to build on that," Smith said.

Bezos' principles are apparent in Blue Origin, and Smith thinks it's about to pay off.

"That infrastructure is going to start having some returns in a relatively short period," Smith said. "We'll hopefully see some very big rewards here over the next six months to a year."


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 25 2018 23:21 GMT
#3176


With its two April launches behind it, SpaceX is deep into processing for its coming slate of three missions planned for May 2018. The three flights will see two flight-proven launches with SES-12 and the Iridium NEXT-6/GRACE-FO rideshare as well as the highly anticipated debut of the Block 5 variant of the Falcon 9, which will launch Bangladesh’s first satellite to orbit No Earlier Than 4 May.

Following on the heels of success with Iridium NEXT-5 for Iridium Communications, CRS-14 for NASA, and TESS for NASA, MIT, and Orbital ATK, SpaceX is sailing toward its next round of three missions in May 2018.

The three flights will launch a total of nine satellites into orbit, Bangabandhu-1, Iridium NEXT 51-55, GRACE-FO -1 and -2, and SES-12. Two of those will be launched into Geostationary Transfer Orbit (Bangabandhu-1 and SES-12) and seven into polar Low Earth Orbit (the Iridiums and two GRACE-FO satellites).

However, the May campaigns will actually begin in April.

On Monday 30 April, SpaceX will roll the Bangabandhu-1 vehicle out to LC-39A at the Kennedy Space Center, FL, for Static Fire.

This will be the first time that a Block 5 Falcon 9 graces a SpaceX launch pad and will be the first Block 5’s final major test before its inaugural flight.

Once connected to Pad-A’s systems, SpaceX will put the first Block 5 (core B1046) through a standard countdown and fueling process, validating all of the booster and second stage systems up to and including an engine firing.

The core has already undergone Acceptance Testing at McGregor, Texas. At a pre-launch news conference for the TESS flight last week, Hans Koenigsmann of SpaceX stated that the first Block 5’s acceptance runs were extremely smooth, noting that the Block 5 upgrade made it through all of its McGregor testing far faster than previous major Block upgrades to the Falcon 9 have.

An exact window for Static Fire on Monday is not yet known, but typical windows for such events usually stretch for no more than six hours based on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and KSC Emergency Operations Support capabilities.

As with flight-proven boosters and the Falcon Heavy Static Fire campaigns, the first Block 5 Static Fire is expected to last between 5 and 7 seconds to ensure a good amount of data on engine health and performance is gathered.

Once a successful Static Fire is complete, the Bangabandhu-1 vehicle will be safed, detanked, taken horizontal at the pad, and transported back into the Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF) at LC-39A where it will then be mated with its payload.

Bangabandhu-1 will be the first satellite for the Southeast Asian nation of Bangladesh.

Inside the HIF, the rocket and payload will undergo final launch checks as engineers work through the standard L-2 day Launch Readiness Review (LRR).

Once the LRR is complete and all approvals received, the first Block 5 will be taken back out to Pad-A for launch.

Bangabandhu-1 is currently slated to launch No Earlier Than (NET) Friday, 4 May 2018 in a roughly 2 hour 25 minute launch window extending from 16:00-18:25 EDT (20:00-22:25 UTC).


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 29 2018 16:41 GMT
#3177
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
April 29 2018 17:40 GMT
#3178
Successful all around and a new milestone reached fore the company, yet STILL no post launch Press conference. Bizarre.





"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
May 09 2018 12:41 GMT
#3179




"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
May 12 2018 13:38 GMT
#3180
First Block 5 launch and landing:





In other news:



SpaceX fans eager to watch the second launch of the company’s massive Falcon Heavy rocket should forget about witnessing a second spectacle in June and sit tight for a few more months.

The U.S. Air Force is targeting October for its Space Test Program 2 mission, known as STP-2, a spokeswoman for the Air Force Space Command said in an email. The military had said earlier this year that it was targeting June, but the date has been pushed back due to ongoing qualification testing and engineering review.

Elon Musk-led Space Exploration Technologies Corp. pulled off its first Falcon Heavy test flight in February, delivering the chief executive officer’s cherry red Tesla Roadster with a spacesuit-wearing mannequin at the wheel toward an Earth-Mars elliptical orbit around the sun. The Falcon Heavy mission for the Air Force will be its first for a paying customer. STP-2 has a number of objectives, including demonstrating the new rocket’s capabilities and launching several satellites.

“It’s not surprising that the target date slipped,” said Greg Autry, a professor at the University of Southern California and a former NASA White House liaison. “An Air Force payload is a lot different than a Tesla Roadster.”


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Prev 1 157 158 159 160 161 250 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 21m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 7248
Hyuk 2378
Stork 362
Soma 349
Pusan 247
Snow 224
ZerO 187
hero 138
Rush 124
sSak 119
[ Show more ]
Killer 114
Mong 62
ToSsGirL 51
Movie 49
Free 43
Sharp 31
Shine 28
Sexy 26
Terrorterran 17
Noble 14
zelot 12
Dota 2
XaKoH 377
XcaliburYe126
League of Legends
JimRising 412
Counter-Strike
olofmeister1427
shoxiejesuss705
allub270
Other Games
ceh9682
Pyrionflax188
NeuroSwarm42
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 733
Other Games
gamesdonequick567
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 9
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Light_VIP 84
• LUISG 47
• Adnapsc2 12
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 6
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Stunt831
Other Games
• Scarra1389
Upcoming Events
WardiTV Korean Royale
1h 21m
OSC
6h 21m
Replay Cast
12h 21m
Replay Cast
22h 21m
Kung Fu Cup
1d 1h
Classic vs Solar
herO vs Cure
Reynor vs GuMiho
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
1d 12h
The PondCast
1d 23h
RSL Revival
1d 23h
Solar vs Zoun
MaxPax vs Bunny
Kung Fu Cup
2 days
WardiTV Korean Royale
2 days
[ Show More ]
PiGosaur Monday
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
4 days
BSL 21
4 days
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
5 days
WardiTV Korean Royale
5 days
BSL 21
5 days
JDConan vs Semih
Dragon vs Dienmax
Tech vs NewOcean
TerrOr vs Artosis
Wardi Open
6 days
Monday Night Weeklies
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-11-07
Stellar Fest: Constellation Cup
Eternal Conflict S1

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
SOOP Univ League 2025
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual

Upcoming

SLON Tour Season 2
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
HSC XXVIII
RSL Offline Finals
WardiTV 2025
RSL Revival: Season 3
META Madness #9
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026: Closed Qualifier
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.